Please Read - "Who's Hottest?" Type Threads - And An Apology (1 Viewer)

[Uruk-Hai]

Might be time to take the leap and make the token hire of a female to provide some content for the site. It would make a decision like this much more understandable. 

Wait. I thought cocoagirl was a mod here.

 

[skol asylum]

Personally I don't think gambling is wrong and think it's a stretch to find some kind of hypocrisy there. Just my opinion.

 

[Juxtatarot]

What exactly was the point of having a yoga pants thread? Just PG porn?

 

[Scoresman]

Hi @NewlyRetired

Is gambling something to be careful with? Absolutely. I consider that to be in a similar category as alcohol. It'll become even more important to be careful in the future as sports betting becomes legalized in more states. 

I think most everyone was disgusted by the recent news with the Cheerleaders in Washington. And I'm sure management there will pay the price. While that may make me not want to cheer for Washington, I don't think condemning the entire league is appropriate. No more than I'd stop using ridesharing completely because Uber did awful stuff. 

Sorry to hear you think it's hinting at being a fraud. For me, I was as open as I could be in the original post. Not allowing the who's hottest type threads and the comments that ensued is something I feel is simply the right thing to do. It's likely not good for business as clearly there are people unhappy. I'm sure people will leave over it. And that's a price we pay. And are willing to pay. 

People won’t leave because we can’t have who’s hottest threads. People will leave because you are taking a community that is important to them and slowly trying to mold it into something that it simply isn’t. 

And the usual “it’s not something we want here” is still fairly patronizing. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

People won’t leave because we can’t have who’s hottest threads. People will leave because you are taking a community that is important to them and slowly trying to mold it into something that it simply isn’t. 

And the usual “it’s not something we want here” is still fairly patronizing. 

Thanks scoresman. You're right in that I'm trying to take the community in a direction I want it to be. Those that don't want that won't stay. That's just reality.

As for the "not what we want here" as "patronizing", I'm not sure how else I can say it. Every business has things they want and don't want. That's not patronizing, that's trying to communicate what we're doing. We are not going to have a community where board members post pictures of women, often without their consent and then objectify them with crude comments we have to delete. I don't know how else to say that more clearly.

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks scoresman. You're right in that I'm trying to take the community in a direction I want it to be. Those that don't want that won't stay. That's just reality.

As for the "not what we want here" as "patronizing", I'm not sure how else I can say it. Every business has things they want and don't want. That's not patronizing, that's trying to communicate what we're doing. We are not going to have a community where board members post pictures of women, often without their consent and then objectify them with crude comments we have to delete. I don't know how else to say that more clearly. 

All caps and maybe some bolding.

 

[flranger]

And there goes the Avatar

<-------

 

[NotSmart]

Thanks scoresman. You're right in that I'm trying to take the community in a direction I want it to be. Those that don't want that won't stay. That's just reality.

As for the "not what we want here" as "patronizing", I'm not sure how else I can say it. Every business has things they want and don't want. That's not patronizing, that's trying to communicate what we're doing. 

Out of curiosity, did you edit this?.... it doesn't show the edited flag, but in gianmarco's reply to you it had this extra text that doesn't appear in your post:

"We are not going to have a community where board members post pictures of women, often without their consent and then objectify them with crude comments we have to delete. I don't know how else to say that more clearly."

 

[Joe Bryant]

Out of curiosity, did you edit this?.... it doesn't show the edited flag, but in gianmarco's reply to you it had this extra text that doesn't appear in your post:

"We are not going to have a community where board members post pictures of women, often without their consent and then objectify them with crude comments we have to delete. I don't know how else to say that more clearly."

Yes. 

Should show up that way. Although sometimes lags a second or two until refresh.

 

[NotSmart]

Yes. 

Should show up that way.

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why the "Edited" flag wasn't showing up.

I've always had it show up every time I've made an edit.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why the "Edited" flag wasn't showing up.

I've always had it show up every time I've made an edit.

