:MERGED: Shark Pool Discussion and Ideas (1 Viewer)

[Bristol]

The subscribers have no place to discuss the premium content freely and without tongue in cheek remakrs about where someone is ranked, etc.

You can feel free to discuss subscriber content on the boards. However, we draw the line at copying and pasting entire articles or lists.

I don't think that's the case. At no time do I feel like I can come on here and say "I wonder why David has <insert name> ranked #6 overall, but then has <insert name> ranked #15." To me, that would be giving away something that Joe and David want you to pay for. Why should anyone who doesn't pay have any access to what others have paid to see? If I owned a business and saw that people were giving away my material for free, I would be livid. It is sort of like what occured in the music industry with MP3 sharing. Everyone was getting the music for free, but the musicians who made the music were being left out in the cold.If you are saying that I can come on here and openly discuss where players are ranked on the cheatsheet list, then I think you are opening a whole can of worms that Joe and David do not want opened. But if you say it's ok, then I will start posting a such because I have held back until now.

 

[watsonrm]

What I got out of this thread was this:

Report a post, either misplaced, not football-related or tasteless, to the mods and they will take care of it.

I haven't been thinking about this, and it's a good reminder.

 

[The Dude]

Too many diguised AC threads.

Ie, "Is Cedric Benson going to be of any value this year"

Which is really, should I drop/add him?

 

[Otis]

Regarding the original post in this thread, the one thing I will say is that I completely agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find objective analysis in here. There is quite a bit of "wishful analysis," with people just arguing for or against particular players based on who they have on their fantasy teams. It creates clutter and makes some of the arguments just outrageous. Some of the best candidates are in the Jones/Benson, Foster/Williams, Barlow/Gore threads from this offseason.

I posted this once before and Joe responded by saying that he is totally fine with this, and that it's sort of a "chicken and egg" problem. I understand what he is saying and I agree to some extent. Obviously if I feel very strongly about a player, I may go out and acquire him for the reasons I post in the thread. Now, I have the player on my team, and I still feel very strongly that he is going to be good, but it's not really the sort of situation I am referring to.

A poster in the Jones/Benson threads, after arguing vehemently about how bad Jones is and how Benson was going to take Jones' job, posted just before the season started that he (1) was previously a Benson owner, (2) had just traded Benson away, and (3) agreed completely with the Jones camp. Just absurd.

I think a plea for a little more objectivity in the pool is not such a bad thing.

 

[Kleck]

The subscribers have no place to discuss the premium content freely and without tongue in cheek remakrs about where someone is ranked, etc.

You can feel free to discuss subscriber content on the boards. However, we draw the line at copying and pasting entire articles or lists.

I don't think that's the case. At no time do I feel like I can come on here and say "I wonder why David has <insert name> ranked #6 overall, but then has <insert name> ranked #15." To me, that would be giving away something that Joe and David want you to pay for. Why should anyone who doesn't pay have any access to what others have paid to see? If I owned a business and saw that people were giving away my material for free, I would be livid. It is sort of like what occured in the music industry with MP3 sharing. Everyone was getting the music for free, but the musicians who made the music were being left out in the cold.If you are saying that I can come on here and openly discuss where players are ranked on the cheatsheet list, then I think you are opening a whole can of worms that Joe and David do not want opened. But if you say it's ok, then I will start posting a such because I have held back until now.

I hear what you're saying, and your thoughts have been echoed by folks in the past. However, we haven't had a problem with members posting singular rankings seeking explanations. For instance, someone may want a more detailed explanation on why David is higher on Kurt Warner this week. They post a thread in the Shark Pool with a title like "Dodds is nuts". Some debate and argue the validity of the post. Eventually David gets a heads up and responds when he has a free moment (those are rare).Perhaps we'll agree to disagree. For the moment we don't have a problem with subscribers posting limited information. Where's the line? We haven't been forced to define that as of yet. For the moment we remain flexible.

 

[Kleck]

I think a plea for a little more objectivity in the pool is not such a bad thing.

As he usually does, Otis represents the voice of reason.

 

[Otis]

I think a plea for a little more objectivity in the pool is not such a bad thing.

As he usually does, Otis represents the voice of reason.

 

[PatsWillWin]

The subscribers have no place to discuss the premium content freely and without tongue in cheek remakrs about where someone is ranked, etc.

You can feel free to discuss subscriber content on the boards. However, we draw the line at copying and pasting entire articles or lists.

