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

11 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I agree. And thanks for posting your comment in this thread instead of that one.

@Maurile Tremblayquestion/clarification 

In the Trump thread where we went off topic onto wealth (yesterday I think, long before the timeouts and I believe before it got to be an insulting ### for tat), a poster early in that digression pointed out that we had gone off topic. Did it politely and it worked (for me at least).  
 

I thought it was a positive way for us to “self moderate” but could technically been seen as commenting on moderation which isn’t generally allowed.

Just curious how we should handle that. As it was done respectfully and had a good purpose (can’t speak for others but I realized he was correct and then stopped commenting on the non-topic related wealth issue... could always make a thread for that) it seems like a positive way for us to self regulate and nip something in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Is that acceptable (I’d hope so because I think it takes the burden off you but it’s real close to the line of don’t comment unless it’s topical).

Much appreciated. 

Edited by Koya

Share this post


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

@Maurile Tremblayquestion/clarification 

In the Trump thread where we went off topic onto wealth (yesterday I think, long before the timeouts and I believe before it got to be an insulting ### for tat), a poster early in that digression pointed out that we had gone off topic. Did it politely and it worked (for me at least).  
 

I thought it was a positive way for us to “self moderate” but could technically been seen as commenting on moderation which isn’t generally allowed.

Just curious how we should handle that. As it was done respectfully and had a good purpose (can’t speak for others but I realized he was correct and then stopped commenting on the non-topic related wealth issue... could always make a thread for that) it seems like a positive way for us to self regulate and nip something in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Is that acceptable (I’d hope so because I think it takes the burden off you but it’s real close to the line of don’t comment unless it’s topical).

Much appreciated. 

Thanks. Asking a poster to stay on topic and / or drop the jabs at another poster is a helpful thing. 

And that brings a good point. If this thing is going to be better, it's going to be because of YOU folks. Not some fear of a moderator or a suspension. Self moderating and other people from the board encouraging other posters to be cool or keep it on the topic or drop the condescending snark will be how it survives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that @Maurile Tremblay didn't want posters correcting other posters (board cop) when things went off the rails. I could be mistaken.

Share this post


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

I was under the impression that @Maurile Tremblay didn't want posters correcting other posters (board cop) when things went off the rails. I could be mistaken.

I'll let Maurile clarify what he meant but in general, encouraging others to "please stay on topic and / or drop the jabs at another poster" is always something I want us to be doing. 

I suppose someone might try to do that in an obviously condescending or contemptible way but in general, I want us all to be thinking about staying on topic and dropping the insults. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:
31 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I was under the impression that @Maurile Tremblay didn't want posters correcting other posters (board cop) when things went off the rails. I could be mistaken.

I'll let Maurile clarify what he meant but in general, encouraging others to "please stay on topic and / or drop the jabs at another poster" is always something I want us to be doing. 

I suppose someone might try to do that in an obviously condescending or contemptible way but in general, I want us all to be thinking about staying on topic and dropping the insults. 

I thought MT's rule was in regard to the snarky versions of "please stop" that have run rampant in these forums and the "falsehood" comments etc etc.  Its typically crystal clear when it's being done in a genuine way and when it's being done to :pokey: at someone else.  I thought he was referring to the :pokey: way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I thought MT's rule was in regard to the snarky versions of "please stop" that have run rampant in these forums and the "falsehood" comments etc etc.  Its typically crystal clear when it's being done in a genuine way and when it's being done to :pokey: at someone else.  I thought he was referring to the :pokey: way.

Yes. That's more what I think he meant. The "please stop embarrassing yourself" / "Sorry if this is too difficult for you" / condescending eye-rolling type stuff is absolutely what we don't want. 

Share this post


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

I was under the impression that @Maurile Tremblay didn't want posters correcting other posters (board cop) when things went off the rails. I could be mistaken.

Yeah, I messaged one of the posters in question last night to ask him to dial it back since I thought that was how we were told to handle it. It didn’t work.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think intentions are becoming clearer and clearer after the rules changes.  Several have adapted and attempted change.  Several haven't.  Hopefully, that makes things easier for the moderators moving forward.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Thanks. Asking a poster to stay on topic and / or drop the jabs at another poster is a helpful thing. 

And that brings a good point. If this thing is going to be better, it's going to be because of YOU folks. Not some fear of a moderator or a suspension. Self moderating and other people from the board encouraging other posters to be cool or keep it on the topic or drop the condescending snark will be how it survives. 

:thumbup:

Appreciate the clarification, and moreso the effort you and MT are putting into this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think intentions are becoming clearer and clearer after the rules changes.  Several have adapted and attempted change.  Several haven't.  Hopefully, that makes things easier for the moderators moving forward.

