Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Koya

Saving the PSF - How can we, as a community, make this place better

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Are you on a computer or mobile?

Desktop. Still can't make out what it is, though your and Bart's description help. The standardized, non-FBG emoticons are very small to these aging eyes. 

Share this post


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

When people find something they are certain is true and others claim it is absolutely false, that hate really comes out sometimes.  

Agree. That's why I really like @Koya's question to @Don't Noonan. If A thinks B is dealing in falsehoods, how should A approach B about that? For now, it really doesn't matter whether B is dealing in falsehoods or not. What matters is how do we go about discussing the validity of a claim? Maybe the starting point is trying to stamp out that "hate" you talk about before worrying about focusing on the "truth".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Desktop. Still can't make out what it is, though your and Bart's description help. The standardized, non-FBG emoticons are very small to these aging eyes. 

On my phone it looks like this:

Sheep

Share this post


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

On my phone it looks like this:

Sheep

Oh. Well, that would not have cleared it up at all. I guess I would have gotten it...I also guess my eyes are just tired and bad right now. 

Share this post


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

Oh. Well, that would not have cleared it up at all. I guess I would have gotten it...I also guess my eyes are just tired and bad right now. 

When people send me a bunch of emojis I can't decipher it's what I send back by text.

Share this post


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

When people send me a bunch of emojis I can't decipher it's what I send back by text.

On second glance, definitely sheep. Just not sure about the big horn part of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

I just spent 10 minutes going through yesterday's exchange picking quotes out to link here and then accidentally hit quote in the long thread and lost them.  🤬  Not wasting time doing it again.

There was one or two posters that responded perfectly fine saying that yes it was called a transcript by the media but the fine print said it wasn't verbatim.  That is perfectly fine, then the discussion should lead to was anything relevant to the impeachment left out or was it minor details or national security info.  Nope, we had groups of folks demanding I don't call it a transcript and called me a liar.  I posted a link of CNN, CBS, NBC calling it a transcript and Joe commented that I was correct and Fish and others were crying for no reason.

You yourself said I was either intentionally spreading false info or trolling.  Can you see where I and the majority of the public are coming from?  Should we not believe the media?  Should I assume Trump altered the transcript or didn't include damaging parts like you guys obviously do?  

I was asking this more generally, not regarding specifically the transcript. 
 

I’ve apologized for my role in not fostering positive discussion... I’ll do to again. I’m sorry.

moving forward, if you want to use this as an example: you used the word transcript and then when the subject document (not media not anyone else discussing it, describing it, explaining it) was shown to say it is not a transcript it appeared you continued to use the term. Even though the document that you called a transcript self described itself as not being so.

In that scenario, how do you feel others should react? This to me seems clear cut and not opinion. Others may be using the wrong term, and that’s on them. In terms of this board, it was proven not to be a transcript firsthand... if someone does something like this in the future (be it you or maybe the shoe is on the other foot and you clearly show something that another poster said is false and they continued to project that falsehood), what’s the best means to address without watering down the truth but also being respectful in doing so. 
 

Look forward to your response as I’m sincerely not trying to push buttons but find a better way. 
 

ETA: it does seem disingenuous for you to source the very media that you say is biased, slanted, and lies themselves along with promoting fake news. In that way, when confronted with the media bs what the document actually says, that seems clear cut. Regardless of the other issues (was anything of substance left out)

Edited by Koya

Share this post


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

Not just that it's being reported. That's one thing to waste the moderators time like that.

The far bigger thing for me is accusations that when we do allow a post like "It means Brennan and Clapper are crapping their pants and Misfud needs witness protection as his life may be in danger." somehow means me and my forum are "subjugating the truth" or limiting someone's ability to disagree. That's far worse than just whining about a post. 

I hope you realize how asinine most of us think this is.  We’re good people Joe- you don’t have to toss out the whole thing just because a handful of users act in bad faith.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't disagree with this. But, let's extrapolate it out to the rest of society. IE shutting down this board. We are in the midst of unprecedented political turmoil. Should we shut down media? Or perhaps shut down town halls or protests? They are all ways that people from both sides express their opinions. Silencing voices never solves the problem. Embracing it and recognizing the problem leads to solutions. We need to find ways to extend olive branches when met with conflict. If our elected officials can't do this, maybe we can in this small corner of the internet. 