I don't think that's the case. At no time do I feel like I can come on here and say "I wonder why David has <insert name> ranked #6 overall, but then has <insert name> ranked #15." To me, that would be giving away something that Joe and David want you to pay for. Why should anyone who doesn't pay have any access to what others have paid to see? If I owned a business and saw that people were giving away my material for free, I would be livid. It is sort of like what occured in the music industry with MP3 sharing. Everyone was getting the music for free, but the musicians who made the music were being left out in the cold.If you are saying that I can come on here and openly discuss where players are ranked on the cheatsheet list, then I think you are opening a whole can of worms that Joe and David do not want opened. But if you say it's ok, then I will start posting a such because I have held back until now.

I hear what you're saying, and your thoughts have been echoed by folks in the past. However, we haven't had a problem with members posting singular rankings seeking explanations. For instance, someone may want a more detailed explanation on why David is higher on Kurt Warner this week. They post a thread in the Shark Pool with a title like "Dodds is nuts". Some debate and argue the validity of the post. Eventually David gets a heads up and responds when he has a free moment (those are rare).Perhaps we'll agree to disagree. For the moment we don't have a problem with subscribers posting limited information. Where's the line? We haven't been forced to define that as of yet. For the moment we remain flexible.

Agreed. Just this week there was a thread discussing how high Reggie Wayne was ranked in the premium material. I believe there was also a thread on Eddie Kennison. And aside from entire threads devoted to such discussion, people are constantly referencing rankings in posts on other threads - I've yet to see this kind of talk shut down by the moderators at all.

 

[bentley]

Regarding the original post in this thread, the one thing I will say is that I completely agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find objective analysis in here. There is quite a bit of "wishful analysis," with people just arguing for or against particular players based on who they have on their fantasy teams. It creates clutter and makes some of the arguments just outrageous. Some of the best candidates are in the Jones/Benson, Foster/Williams, Barlow/Gore threads from this offseason.I posted this once before and Joe responded by saying that he is totally fine with this, and that it's sort of a "chicken and egg" problem. I understand what he is saying and I agree to some extent. Obviously if I feel very strongly about a player, I may go out and acquire him for the reasons I post in the thread. Now, I have the player on my team, and I still feel very strongly that he is going to be good, but it's not really the sort of situation I am referring to.A poster in the Jones/Benson threads, after arguing vehemently about how bad Jones is and how Benson was going to take Jones' job, posted just before the season started that he (1) was previously a Benson owner, (2) had just traded Benson away, and (3) agreed completely with the Jones camp. Just absurd.I think a plea for a little more objectivity in the pool is not such a bad thing.

I completely agree with this. That's my biggest complaint about the Pool. Some of the other complaints that people have about folks in here trying to (badly) one up each other with their bad bits are also valid. There's a PPR thread this morning in the pool and neither the original poster nor many of the respondents are really interested in discussing the issue.

 

[GSNVulture]

Regarding the original post in this thread, the one thing I will say is that I completely agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find objective analysis in here. There is quite a bit of "wishful analysis," with people just arguing for or against particular players based on who they have on their fantasy teams. It creates clutter and makes some of the arguments just outrageous. Some of the best candidates are in the Jones/Benson, Foster/Williams, Barlow/Gore threads from this offseason.I posted this once before and Joe responded by saying that he is totally fine with this, and that it's sort of a "chicken and egg" problem. I understand what he is saying and I agree to some extent. Obviously if I feel very strongly about a player, I may go out and acquire him for the reasons I post in the thread. Now, I have the player on my team, and I still feel very strongly that he is going to be good, but it's not really the sort of situation I am referring to.A poster in the Jones/Benson threads, after arguing vehemently about how bad Jones is and how Benson was going to take Jones' job, posted just before the season started that he (1) was previously a Benson owner, (2) had just traded Benson away, and (3) agreed completely with the Jones camp. Just absurd.I think a plea for a little more objectivity in the pool is not such a bad thing.

I completely agree with this. That's my biggest complaint about the Pool. Some of the other complaints that people have about folks in here trying to (badly) one up each other with their bad bits are also valid. There's a PPR thread this morning in the pool and neither the original poster nor many of the respondents are really interested in discussing the issue.