Agreed.  By eliminating the noise, including the well intended posts that still derail a thread and feed into those without such good intent, it will become that much more clear who the bad actors are. 

It will also make it more clear when someone that is well intended goes over the line - which serves two purposes.  First, it nips that line of thought in the bud, and second, it should help the person who stepped over the line better understand and gauge what they may have done to warrant a vaca.

Edited by Koya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krista4 said:

Yeah, I messaged one of the posters in question last night to ask him to dial it back since I thought that was how we were told to handle it. It didn’t work.

I was thinking an @offending poster in this thread which politely points it is not appropriate to post about other posters is a better solution.  It is a public notice and PM boxes here get filled up (not just Shuke's) and neither the sender or receiver knows.  Keeps threads on topic.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


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

I was thinking an @offending poster in this thread which politely points it is not appropriate to post about other posters is a better solution.  It is a public notice and PM boxes here get filled up (not just Shuke's) and neither the sender or receiver knows.  Keeps threads on topic.

That seems like a good idea.  Or in the "YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE SUSPENDED THREAD."

ETA:  The problem last night wasn't that the person didn't receive the message.  But still I think your idea is a better one.

Edited by krista4

Share this post


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

@Maurile Tremblayquestion/clarification 

In the Trump thread where we went off topic onto wealth (yesterday I think, long before the timeouts and I believe before it got to be an insulting ### for tat), a poster early in that digression pointed out that we had gone off topic. Did it politely and it worked (for me at least).  
 

I thought it was a positive way for us to “self moderate” but could technically been seen as commenting on moderation which isn’t generally allowed.

Just curious how we should handle that. As it was done respectfully and had a good purpose (can’t speak for others but I realized he was correct and then stopped commenting on the non-topic related wealth issue... could always make a thread for that) it seems like a positive way for us to self regulate and nip something in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Is that acceptable (I’d hope so because I think it takes the burden off you but it’s real close to the line of don’t comment unless it’s topical).

Much appreciated. 

It’s a good question. I don’t think there’s a simple answer because so much depends on context. Some discussions go off on a tangent that is worth discussing in its own right, and it may be worth letting that develop for a bit before deciding whether to start a new thread as an offshoot. Other discussions just get derailed. Sometimes requests to stay on topic might be helpful; other times they just add to the noise.

I would say it’s too context-dependent to have a one-size-fits-all rule, but I’d err on the side of ignoring offending posters, or PMing them, rather than publicly posting about how they should change their habits. If you do publicly post about them, I’d suggest doing it in this thread, or the suspension thread, and tagging them, rather than doing it in the federal jobs guarantee thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As these rules evolve can changes be made to MT list or there be some comprehensive list to reference as it seems things have been added/changed along the way. I value my paid membership but also the great football info in the Shark Pool in season and would hate to get the boot on a technicality in here. TIA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, conversations almost never go like:

”I believe that independent contractors, not just employees, should be protected from discrimination.”

”YOUR A TURD FACE!”

We want to eliminate the personal insults. But personal insults basically never occur in response to on-topic posting. They only occur after several go-arounds of “helpful” suggestions about the other person’s posting style.

”I believe that independent contractors, not just employees, should be protected from discrimination.”

”That’s great, but you should back up your opinion with some facts instead of just baldly asserting it.”

”It’s just a message board. People can share their opinions. Don’t tell me what to do.”

You don’t tell me what to do!”

”YOUR A TURD FACE!”

I think the most effective way cut off the personal insults before they start is to cut out the board cop stuff. And a lot of board cop stuff starts out, at least, as well intentioned admonitions intended to improve the level of discourse. Paradoxically, telling each other to please up their games generally has a negative effect. Let’s try to keep such admonitions out of the substantive threads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As these rules evolve can changes be made to MT list or there be some comprehensive list to reference as it seems things have been added/changed along the way. I value my paid membership but also the great football info in the Shark Pool in season and would hate to get the boot on a technicality in here. TIA. 

Getting a suspension won't prevent you from clicking "Sign Out" and then accessing any of the great football info in the Shark Pool.

Edited by [scooter]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:

Getting a suspension won't prevent you from accessing any of the great football info in the Shark Pool.

Sure it can. It can totally block your computer if you remain signed in like some of us do. You have levels of access, and it often entails not being able to read the forums. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:
2 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Getting a suspension won't prevent you from accessing any of the great football info in the Shark Pool.

Sure it can. It can totally block your computer if you remain signed in like some of us do. You have levels of access, and it often entails not being able to read the forums. 

I've updated my post to accommodate this technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The thing is, conversations almost never go like:

”I believe that independent contractors, not just employees, should be protected from discrimination.”

”YOUR A TURD FACE!”