Thanks. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

People won’t leave because we can’t have who’s hottest threads. People will leave because you are taking a community that is important to them and slowly trying to mold it into something that it simply isn’t. 

And the usual “it’s not something we want here” is still fairly patronizing. 

I’m struggling to understand why the description of the community has to include picture links and comments about scantily dressed women.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I personally couldn't care less about losing "Who's hottest?" polls and understand the thinking behind it. 

My concern is the ripple effect. @otb_liferhas now quit the FFA due to the purge of the "In praise of the lovely ladies" thread, which in turn destroys the Triple Crown thread. I hope that's the extent of it. That was a great thread, maybe the best in the forum. 

 

[Galileo]

I personally couldn't care less about losing "Who's hottest?" polls and understand the thinking behind it. 

My concern is the ripple effect. @otb_liferhas now quit the FFA due to the purge of the "In praise of the lovely ladies" thread, which in turn destroys the Triple Crown thread. I hope that's the extent of it. That was a great thread, maybe the best in the forum. 

:(   He had elevated posting to an art form in that thread.    

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I personally couldn't care less about losing "Who's hottest?" polls and understand the thinking behind it. 

My concern is the ripple effect. @otb_liferhas now quit the FFA due to the purge of the "In praise of the lovely ladies" thread, which in turn destroys the Triple Crown thread. I hope that's the extent of it. That was a great thread, maybe the best in the forum. 

Is that the dude who starts threads about cuff links and tie clips and such?

 

[Scoresman]

I’m struggling to understand why the description of the community has to include picture links and comments about scantily dressed women.

You didn’t really read my post I take it. It’s not the whos hottest threads that’s the issue. It’s the ripple effect and cumulative effect of these seemingly semi-annual appearances by Joe banning something else from the boards. 

And if you’ve been reading this thread, it’s not just the who’s hottest threads getting the axe but a lot more that really had nothing to do with objectifying women. 

 

[HellToupee]

Is that the dude who starts threads about cuff links and tie clips and such?

He was a big participant in my underwear & socks thread. Real cool guy

 

[Juxtatarot]

You didn’t really read my post I take it. It’s not the whos hottest threads that’s the issue. It’s the ripple effect and cumulative effect of these seemingly semi-annual appearances by Joe banning something else from the boards. 

And if you’ve been reading this thread, it’s not just the who’s hottest threads getting the axe but a lot more that really had nothing to do with objectifying women. 

I went back and re-read every post of yours in this thread. I’m still struggling to understand your point. What changes are negatively harming the sense of community? I don’t remember all the “axes” in recent years. Last year was more about moderating and us being nicer to each other.  I don’t remember other changes.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You didn’t really read my post I take it. It’s not the whos hottest threads that’s the issue. It’s the ripple effect and cumulative effect of these seemingly semi-annual appearances by Joe banning something else from the boards. 

And if you’ve been reading this thread, it’s not just the who’s hottest threads getting the axe but a lot more that really had nothing to do with objectifying women. 





2

I read the post. I too am trying to understand what you're saying. What is the "ripple effect" and what are the "semi-annual appearances by Joe banning something else from the boards?" What else has been banned?

I don't see any other threads removed that aren't connected to objectifying women. Is there something specific you're talking about? 

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I have NO objection to women

 

[HellToupee]

I blame the political forum 

 

[Epic Problem]

I read the post. I too am trying to understand what you're saying. What is the "ripple effect" and what are the "semi-annual appearances by Joe banning something else from the boards?" What else has been banned?

I don't see any other threads removed that aren't connected to objectifying women. Is there something specific you're talking about? 

Did EG not just detail the ripple effect on this page? Someone left because of this. We know that you don’t care that happened, you’ve made that crystal clear, but members of this community do care. 

 

[xulf]

My "who's smartest" thread got killed so I guess I dont get the rules.  It seems any poll will objectify something, so who decides what can and cannot be voted on?  Can we vote who is better cavs or celtics?  The answer to that is likely the compounded genetics of the team...any different than looks or smarts?  Where does the censorship end?