I am the original poster and if you feel I was skirting the issue you dont have to worry anymore about me. I will no longer post on these boards and will not contribute to this site in any meaningfull way whatso ever. I was seriously considering buying a premium package until I was confronted by a poster that had nothing to add to the discussion other than saying I was stupid. I have no issue with being called names but at least back up your statement with something relevent to the discussion.My advise for the boards is to completely elliminate personal attacks. Even ones said in jest as they serve no useful purpose. I was guilty of this as anyone else in that thread.

 

[bentley]

Regarding the original post in this thread, the one thing I will say is that I completely agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find objective analysis in here. There is quite a bit of "wishful analysis," with people just arguing for or against particular players based on who they have on their fantasy teams. It creates clutter and makes some of the arguments just outrageous. Some of the best candidates are in the Jones/Benson, Foster/Williams, Barlow/Gore threads from this offseason.I posted this once before and Joe responded by saying that he is totally fine with this, and that it's sort of a "chicken and egg" problem. I understand what he is saying and I agree to some extent. Obviously if I feel very strongly about a player, I may go out and acquire him for the reasons I post in the thread. Now, I have the player on my team, and I still feel very strongly that he is going to be good, but it's not really the sort of situation I am referring to.A poster in the Jones/Benson threads, after arguing vehemently about how bad Jones is and how Benson was going to take Jones' job, posted just before the season started that he (1) was previously a Benson owner, (2) had just traded Benson away, and (3) agreed completely with the Jones camp. Just absurd.I think a plea for a little more objectivity in the pool is not such a bad thing.

I completely agree with this. That's my biggest complaint about the Pool. Some of the other complaints that people have about folks in here trying to (badly) one up each other with their bad bits are also valid. There's a PPR thread this morning in the pool and neither the original poster nor many of the respondents are really interested in discussing the issue.

I am the original poster and if you feel I was skirting the issue you dont have to worry anymore about me. I will no longer post on these boards and will not contribute to this site in any meaningfull way whatso ever. I was seriously considering buying a premium package until I was confronted by a poster that had nothing to add to the discussion other than saying I was stupid. I have no issue with being called names but at least back up your statement with something relevent to the discussion.My advise for the boards is to completely elliminate personal attacks. Even ones said in jest as they serve no useful purpose. I was guilty of this as anyone else in that thread.

I tried to give you a resonable response, and you responded to me in kind. That being said, the way that the question was originally phrased a bit standoffish, and some of the jokers around here jumped on it.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Some people just don't have the sensibility for the SHARK POOL. The POOL OF SHARKS.

 

[phrozen]

Here is an idea - another board called "Old School". All long time board members with select invitations to five digiters who don't annoy us. I know ....it's elitist and wrong. But a guy can dream - right?

just because a person is not a 5-digiter doesn't mean they are not a dumb###. I have seen many ignorant and stupid tools with 3 and 4 digit member numbers. I may be a five-digiter but I was active on Red Eye Sports before I came to football guys. RES and FBG merged and so that is how I came here. So I have been an "Old School" member for a long time too.When someone gives analysis and a person responds not to listen to them because they are a five digiter, it just makes that person look dumb. Your a four digiter congrats. If you get off on that more power to you but I do not listen to people solely on their member number.The five digiter remarks add nothing to a thread and it is just one more post i have to scroll through.PS

 

[Armando]

Everybody enjoys the occasional piss in the pool. Don't deny it, you've done it before too.

 

[MLBrandow]

Here is an idea - another board called "Old School". All long time board members with select invitations to five digiters who don't annoy us. I know ....it's elitist and wrong. But a guy can dream - right?

just because a person is not a 5-digiter doesn't mean they are not a dumb###. I have seen many ignorant and stupid tools with 3 and 4 digit member numbers. I may be a five-digiter but I was active on Red Eye Sports before I came to football guys. RES and FBG merged and so that is how I came here. So I have been an "Old School" member for a long time too.When someone gives analysis and a person responds not to listen to them because they are a five digiter, it just makes that person look dumb. Your a four digiter congrats. If you get off on that more power to you but I do not listen to people solely on their member number.

The five digiter remarks add nothing to a thread and it is just one more post i have to scroll through.

PS

I have to agree with this statement, although I am also a victim of my own prejudice regarding member number. While I hold no open bias against anyone, no matter their registration number (as I, too, was an active member on another board before this one), if I read a pretty ignorant post liken to one I'd find on the Steelers or Buccaneers Official Message Boards, and then I see the guy has a 23,000+ member number, I get a little perturbed for having to read it.I do like the idea of an "elitist" member board, but it only works in theory. While many posters are experts on many subjects, very few posters are experts on most everything. There's really no way to discern quality from trash except via a case by case basis, and that simply means more work for mods.