We want to eliminate the personal insults. But personal insults basically never occur in response to on-topic posting. They only occur after several go-arounds of “helpful” suggestions about the other person’s posting style.

”I believe that independent contractors, not just employees, should be protected from discrimination.”

”That’s great, but you should back up your opinion with some facts instead of just baldly asserting it.”

”It’s just a message board. People can share their opinions. Don’t tell me what to do.”

You don’t tell me what to do!”

”YOUR A TURD FACE!”

I think the most effective way cut off the personal insults before they start is to cut out the board cop stuff. And a lot of board cop stuff starts out, at least, as well intentioned admonitions intended to improve the level of discourse. Paradoxically, telling each other to please up their games generally has a negative effect. Let’s try to keep such admonitions out of the substantive threads.

Understood. But I want posters doing things like asking for a link to be a regular part of the board. I want to encourage that. 

If someone isn't mature enough to handle a polite and non condescending request for a link then that's on them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I've updated my post to accommodate this technicality.

Oh, dear me. I think my problem solving skills have been laid bare before the world.

eta* No, one is prevented from even entering the forum to sign out. So there's that. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, I'd like for "Can you please post a link?" using that exact phrase to be a regular part of what we do here. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

In fact, I'd like for "Can you please post a link?" using that exact phrase to be a regular part of what we do here. 

Much better than “link”? The latter is simply rude. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this day of fake news, it's bad enough some websites post incorrect information. 

But at least give us the link to support the info you're talking about. 

And also be aware of bias. I'd like for every poster here to be familiar with Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

If you're going to post something from Daily Kos or Red State, you have to understand that carries different weight than something from the AP.

But claiming something with no link is worse. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

But at least give us the link to support the info you're talking about.

Joe,

There's a concept in evidence law called judicial notice, whereby judges and juries admit obvious statements into evidence as a given because their truth value is so demonstrably true on the surface of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice

Problem is, in the PSF, if you made a statement, you had people fighting over the most basic facts and demanding links to everything. Then accusing you of spreading false information. It got ridiculous. I made a comment that what probably turned the election towards Trump were the amount of Republicans willing to hold their nose and vote because of the Supreme Court seats. I was castigated. Links were demanded. I got the links. From reputable sources like Vox (no friend to right-wingers) and there was still debate over such an obvious concept.

That's where the link demands go horribly awry. Plus, people make link demands when it's clearly an opinionated statement.

I dunno...just...the link demands here were overbearing.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In this day of fake news, it's bad enough some websites post incorrect information. 

But at least give us the link to support the info you're talking about. 

And also be aware of bias. I'd like for every poster here to be familiar with Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

If you're going to post something from Daily Kos or Red State, you have to understand that carries different weight than something from the AP.

But claiming something with no link is worse. 

 

I want to make sure this post is recognized. There has been more than a few members that disregard information depending on that chart. It could be the same information as on other sites, but the conversation goes sideways about the source. There are very few places that can be trusted to give unbiased reporting. Refute the data with facts, not just with saying the source is bias. 

Bias doesn't always equal false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes. That's more what I think he meant. The "please stop embarrassing yourself" / "Sorry if this is too difficult for you" / condescending eye-rolling type stuff is absolutely what we don't want. 

Maybe getting rid of emojis that are just meant to trigger a response?   Put the basic thumbs up and down and a smiley face or frown. The rolling laugh has cause more fights on this thread than most.

Share this post


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

In fact, I'd like for "Can you please post a link?" using that exact phrase to be a regular part of what we do here. 

I get what you’re saying but it’s quite frustrating to see one or two guys demand links from posters when they state a simple opinion. 

Another issue I see is someone asks for a link, gets it, and already has their response typed out attacking the source as being invalid or biased.  Basically it becomes a never ending discussion and if you walk away you’re called a troll for not staying and defending your opinions. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I get what you’re saying but it’s quite frustrating to see one or two guys demand links from posters when they state a simple opinion. 

Another issue I see is someone asks for a link, gets it, and already has their response typed out attacking the source as being invalid or biased.  Basically it becomes a never ending discussion and if you walk away you’re called a troll for not staying and defending your opinions. 

I agree with this. And there is a big difference between stating an opinion and listing facts: 

Example One: “I think the American public is with Trump on this issue.” That’s clearly an opinion. It can be disproved by facts, but it doesn’t need a link to support it. 

Example Two: “55% of the American public is with Trump on this issue.” Here, asking for a link is fine, and if you don’t provide one then it’s reasonable to assume that your statement has no merit. 

But there’s another point as well and this also goes to what @Ramblin Wreck and @rockaction are talking about: it’s context based on history. Suppose there is a poster who always disagrees with you and is very confrontational. In the past he has demanded a link from you, and when you provided one he simply ignored it and left the conversation- or else he mocked it. Suppose he has done this more than once. If a guy like that asks me for a link I’m simply going to ignore him. Why should I put out the effort if I already know what the response is going to be? So at this point it really depends on who’s making the ask. 