 

[falguy]

And there goes the Avatar

<-------

 

[Slapdash]

And there goes the Avatar

<-------

Censoring avatars that are NSFW is one thing I'd get, since you can no longer hide them 

 

[Scoresman]

I read the post. I too am trying to understand what you're saying. What is the "ripple effect" and what are the "semi-annual appearances by Joe banning something else from the boards?" What else has been banned?

I don't see any other threads removed that aren't connected to objectifying women. Is there something specific you're talking about? 

Someone else might have the entire history, but come on. Anonymous confessions, that one draft thread that was recently removed for the silliest of reasons, the banning of people who post things mods disagree with politically are just a few. All fairly small things individually, but slowly and one by one, many of the things that make this place a cool place for guys to hang out and talk will no longer be allowed. 

I mean, it’s your forum you can do what you want with it, but you have to admit that a lot of the sudden moderating decisions made over the years have not been received very well by the community that has developed here and it leads me to believe that maintaining that community is not very high on your priority list for these boards, and this is only exacerbated when the usual “this is the way we want it, if you don’t like it you don’t have to post here” statement is made. That’s pretty much the point. I don’t think I’m alone in seeing it this way based on a lot of people’s responses in this thread, but if I am I’ll just shut up. 

 

[-OZ-]

And there goes the Avatar

<-------

I’m struggling to understand why the description of the community has to include picture links and comments about scantily dressed women.

Some people think this is a dive bar?

Censoring avatars that are NSFW is one thing I'd get, since you can no longer hide them 

Exactly. 

If a guest came into my house and posted pictures of scantily dressed women or men, I'd have the pictures removed and ask the guest to leave if he didn't understand or #####ed about it. 

This is Joe's place. He doesn't want sexism, racism, etc here. There are posts I'd be okay with him deleting or blocking which he lets go, that's his choice.

Really though, I don't understand why this is such an issue for some people. I generally clicked and voted but I think he's right here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Did EG not just detail the ripple effect on this page? Someone left because of this. We know that you don’t care that happened, you’ve made that crystal clear, but members of this community do care. 

Sure. I've said from the start I realize some people won't want to be a part of a forum if it doesn't allow the locker room comment stuff on women. Understood and that's fair.  I'm asking what are the other things that "have been deleted semi annually"? 

 

[Epic Problem]

Sure. I've said from the start I realize some people won't want to be a part of a forum if it doesn't allow the locker room comment stuff on women. Understood and that's fair.  I'm asking what are the other things that "have been deleted semi annually"? 

Don’t make it sound like I am off base. You asked about both. I answered the question that I felt I could. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Someone else might have the entire history, but come on. Anonymous confessions, that one draft thread that was recently removed for the silliest of reasons, the banning of people who post things mods disagree with politically are just a few. All fairly small things individually, but slowly and one by one, many of the things that make this place a cool place for guys to hang out and talk will no longer be allowed. 

I mean, it’s your forum you can do what you want with it, but you have to admit that a lot of the sudden moderating decisions made over the years have not been received very well by the community that has developed here and it leads me to believe that maintaining that community is not very high on your priority list for these boards, and this is only exacerbated when the usual “this is the way we want it, if you don’t like it you don’t have to post here” statement is made. That’s pretty much the point. I don’t think I’m alone in seeing it this way based on a lot of people’s responses in this thread, but if I am I’ll just shut up. 

Thanks. That helps.

I think the difference is you and I have different opinions on the type of community we want. You think maintaining the community isn't very high on my priorities. I'd disagree. It's at the top of the priority list for for what I want for the boards. But it's the kind of community I want.

You're exactly right, I put no priority on maintaining a community that wants to objectify women in the posts, make crude comments and have community over what you can say about these women. So it's not that I don't want community. I don't want that kind of community. 

And if that's the kind people DO want, and I fully understand some do, then they will have to find it elsewhere. It's that simple. 

 

[Scoresman]

Thanks. That helps.