Similarly, they can't just go banning on sight people who post toolish statements within their first week of registering, because I'd venture that many of those same tools also subscribe to FBG services and some of whom will eventually become sharks themselves. This is the essence of the moniker.

I do think one solid change can and should be made, and that is that every post should at least make a noticable attempt to contribute something to any given thread. Factoids and points of debate suffer as expenses to quips and dry humor which many people simply don't find funny. I can't call anyone out because I am just as guilty as the next person, but a quick look for me at the top thread in this forum when I went to post illustrates exactly what I mean.

I believe that if the mods set a higher standard of what is and is not acceptable debate on these boards, that everyone will benefit from following new rules, and that in these more stringent guidelines, we will find better expressions of more open minds.

And the best part is that many of these rules changes are rules already, but simply are not enforced to the degree that they could be. It is not the fault of the mods, simply the level of accepted decency on this board, which if elevated, would very likely eliminate much of the cause of strain in this forum.

Just add to say that I really appreciate this topic being brought up. I haven't been as active here for a number of reasons, many of them irrelevant to this board--but one of them I significantly contribute to having to syphon through so many tool posts, which until late this summer was rarely a problem.

 

[BaBastage]

First, let me clarify I am a "5 digiter", just having only subscribed a few days ago. I have, however, been lurking on the board as an unregistered visitor since sometime last year.

I also haven't subscribed to the premium services. I accept that as a freeloader, I'll take what I can get. Overall, I am pleased with something I get for free. I will say though that I would be more willing to subscribe to a better moderated board than I would be for straight analysis tools. (I already have my own analysis tools that I've built in the past 7 years, that work well for my style of fantasy play.)

My suggestion is this: What is the chance of implementing user-moderated functionality similar to that used on Slashdot? (

http://www.slashdot.org ).

I've found the system works quite well. As users read the threads, they "mod" up or down the validity or usefulness of the post in a variety of ways: Informative, Insightful, Humorous, etc.

By default, the posts that have been moded "up" are displayed more prominently, while posts that are off topic, trolls, or otherwise undesirable

Each user can then set their own thresholds on what type of post they want to view, hence filtering out the background noise.

I'd bet there a few slashdotters on these forums. If you're not, take a few minutes to browse some forum topics and you'll quickly see how it works. If you're not into "News for Nerds", you may not enjoy the subject matter, but I can honestly say the system helps provide some excellent insight from very knowledgeable people.

And, not having any definite figures to back this statement up, the traffic volume on \. is probably magnitudes greater than FBG. Which, imho, makes it a testament to the system's effectiveness.

All that said, I run a web-based software company, and I know that not all ideas, even good ones, are feasible to implement. Good luck guys.

 

[Otis]

I have seen many ignorant and stupid tools with 3 and 4 digit member numbers.

 

[Gatorman]

I think a plea for a little more objectivity in the pool is not such a bad thing.

As he usually does, Otis represents the voice of reason.

ostreported:

 

[Gr00vus]

That said, the quality definitely seems lower to me this year. I find myself reading a lower percentage of threads now, and skimming through those that I read more often.

Same here. I find I'm becoming much more adept at a)easily spotting threads that are of no interest b)realizing rather quickly if a thread is worth reading or not c)realizing which posters have which axes to grind and treating their posts appropriatelyThere's definitely been an increase in chaff, but the wheat is as good as ever around here.

 

[bentley]

That said, the quality definitely seems lower to me this year. I find myself reading a lower percentage of threads now, and skimming through those that I read more often.

Same here. I find I'm becoming much more adept at a)easily spotting threads that are of no interest b)realizing rather quickly if a thread is worth reading or not c)realizing which posters have which axes to grind and treating their posts appropriatelyThere's definitely been an increase in chaff, but the wheat is as good as ever around here.

Does anyone know anything about whether the number of threads started this year is a lot higher than usual? It seems like there are a whole lot of useless threads, which make it harder to wade through to find decent stuff. Also, I think most of us are partly to blame for the need for instant gratification. Nobody wants to take the time to to do a bunch of fact-checking before they respond to a thread. It takes time away from the "wit."

 

[ryoly]

league."