I've been called a troll. But, ignored most of it. Because I know I'm not trolling. I've done some self reflecting after the conversation that Noonan had the last couple of days in the other thread. I had already refrained from my usual posting frequency in the gun thread because I felt it was becoming unproductive. It doesn't mean I've changed my stance. And I doubt those I disagree with believe I've changed either. We just don't need to argue about it any longer. I stated over and over that I was searching for win-win compromise. I think everyone should be looking for that type of solution when they engage in any discussion. The feelings you get from winning your point on a message board are short lived. The benefits from reaching common ground are long lasting. 

I'm worried that it doesn't matter. Being an anonymous message board, may be exactly what some people want. The ability to curb stomp someone that thinks differently than they do, for the shear joy of acting like a jerk without accountability. We can't get away from that. We can hold them accountable and weed out those that don't want to make this a productive place.

KC I always appreciate your point of view and agree with alot of what you are saying. Unfortunately the 1st bolded item is a problem as voices in here are selectively silenced and fairness always comes into question. If you own a football website do you really want to deal with this? Most on the left are in here for the 2nd bolded even though they will claim otherwise, it's their way to "get back" for not being able to control their emotions from an election they should have won. This forum has fostered that behavior as essentially a venting thread. Not to say posters like you don't offer very valuable insight which I appreciate, but lets call a spade a space for the majority in here. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

How about adding "You should travel more often", which clearly implies wishing harm to them.

clearly i was wishing harm to them right? If that's the case i want to be banned now. There's no excuse for violence.

Edited by GROOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a fairly inactive participant with this forum as of late, but can dive in when something interests me or I've got a bunch of free time.  I've learned a few things, but also gotten overly frustrated from time to time, so I generally stay away.

@Joe Bryant in the grand scheme of things, it is fairly insignificant.  I wouldn't sweat it one way or the other.  Maybe don't make it a big deal and let it ride, or if it is too much of a pain in your rear, shut it down.  Either way, no one's life will really be effected one way or the other.

Share this post


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

Not just that it's being reported. That's one thing to waste the moderators time like that.

The far bigger thing for me is accusations that when we do allow a post like "It means Brennan and Clapper are crapping their pants and Misfud needs witness protection as his life may be in danger." somehow means me and my forum are "subjugating the truth" or limiting someone's ability to disagree. That's far worse than just whining about a post. 

 

24 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I didn’t report that post or any like it but I could explain why it was reported.  It doesn’t matter though. What you’re experiencing there is something playing out all over the country and to some extent the world right now. 
 

I don’t know if you watch Evil. Not a bad show. Haven’t decided yet if it’s a good one.  Last night’s episode had a line I loved from Aasif Mondvi, and I have to paraphrase it because I don’t remember the exact wording:

“We live in a world made of pixels. And those pixels can now be manipulated so well that no one knows what’s true anymore. And that makes people believe in lies and conspiracy theories. And I hate it.”

It’s a pretty common sentiment while we figure out everything from made up reports by Stephen Glass to deep fake software.  When people find something they are certain is true and others claim it is absolutely false, that hate really comes out sometimes.  

The bolded in each post leads me to an outside the box thought. And one I hadn't really thought of until now. We know that there are those in this world that wish to destroy our country. They sew discourse through social media outlets. Of which, this forum could be considered one. Having a political sub forum makes it an easy target for those parties to create rifts between people. If that is the case, then I could see Joe needing to remove the target in order to remove the vehicle used by those that wish to turn us against each other. :tinfoilhat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

This is a small thing, but I think it may be important.  Some emoticons are vastly different on a computer than they are on the mobile site.  I think it actually leads to some confusion in what people mean at times, especially when they react using an emoji.  "Big horn sheep" is a good example.

That's why I suggested the reaction smilies to the right of each post. I think that stays the same on any format.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Understood. That's a big part of this time for me. 

I asked people repeatedly to report lies they see.

I asked:

If you see something you think is wrong, please post what you think is accurate. If you can provide a source or link for why you think what you think, that's even better.