That being said, if I make a very specific statement of fact I feel obligated to offer a link in the first place without being asked. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking for a link can mean a few different things.

If it means, "That's something I'd like to learn more about; can you tell me where I can learn more about it?", then by all means ask for a link.

If it means, "I think you're full of baloney; I challenge you to find support for your ridiculous claim," I think you should ignore the post rather than responding with a request for a link.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to add:

There where two Churchill quotes floated earlier. One poster, two quotes.

Both quotes taken out of context. Both quotes mashed up. Both quotes are negative about socialism.

In reality, CHurchill is talking about getting off the US aid via Marshall plan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for links, I want us to use common sense. 

It's almost always pretty clear what people are saying. If it's not clear, be more clear.

If you're referencing an article, give the link.

If you're stating an opinion, be clear it's an opinion. 

It's not difficult. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Joe,

There's a concept in evidence law called judicial notice, whereby judges and juries admit obvious statements into evidence as a given because their truth value is so demonstrably true on the surface of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice

Problem is, in the PSF, if you made a statement, you had people fighting over the most basic facts and demanding links to everything. Then accusing you of spreading false information. It got ridiculous. I made a comment that what probably turned the election towards Trump were the amount of Republicans willing to hold their nose and vote because of the Supreme Court seats. I was castigated. Links were demanded. I got the links. From reputable sources like Vox (no friend to right-wingers) and there was still debate over such an obvious concept.

That's where the link demands go horribly awry. Plus, people make link demands when it's clearly an opinionated statement.

I dunno...just...the link demands here were overbearing.

In terms of making the PSF more attractive, also keep in mind folks might want to just pop in and give their opinion. That’s something that’s been lost since the FFA. And then they’re driven away if it becomes a legal hearing.

Share this post


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

In terms of making the PSF more attractive, also keep in mind folks might want to just pop in and give their opinion. That’s something that’s been lost since the FFA. And then they’re driven away if it becomes a legal hearing.

I've certainly noticed that. I almost cringe when a non-regular bellies up to the bar, as it were, and gives an opinion, only to be met by a sort of school of fish-esque atmosphere (not -fish-) where that person is unaware of what sort of water he or she is treading in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Jamny had an interesting exchange in the WB thread yesterday. He raised a pretty specific factual point and I think there were a flurry of responses, me included, in which the general take was to demonstrate that Trump wasn’t helped by this point. But I think Jam was just looking for information and really by & large agreed about Trump having committed wrongdoing in general. Just something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also- it’s a good idea to read the links before you post them. There’s at least a few people here who post links having read the title but not having read the actual link. That’s a sure sign of not really being interested in pursuing discussion, they just want to show other people up. Posting links can in some instances be a form of trolling. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Also- it’s a good idea to read the links before you post them. There’s at least a few people here who post links having read the title but not having read the actual link. That’s a sure sign of not really being interested in pursuing discussion, they just want to show other people up. Posting links can in some instances be a form of trolling. 

Maybe they post the link to generate further discussion. Posting a link doesn't mean it has to fully support your stance. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is whether you respect them enough to engage. If you do, engage respectfully. Asking for a link can definitely be a part of that.

If you don't, please ignore them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Maybe they post the link to generate further discussion. Posting a link doesn't mean it has to fully support your stance. 

If it’s obviously posted to not do that then it isn’t useful.

There was posting an article about a study of Ice Fields in one of the global warming topics along with some comment like “oh no what will be the excuse now”.

It was clear the poster didn’t read the article as it had nothing to do with the point he was trying to make, then when asked they didn’t comment again. 

Edited by The General
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If it’s obviously posted to not do that then it isn’t useful.

There was posting an article about a study of Ice Fields in one of the global warming topics along with some comment like “oh no what will be the excuse now”.

It was clear the poster didn’t read the article as it had nothing to do with the point he was trying to make, then when asked they didn’t comment again. 

If it's clear someone isn't furthering the discussion, then why respond at all?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If it's clear someone isn't furthering the discussion, then why respond at all?

It does further a discussion to point out that the poster may be incorrectly attributing facts from an article or it isn’t relevant to their point. 

Share this post


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

In this day of fake news, it's bad enough some websites post incorrect information. 

But at least give us the link to support the info you're talking about. 

And also be aware of bias. I'd like for every poster here to be familiar with Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

If you're going to post something from Daily Kos or Red State, you have to understand that carries different weight than something from the AP.

But claiming something with no link is worse. 

 

:goodposting:

I feel my mission is complete!!!!!!!!

  • Thanks 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.