I guess I've gotten to the point I shake my head at all the posturing people take on players. Too many people seem to be more about throwing a claim out there to be (hopefully) proven right by how things turn out, than they are about looking at an issue objectively and taking all the possibilities into account -- and not just the one they believe is most likely.

I've been steering away from player evaluation threads more and more because of this. Sometimes I'll throw in my 2 cents and then not go back to the thread because of what it devolves into.

GregR,

Exactly one of the things that was on my mind when starting the original post.....

 

[secretid]

I hear all the time about people being accused of being a Portis owner or a whoever owner and therefore having a biased opinion.

My question is, why should this make someone biased? And I'm not saying it doesn't. But saying that your guy's injury is not that bad or your guy's back-up sucks or whatever else won't make it come true. This is a message board not a magical wishing well.

You could say that you have an interest in increasing the perceived value of the player but chances are there aren't enough of your leaguemates on this board to make a difference. I just don't understand this at all.

The ONLY bias that should be there, imo, is that you will generally rate your players SLIGHTLY higher than guys that aren't on your team because that's how they ended up on your team in the first place

Basically, what I'm trying to say is:

1. Why does this bias exist?

2. Stop it.

 

[joffer]

ego. i drafted this guy therefore he must be good. it doesn't have to make sense to exist.

 

[No Swammi]

I think I know what you're trying to get at but you may be a bit off target. I haven't read the thread that you referenced but, to me, it's OK to have some personal opinion mixed in. Some threads end up going overboard with it but there's not much that can be done about that.The thing I'm finding more and more frustrating about this board is that too many people think they are comedians and try to be the fastest with the next zinger. Again, some of that is OK (and actually a welcome relief) but when half of the thread is one-liners, it gets pretty old pretty quickly.Unfortunatley, I don't think there's much that can be done about that and I certainly wouldn't want to see everyone turn into the fun police. Hopefully this is just a cycle and people will back off a little.Just my 2 cents...(one-liners certain to follow from budding comedians)

Agreed. It's best to stick to NFL news and thoughts there. The FFA is open mic for the guys that want to try the one liners.J

Just a suggestion Joe -- as I know you are always looking for new ideas -- a Subscriber Board.It could be a place to a) discuss the premium content and b) keep the riff-raff out.The Shark Pool and FFA still have a place in this world, but a board for paying customers would be another function of customer service.

I have always agreed with this. The subscribers have no place to discuss the premium content freely and without tongue in cheek remakrs about where someone is ranked, etc. IMO, the subscribers only board would jump subscriptions to FBGs because the people who don't pay will wonder what they are missing in the subscribers only board. Even though we get all the great content in the subscribers section, I sometimes feel that the hangers on and leeches who don't pay get some of that information as it sometimes finds it's way into the Shark Pool. $25 bucks is not a great amount of money for all that you guys give. People should have to pay to get access to the boards.

I have always agreed with this as well. Even if some of this discussion can happen in the Shark Pool, I think a new board would facilitate greater discussion of the content. In addition, I suspect many of the worst offenders in the Shark Pool are non-subscribers, but I have no data and we know that's just bad posting. Do the mods have any idea how many of the posts reported or members kicked out are non-subscribers? That would lend some insight on if another subscriber board has value.I hardly go through the board anymore since I have to read 25 posts of stupid immature crap to get to 1 thing of value. My choice, but it definitely is worse this year than ever before.

 

[mhrutkowski]

Ego, yes. But also, hope. You don't want to admit to yourself that your picks didn't work out and that your season is in jeopardy. That's no fun. Not yet, even if trading your players now might help you in the future.

 

[JohnnyU]

Two words, human nature.

 

[coolnerd]

I would rather a poster admit to bias. This is actually more objective than pretending to put forth an unbias opinion that is anything but.

 

[Sheriff66]

I would rather a poster admit to bias. This is actually more objective than pretending to put forth an unbias opinion that is anything but.

I drafted Lee Evans as my 3rd WR, and he blows, I the Kool Aid and got burned so far...

 

[coolnerd]

I would rather a poster admit to bias. This is actually more objective than pretending to put forth an unbias opinion that is anything but.

I drafted Lee Evans as my 3rd WR, and he blows, I the Kool Aid and got burned so far...

I think you give the perfect example. You bias is if anything overstates the suckitude (if that's a word) of Evans. Two games, a mediocore QB and a conservative offense does not make him totally suck.