If you see someone post something you think is an intentional lie, please report it and then definitely in the report include the link to show where it's obviously a lie and not just a difference of opinion.

The first report I get today is someone reporting this post:

The message the person attached to the report was: "Another post with no facts behind it.  This account is a troll.  I know you don’t care, but Joe asked us to report this type of post.  This is why the PSF will be killed off."

I don't know who Brennan and Clapper are. I"m assuming the poster thinks they're in trouble. 

But when us allowing a post like "It means Brennan and Clapper are crapping their pants and Misfud needs witness protection as his life may be in danger." is somehow subjugating the truth or limiting someone's ability to disagree, I'm pretty much at the end of the line. 

 

I am not spending the money on a detective to find out if Brennan and Clapper actually crapped their pants.  That is just too much to ask.

Share this post


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

And I still can't believe how much time people spent worrying about the damn word "transcript".  Crazy.

In the end, this was not about the word transcript. Many of us - rightful or otherwise - believe there is an all out assault on the truth. Worse yet, this push to call legitimate news fake, to obfuscate and promote propaganda is done intentionally as a tactic to an overarching strategy the document conflates truth and lies that it’s nearly if not impossible to distinguish between the two.

These tactics and strategy have been used before by any number of controlling parties of any number of nations. I think it’s important that we are honest with ourselves and each other about this context. 
 

it is within this context that some of us feel there is a concerted effort to chip away at objective truth (again, the 1984 line about the most essential command being to reject what you hear and see), and we are deathly fearful of the consequences should that occur.

That doesn’t solve our issues of better conduct here, including in response to someone that we feel is pushing that tactic (whether they are or not it is the impression of many... and I’m asking how those who feel that way should respond) - but it’s important context so we don’t talk as if this is about semantics. It’s far deeper than that, with far higher stakes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am not spending the money on a detective to find out if Brennan and Clapper actually crapped their pants.  That is just too much to ask.

Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.  

Share this post


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

KC I always appreciate your point of view and agree with alot of what you are saying. Unfortunately the 1st bolded item is a problem as voices in here are selectively silenced and fairness always comes into question. If you own a football website do you really want to deal with this? Most on the left are in here for the 2nd bolded even though they will claim otherwise, it's their way to "get back" for not being able to control their emotions from an election they should have won. This forum has fostered that behavior as essentially a venting thread. Not to say posters like you don't offer very valuable insight which I appreciate, but lets call a spade a space for the majority in here. 

Let me preface this by saying I am the most untrusting person I know. I expect the absolute worst from people in order to not be let down if it eventually happens. It's a major flaw and one I hope to correct before my days are up. But, I disagree that a majority of the people are here just to cause emotional pain or get back at those they disagree with. I know that I am not. As I mentioned, we are in uncharted waters politically and what we need is to throw each other a life preserver and not an anchor. 

Admining this board is not a perfect science. Most of these guys are better versed about who to start at RB this week than they are at the political happenings. If you and I can't know everything about everything, why should we expect them to? So in addition to the technical nuances that go into many of the conversations, they need to be cautious about being fair and balanced? It's an uphill battle. Joe already mentioned that he is not on the cutting edge of the impeachment inquiry. It would be akin to suspending someone for not understanding a math joke. (a subject of which I am also poor at).

 

Share this post


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

Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.  

I always assumed you lived in Illinois but now I have you pegged as a teacher in CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

I always assumed you lived in Illinois but now I have you pegged as a teacher in CA.

That's about $20 worth of detective work right there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's about $20 worth of detective work right there.

Do you have that dude's info so I can send him my paypal?

Share this post


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

Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.  

Being on a teachers salary, you should have taken the $800.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

In the end, this was not about the word transcript. Many of us - rightful or otherwise - believe there is an all out assault on the truth. Worse yet, this push to call legitimate news fake, to obfuscate and promote propaganda is done intentionally as a tactic to an overarching strategy the document conflates truth and lies that it’s nearly if not impossible to distinguish between the two.

These tactics and strategy have been used before by any number of controlling parties of any number of nations. I think it’s important that we are honest with ourselves and each other about this context. 
 

it is within this context that some of us feel there is a concerted effort to chip away at objective truth (again, the 1984 line about the most essential command being to reject what you hear and see), and we are deathly fearful of the consequences should that occur.