I think the difference is you and I have different opinions on the type of community we want. You think maintaining the community isn't very high on my priorities. I'd disagree. It's at the top of the priority list for for what I want for the boards. But it's the kind of community I want.

You're exactly right, I put no priority on maintaining a community that wants to objectify women in the posts, make crude comments and have community over what you can say about these women. So it's not that I don't want community. I don't want that kind of community. 

And if that's the kind people DO want, and I fully understand some do, then they will have to find it elsewhere. It's that simple. 

I don’t think many will disagree with you about objectifying women. Im not arguing in favor of that, but as someone said earlier there’s a difference between objectifying and pointing out that a woman is attractive. I think that’s the other point of disagreement here. 

 

[-OZ-]

I don’t think many will disagree with you about objectifying women. Im not arguing in favor of that, but as someone said earlier there’s a difference between objectifying and pointing out that a woman is attractive. I think that’s the other point of disagreement here. 

Do you disagree that evaluating their hotness in comparison to another is objectifying? Or rating on the offdee scale? (I think that's the one, I could be wrong)

 

[NewlyRetired]

Do you disagree that evaluating their hotness in comparison to another is objectifying? Or rating on the offdee scale? (I think that's the one, I could be wrong)

I thought Krista's post was very eloquent on the subject matter especially since she can approach it from a POV none of us dudes can.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/766416-please-read-whos-hottest-type-threads-and-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=21042221

 

[skol asylum]

Thinking about this a bit more I can see how the owner of a business always has to be watchful of their image. I'm wondering though, how do posts like this fit into that calculus?

This story is about to break as well. and no, it's not about a pizza parlor's basement.  It's about a  global Pedophile/human trafficking network that our US government is actively participating in.  And to think we were this close to increasing our role in this if Hillary was elected.    

Trump's 7D chess moves continue.  The new admin had to sacrifice Flynn, but that was to get out the story of the massive spying on Trump, his transition team, and his biggest supporters on Twitter.  I am enjoying watching Obama's corrupt DOJ crumble.  I am thinking immunity deals might be a tad tougher to get with this administration.      

I couldn't resist. Please don't ban me.

 

[Epic Problem]

Some people think this is a dive bar?

Exactly. 

If a guest came into my house and posted pictures of scantily dressed women or men, I'd have the pictures removed and ask the guest to leave if he didn't understand or #####ed about it. 

This is Joe's place. He doesn't want sexism, racism, etc here. There are posts I'd be okay with him deleting or blocking which he lets go, that's his choice.

Really though, I don't understand why this is such an issue for some people. I generally clicked and voted but I think he's right here.

Yes, I get it. Joe’s house and all, but what would you expect the reaction of the person posting the pictures to be when you allowed him to do it for 15 years without saying a peep about it?

 

[Scoresman]

Do you disagree that evaluating their hotness in comparison to another is objectifying? Or rating on the offdee scale? (I think that's the one, I could be wrong)

I think it is and I’m not complaining about who’s hottest threads going away. I think I’ve said that a few times. But when that is extended to other threads like the over 50 thread and others like it, it’s just over-moderated silliness at that point.  Like with the deletion of the sex drugs and rock and roll draft thread the last time moderation became an issue. What was that about!?

 

[-OZ-]

I thought Krista's post was very eloquent on the subject matter especially since she can approach it from a POV none of us dudes can.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/766416-please-read-whos-hottest-type-threads-and-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=21042221

She's right about the women over 50 and I presume the oddly attractive thread. I don't remember having posted or read the oddly attractive one, but if Krysta says it was good, That's good enough for me. 

 

[skol asylum]

Do you disagree that evaluating their hotness in comparison to another is objectifying? Or rating on the offdee scale? (I think that's the one, I could be wrong)

Do you think, in general, that most of the pictures posted didn't feature women who were objectifying themselves with their posing? You don't think they were trying to "out hot" each other?