 

[Bluegrassman]

I think I know what you're trying to get at but you may be a bit off target. I haven't read the thread that you referenced but, to me, it's OK to have some personal opinion mixed in. Some threads end up going overboard with it but there's not much that can be done about that.The thing I'm finding more and more frustrating about this board is that too many people think they are comedians and try to be the fastest with the next zinger. Again, some of that is OK (and actually a welcome relief) but when half of the thread is one-liners, it gets pretty old pretty quickly.Unfortunatley, I don't think there's much that can be done about that and I certainly wouldn't want to see everyone turn into the fun police. Hopefully this is just a cycle and people will back off a little.Just my 2 cents...(one-liners certain to follow from budding comedians)

Agreed. It's best to stick to NFL news and thoughts there. The FFA is open mic for the guys that want to try the one liners.J

Just a suggestion Joe -- as I know you are always looking for new ideas -- a Subscriber Board.It could be a place to a) discuss the premium content and b) keep the riff-raff out.The Shark Pool and FFA still have a place in this world, but a board for paying customers would be another function of customer service.

I have always agreed with this. The subscribers have no place to discuss the premium content freely and without tongue in cheek remakrs about where someone is ranked, etc. IMO, the subscribers only board would jump subscriptions to FBGs because the people who don't pay will wonder what they are missing in the subscribers only board. Even though we get all the great content in the subscribers section, I sometimes feel that the hangers on and leeches who don't pay get some of that information as it sometimes finds it's way into the Shark Pool. $25 bucks is not a great amount of money for all that you guys give. People should have to pay to get access to the boards.

I have always agreed with this as well. Even if some of this discussion can happen in the Shark Pool, I think a new board would facilitate greater discussion of the content. In addition, I suspect many of the worst offenders in the Shark Pool are non-subscribers, but I have no data and we know that's just bad posting. Do the mods have any idea how many of the posts reported or members kicked out are non-subscribers? That would lend some insight on if another subscriber board has value.I hardly go through the board anymore since I have to read 25 posts of stupid immature crap to get to 1 thing of value. My choice, but it definitely is worse this year than ever before.

 

[Sheriff66]

I would rather a poster admit to bias. This is actually more objective than pretending to put forth an unbias opinion that is anything but.

I drafted Lee Evans as my 3rd WR, and he blows, I the Kool Aid and got burned so far...

I think you give the perfect example. You bias is if anything overstates the suckitude (if that's a word) of Evans. Two games, a mediocore QB and a conservative offense does not make him totally suck.

No, I promise you, he sucks(FF wise), and will ride my pine if not be cut in the near future....

 

[Legion of Doom]

May take on it exactly. However, when one simpleton quotes a simpleton who quoted him earlier who quoted him earlier who quoted him earlier who quoted him earlier...The quote preservation is what makes it laborious for me when trying to weed through the irrelevant. In some threads it gets so bad I just quit and move on to something else .

Yep GDB quote wars in the shark pool. Learn to edit that ####,seriously!

 

[bentley]

One final note is that we should all take this to heart and work to make the place better instead of just complaining. Of course, I said the same thing about the ACF last week and I think I've been in there once this week.

 

[mhrutkowski]

I would rather a poster admit to bias. This is actually more objective than pretending to put forth an unbias opinion that is anything but.

We all have biases, though. Sometimes you know it, sometimes you don't. No one is truly objective and you'll see biases on two sides: Team A overvalues a player and Team B undervalues him - both are wrong.

 

[Couch Potato]

I think I know what you're trying to get at but you may be a bit off target. I haven't read the thread that you referenced but, to me, it's OK to have some personal opinion mixed in. Some threads end up going overboard with it but there's not much that can be done about that.The thing I'm finding more and more frustrating about this board is that too many people think they are comedians and try to be the fastest with the next zinger. Again, some of that is OK (and actually a welcome relief) but when half of the thread is one-liners, it gets pretty old pretty quickly.Unfortunatley, I don't think there's much that can be done about that and I certainly wouldn't want to see everyone turn into the fun police. Hopefully this is just a cycle and people will back off a little.Just my 2 cents...(one-liners certain to follow from budding comedians)

Agreed. It's best to stick to NFL news and thoughts there. The FFA is open mic for the guys that want to try the one liners.J

Bummer. You guys take yourselves too seriously sometimes. This is a fantasy game we play, nothing more. A game. I'm damn good at it, have a lot of knowledge, and at times add a lot here from that standpoint. But at other times I enjoy the board in other ways. I think there's room for NFL-related humor here, and many of us enjoy that. It's part of the entertainment of coming here. It's too bad that's not acceptable and you don't think there's room for more than just NFL news and thoughts. If I've got to be Mr. Serious all the time then I'll be coming around a lot less. Thanks for setting guys like me straight and dulling the broad flavor of the board.