That doesn’t solve our issues of better conduct here, including in response to someone that we feel is pushing that tactic (whether they are or not it is the impression of many... and I’m asking how those who feel that way should respond) - but it’s important context so we don’t talk as if this is about semantics. It’s far deeper than that, with far higher stakes. 

Ummm it was an all out assault on Noonan.  The guy explained and posted links why he was using the word transcript.  Others wanted to call it a memo and stated why.  At that point, just agree to disagree and move on.  It's never good enough until the mob has it's way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

No. I'm saying we need to decide if this political forum continues to exist. 

The FFA and Shark Pool would stay as they are with a non flexible stance on not allowing political topics. 

That is all very nice Joe, and while you can prohibit political topics, you won't be able to shut down any and all political discussion, as it bleeds into many topics in which the original thread or thread title was not political in nature (See Chick-Fil-A thread as a classic example. Or how about any thread reporting a mass shooting or terrorist attack?). If you are willing to delete all political references or discussion in FFA threads, fine, but then you will just be playing Whack-A-Mole and pretending that politics don't enter into non-political themed threads, which is unrealistic.

I was on record as being against the creation of this forum from the get go and sadly, most of my predictions as to how this would play out were prescient.  

If you shut down this forum, the bad guys* will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.

 

Edited to add or clarify:

* Those whose objective or goal was to get this forum shut down and political discussion ended. 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Let me preface this by saying I am the most untrusting person I know. I expect the absolute worst from people in order to not be let down if it eventually happens. It's a major flaw and one I hope to correct before my days are up. But, I disagree that a majority of the people are here just to cause emotional pain or get back at those they disagree with. I know that I am not. As I mentioned, we are in uncharted waters politically and what we need is to throw each other a life preserver and not an anchor. 

Admining this board is not a perfect science. Most of these guys are better versed about who to start at RB this week than they are at the political happenings. If you and I can't know everything about everything, why should we expect them to? So in addition to the technical nuances that go into many of the conversations, they need to be cautious about being fair and balanced? It's an uphill battle. Joe already mentioned that he is not on the cutting edge of the impeachment inquiry. It would be akin to suspending someone for not understanding a math joke. (a subject of which I am also poor at).

 

KC I respect your opinion as always........unfortunately take a look at the one Trump thread not started to complain or vent about him......you won't find any life preservers but instead endless complaining mostly irrelevant to the original purpose of the thread. They just can't control themselves. Is what it is. Hope you have a good weekend bud!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That is all very nice Joe, and while you can prohibit political topics, you won't be able to shut down any and all political discussion, as it bleeds into many topics in which the original thread or thread title was not political in nature (See Chick-Fil-A thread as a classic example. Or how about any thread reporting a mass shooting or terrorist attack?). If you are willing to delete all political references or discussion in FFA threads, fine, but then you will just be playing Whack-A-Mole and pretending that politics don't enter into non-political themed threads, which is unrealistic.

I was on record as being against the creation of this forum from the get go and sadly, most of my predictions as to how this would play out were prescient.  

If you shut down this forum, the bad guys will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.

Ignorance like this is why this forum is a negative blemish on what is a great company. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

If you shut down this forum, the bad guys will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.

:mellow:

Unbelievable 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

Ignorance like this is why this forum is a negative blemish on what is a great company. 

Seems like squistion is a bad guys asset

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

KC I respect your opinion as always........unfortunately take a look at the one Trump thread not started to complain or vent about him......you won't find any life preservers but instead endless complaining mostly irrelevant to the original purpose of the thread. They just can't control themselves. Is what it is. Hope you have a good weekend bud!

You too. :hifive:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Who defines the “bad guys?”

The "bad guys" are those whose objective or goal was and is to get this forum shut down and political discussion ended. 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

Seems like squistion is a bad guys asset

That's generous of you. 

Share this post


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

That is all very nice Joe, and while you can prohibit political topics, you won't be able to shut down any and all political discussion, as it bleeds into many topics in which the original thread or thread title was not political in nature (See Chick-Fil-A thread as a classic example. Or how about any thread reporting a mass shooting or terrorist attack?). If you are willing to delete all political references or discussion in FFA threads, fine, but then you will just be playing Whack-A-Mole and pretending that politics don't enter into non-political themed threads, which is unrealistic.