I think looking at a group of women who are posing for these types of pictures and wanting to be ogled is one thing. Now say if someone just posted an everyday picture of a woman and said rate her, that's another story.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The number of threads definitely got out of hand. I always thought @franknbeans held an unofficial right to the franchise. 

 

[skol asylum]

The number of threads definitely got out of hand. I always thought @franknbeans held an unofficial right to the franchise. 

This is true. The whole Icarus comment is spot on.

 

[-OZ-]

I think it is and I’m not complaining about who’s hottest threads going away. I think I’ve said that a few times. But when that is extended to other threads like the over 50 thread and others like it, it’s just over-moderated silliness at that point.  Like with the deletion of the sex drugs and rock and roll draft thread the last time moderation became an issue. What was that about!?

I agree with you here.

Do you think, in general, that most of the pictures posted didn't feature women who were objectifying themselves with their posing? You don't think they were trying to "out hot" each other?

I think looking at a group of women who are posing for these types of pictures and wanting to be ogled is one thing. Now say if someone just posted an everyday picture of a woman and said rate her, that's another story.

Just my 2 cents.

Of course they were. But that's not the point on this board. 

 

[-OZ-]

Yes, I get it. Joe’s house and all, but what would you expect the reaction of the person posting the pictures to be when you allowed him to do it for 15 years without saying a peep about it?

My 30 year old son should move out? 

This isn't really different than people in my, or any, organization complaining when things change. Sexual harassment was seemingly okay in many offices for a long time.

 

[NewlyRetired]

 But that's not the point on this board. 

to be fair, it is very difficult to define a single point of a board where it is entitled "Free for all".

 

[BustedKnuckles]

This reminds me of the planet fitness slogan ''no judgment zone'' ...unless of course you are a bodybuilder ......rules are bent to appease those in charge 

 

[KCitons]

Do you think, in general, that most of the pictures posted didn't feature women who were objectifying themselves with their posing? You don't think they were trying to "out hot" each other?

I think looking at a group of women who are posing for these types of pictures and wanting to be ogled is one thing. Now say if someone just posted an everyday picture of a woman and said rate her, that's another story.

Just my 2 cents.

This is a point that has been lost by both sides. And one that I think Joe may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Posting a picture of a group of women and asking "Who's Hottest" doesn't automatically make the last place girl ugly. At the same time, there were some comments that were over the line. But, there are lots of threads were comments go over the line. Perhaps the solution is to police the comments more and not the content. Make it known that the threads can stay, but inappropriate comments will lead to discipline. 

Just looking for a win-win.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long. I think it's a good policy choice.

Writing was on the wall when these poles stopped having a "Smoo" option if you ask me.

-QG

 

[jimmy b]

Enron

Tower Records

Kodak

Sports Authority

Blockbuster

Footballguys

 

[flranger]

Censoring avatars that are NSFW is one thing I'd get, since you can no longer hide them 

And I agree.  Any Avatar that is NSFW should be removed.

But the picture in my Avatar was a simple photo taken from at least 50 feet away of a woman standing upright in a non-revealing position waiting for a vehicle wearing clothing that you see in virtually any mall or airport in America (white yoga pants and a dark shirt).  There isn't a workplace in America where that photo would be NSFW.  It's just retaliation for disagreeing, which probably feels good to the moderators on their moral crusade.

 

[The Ref]

Yeah man you are welcome for the 16 years of support before you pulled the rug out to be the ethics police.

Look it's your site and at the end of the day there isn't anything any one of us can do about it.  But after 16+ years of support you are going to need to forgive some of us if we are a little miffed that you are pulling a "I don't care what you want because only my vote counts" routine after all these years.

it sucks honestly  

 

[Epic Problem]

Yeah man you are welcome for the 16 years of support before you pulled the rug out to be the ethics police.

Look it's your site and at the end of the day there isn't anything any one of us can do about it.  But after 16+ years of support you are going to need to forgive some of us if we are a little miffed that you are pulling a "I don't care what you want because only my vote counts" routine after all these years.

it sucks honestly  

But it’s what “we” want as a community