 

[coolnerd]

I would rather a poster admit to bias. This is actually more objective than pretending to put forth an unbias opinion that is anything but.

We all have biases, though. Sometimes you know it, sometimes you don't. No one is truly objective and you'll see biases on two sides: Team A overvalues a player and Team B undervalues him - both are wrong.

And, of course, I was speaking of the biases that we know. Depending on my mood I get the biggest kick out of or totally irratated by the poster who is believes he has laid out something "objective," while 10 other people are pointing out the positive or negative bias he has on the subject and the original poster just really can't see his lack of objectivity to save his life.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't know about the Portis situation specifically, because that would include someone being biased with regard to how serious an injury is...I think that's quite different than bias to player's in general.

As far as player bias goes, I think it's just logical that people are biased - for example, I have Chris Henry in 3 dynasty leagues. I obviously picked Chris Henry in all 3 dynasty leagues because I think he's extremely talented. So when there's a discussion about Chris Henry, I'm going to come in and give that opinion...but I don't HAVE that OPINION because I have Chris Henry, I HAVE Chris Henry because I HAVE that opinion..

I wonder if I just made any sense at all.

 

[gbill2004]

This is why I think its important to include our roster in our signatures - that way those reading our opinions can determine themselves whether they think we may be biased in our responses on a particular player.

 

[my man otis]

I always thought people got the cause/effect of this issue backward.

Someone is not biased because they have someone on their team, they are on their team because they think they will do well (read --> biased).

e.g., Why do you have Rhodes on your team and not addai? You drafted him because you thought he'd do better than Addai, hence your opinion on Rhodes is that he'll be the starter all year.

You have to be biased in FF. It's called analytics, market research or whatever in the "real world". Corporations do it all the time when they come out with a new product.

Edit - just saw JWW's post 2 above mine, I totally agree.

 

[PatsWillWin]

This is why I think its important to include our roster in our signatures - that way those reading our opinions can determine themselves whether they think we may be biased in our responses on a particular player.

I kinda just mentioned this in my post right before yours, but I'll apply it specifically to what you're saying here - why would you assume that someone's roster will lead them to have certain opinions? I look at it the OTHER way - that a person's opinions leads to them having a particular roster, since the drafting of that team is base don opinions...which would mean that those opinions exist independently of a roster since they preceeded it, and would therefore be "unbiased" as far as we're concerned.EDIT: My Man Otis just said it a little clearer - with bold font too. Read that.

 

[coolnerd]

I always thought people got the cause/effect of this issue backward.

Someone is not biased because they have someone on their team, they are on their team because they think they will do well (read --> biased).

e.g., Why do you have Rhodes on your team and not addai? You drafted him because you thought he'd do better than Addai, hence your opinion on Rhodes is that he'll be the starter all year.

You have to be biased in FF. It's called analytics, market research or whatever in the "real world". Corporations do it all the time when they come out with a new product.

Edit - just saw JWW's post 2 above mine, I totally agree.

Excellent. What most of us are looking for is not the truly unbias or objective, but critical thought or analysis of the player or situation being discussed.

 

[mhrutkowski]

I would rather a poster admit to bias. This is actually more objective than pretending to put forth an unbias opinion that is anything but.

We all have biases, though. Sometimes you know it, sometimes you don't. No one is truly objective and you'll see biases on two sides: Team A overvalues a player and Team B undervalues him - both are wrong.

And, of course, I was speaking of the biases that we know. Depending on my mood I get the biggest kick out of or totally irratated by the poster who is believes he has laid out something "objective," while 10 other people are pointing out the positive or negative bias he has on the subject and the original poster just really can't see his lack of objectivity to save his life.

Well, the biases we "know" and the biases we "don't know" is subjective as well.