I was on record as being against the creation of this forum from the get go and sadly, most of my predictions as to how this would play out were prescient.  

If you shut down this forum, the bad guys will have won, but do what you want to do, fine with me.

Who are the bad guys?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

Who are the bad guys?

Answered above and OP was edited with the same clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Who defines the “bad guys?”

Not only that who are the bad guys and what did they win?  Pretty sure the winner here would be Joe and his team for not having to deal with all the stuff Joe keeps telling us he's tired of dealing with

Share this post


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

The "bad guys" are those whose objective or goal was and is to get this forum shut down and political discussion ended. 

I have yet to see anyone say their goal was to get the forum shut down.  Have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Hey, there was a dude that used to post here that offered $800 to find out my real name and address.  

Who? I could use $800.  They don't pay Zoomba instructors as much you think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The "bad guys" are those whose objective or goal was and is to get this forum shut down and political discussion ended. 

I don’t think anyone's goal is to kill the PSF.  Good guys, bad guys or neutral guys.  

Share this post


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

I have yet to see anyone say their goal was to get the forum shut down.  Have you?

Not specifically on this forum, no. But if you look back, from the beginning some people were saying this forum was unnecessary and for Joe and or the mods to shut it down. Were their exact words: "My goal is to shut this down" No, but from their comments when the PSF was first formed and from their subsequent posting history, it is not much of a leap to see that was their objective. 

Just my opinion and take on things.  

Edited by squistion
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

I don’t think anyone's goal is to kill the PSF.  Good guys, bad guys or neutral guys.  

Not even bad hombres

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people's actual goal is to save the PSF, then perhaps the discussion should pivot to discussing concrete steps for saving it.  

I would recommend establishing some very simple ground rules for discussion (MT's list is a great place to start), and then sticky them to the top of this forum.  

If we need more, we'll add more - like amending the constitution.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If people's actual goal is to save the PSF, then perhaps the discussion should pivot to discussing concrete steps for saving it.  

I would recommend establishing some very simple ground rules for discussion (MT's list is a great place to start), and then sticky them to the top of this forum.  

If we need more, we'll add more - like amending the constitution.

 

this was part of the intent of this thread, recognizing that it is up to us, the posters who make up this community, to adhere and most of all just be better. To each other and the community at large.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agree. That's why I really like @Koya's question to @Don't Noonan. If A thinks B is dealing in falsehoods, how should A approach B about that? For now, it really doesn't matter whether B is dealing in falsehoods or not. What matters is how do we go about discussing the validity of a claim? Maybe the starting point is trying to stamp out that "hate" you talk about before worrying about focusing on the "truth".

:thumbup:

 

Share this post


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

It absolutely is not subjugating the truth to post that. That should never have been reported. 

But you needn’t be at the end of the line. Just start suspending people who waste your time with foolish reporting. It will go away very quickly. 

This.  Approach it like a penalty for taking a dive or flopping in hockey.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, lakerstan said:

If people's actual goal is to save the PSF, then perhaps the discussion should pivot to discussing concrete steps for saving it.  

I would recommend establishing some very simple ground rules for discussion (MT's list is a great place to start), and then sticky them to the top of this forum.  

If we need more, we'll add more - like amending the constitution.

I’ll start the hashtag campaign: #savePSF

Share this post


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

Not specifically on this forum, no. But if you look back, from the beginning some people were saying this forum was unnecessary and for Joe and or the mods to shut it down. Were their exact words: "My goal is to shut this down" No, but from their comments when the PSF was first formed and from their subsequent posting history, it is not much of a leap to see that was their objective. 

Just my opinion and take on things.  

No one has said it on this forum but the bad guys win if Joe decides to shut it down?  I'm so confused

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I agree with this. I also think it's hard for members of the mob to recognize it when it happens -- i.e., the mob isn't doing it on purpose, but is instead unaware of itself.

I’m 100% guilty of this but somewhat in my defense I’ve been trying for a while to get the feature where replies to people I have on ignore are also ignored.

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.