 

[mhrutkowski]

I don't know about the Portis situation specifically, because that would include someone being biased with regard to how serious an injury is...I think that's quite different than bias to player's in general.As far as player bias goes, I think it's just logical that people are biased - for example, I have Chris Henry in 3 dynasty leagues. I obviously picked Chris Henry in all 3 dynasty leagues because I think he's extremely talented. So when there's a discussion about Chris Henry, I'm going to come in and give that opinion...but I don't HAVE that OPINION because I have Chris Henry, I HAVE Chris Henry because I HAVE that opinion..I wonder if I just made any sense at all.

Yes, but some people hold onto these opinions too long or will not adjust the value of their players even with strong evidence to the contrary. Why? Because they have the players and do not want to admit that they are wrong or that their team might be in trouble.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't know about the Portis situation specifically, because that would include someone being biased with regard to how serious an injury is...I think that's quite different than bias to player's in general.As far as player bias goes, I think it's just logical that people are biased - for example, I have Chris Henry in 3 dynasty leagues. I obviously picked Chris Henry in all 3 dynasty leagues because I think he's extremely talented. So when there's a discussion about Chris Henry, I'm going to come in and give that opinion...but I don't HAVE that OPINION because I have Chris Henry, I HAVE Chris Henry because I HAVE that opinion..I wonder if I just made any sense at all.

Yes, but some people hold onto these opinions too long or will not adjust the value of their players even with strong evidence to the contrary. Why? Because they have the players and do not want to admit that they are wrong or that their team might be in trouble.

Fair enough.

 

[KevT]

Agreed. It's best to stick to NFL news and thoughts there. The FFA is open mic for the guys that want to try the one liners.J

Then I think it's time to retire the some smileys, mainly the "point to the shirt" smiley. Many times a poster will just post and thats it. And it doesn't add anything useful to the thread, someone is just trying to be funny.I usually read maybe 10 threads a day, not because I don't have the time, but because of the content or what the thread is turning into.

 

[my man otis]

I don't know about the Portis situation specifically, because that would include someone being biased with regard to how serious an injury is...I think that's quite different than bias to player's in general.As far as player bias goes, I think it's just logical that people are biased - for example, I have Chris Henry in 3 dynasty leagues. I obviously picked Chris Henry in all 3 dynasty leagues because I think he's extremely talented. So when there's a discussion about Chris Henry, I'm going to come in and give that opinion...but I don't HAVE that OPINION because I have Chris Henry, I HAVE Chris Henry because I HAVE that opinion..I wonder if I just made any sense at all.

Yes, but some people hold onto these opinions too long or will not adjust the value of their players even with strong evidence to the contrary. Why? Because they have the players and do not want to admit that they are wrong or that their team might be in trouble.

What you're really saying is that you don't like when people disagree with you. Strong evidence to one person may not be that to another.Maybe what you're really asking for it a bit more maturity in posts, so to speak, and less chest-thumping.

 

[el-gato-grande]

Here is an idea - another board called "Old School". All long time board members with select invitations to five digiters who don't annoy us. I know ....it's elitist and wrong. But a guy can dream - right?

just because a person is not a 5-digiter doesn't mean they are not a dumb###. I have seen many ignorant and stupid tools with 3 and 4 digit member numbers. I may be a five-digiter but I was active on Red Eye Sports before I came to football guys. RES and FBG merged and so that is how I came here. So I have been an "Old School" member for a long time too.When someone gives analysis and a person responds not to listen to them because they are a five digiter, it just makes that person look dumb. Your a four digiter congrats. If you get off on that more power to you but I do not listen to people solely on their member number.The five digiter remarks add nothing to a thread and it is just one more post i have to scroll through.PS

Like anything else, there are no absolutes. There are knobs in both camps. But, with a three or low four digit number, you can be relatively assured that the guy or gal posting has been involved in fantasy football since at least 2003 and most before that since many of us carried over from the old board. That experience shows in many of the posts.I will grant that there also can be experienced fantasy owners coming over from other boards like yourself among the 5 digit population. But, since this is the best board in fantasy football for many years running, I'd be willing to bet that number represents a smaller percentage of the whole. In other words, anybody who would claim to be a fantasy veteran should have already been leveraging this service. If not, then I say "doh".

 

[PatsWillWin]

Wow these were merged? I think they're completely unrelated.

 

[Scrooloose]

Its a message board with thousands of members. What did you expect?

 

[bentley]

Wow these were merged? I think they're completely unrelated.

They're not. And add wide-eyed BS responses like this one to my list of things that should be gone from the Pool.