What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

This decision seems a little arbitrary and priggish to me. But, I do thnk I understand the motivation behind it. It's a fine line to walk between thought-policing and wanting your legacy to be positive and uplifting. 

 
I do agree with others that the beauty of this site is that with the critical mass we can have a conversation about pretty much anything. We do share at least one common interest so it does feel like you're hanging out in a sports bar talkin' with a bunch of friends.  To have that censored does take away somewhat from the experience. That being said, the rating threads were starting to dominate the board as much as the political threads.   

Your site, your call Joe.  I think we are crossing the line too far the other way.  

 
Sorry Joe.  I love the board and love the community.  I just hate to see anything diminish the brotherhood we have here.  I know that sounds sounds hokey, and may not be comprehendible to someone who doesn’t post in here every day. 

Your board, your rules. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Hi Folks,

I want to let you know about a change I've made for the boards. One I'm guessing will not be popular with some.

We will no longer have the "Who's Hottest" type threads. That means the polls or the threads where the intent is basically posting pictures of women and guys talk about the women.

This is not the result of any incident or drama. It's something I've thought about for a while. Well before the recent #MeToo events. 

I'm not mad at anyone and nobody's in trouble. It just finally hit me today that these aren't something we want on the boards. And it's not an issue of moderating and taking out the offensive posts. The entire idea of the thread is something we don't want to have. 

And I'm sure there will be people who don't like this change. As I've always said here, I'm not sure our way is the right way. But it's the way we're going to do it. If an FFA without the "Who's Hottest?" threads isn't an FFA you want to be part of, I fully understand. 

And I realize this policy is super tame (or lame depending on your perspective) compared to the rest of the internet. No argument from me. I totally get it. I don't have any say in the rest of the internet. But this is my house here and I do have say in that.

Which leads me to the second part. I apologize. I stood by and let the threads go on. And the buck stops with me. I'm responsible. We're a country that does things. And sometimes people do things that are wrong. But I believe it can be just as wrong not doing something and allowing something to happen. I did that here with those threads and I'm sorry. 

Thanks for being part of Footballguys. And thanks for helping make the boards what they are.

J

**********

Joe Bryant

Owner - Footballguys
Click to expand...
I think this is a good move.

 
Capella said:
I think they were getting overdone. The other day I noticed it was 2/3 of the front page. I don’t have any moral standing against them of course, but they did push more interesting threads off the first page. Feels like something that could have been done a few times a week rather than 15 times a day. 
Click to expand...
 It seems Joe has always felt this way and I'm sure having anywhere from 3 to 9 on the front page made it more obvious. However if the front page held more than 10 topics at a time it might not have been so glaring!!! :rant:

 
It's an odd decision to me but whatever. I can see having issue with too many cluttering up the 1st page and maybe now and then one might cross the line a bit as far as showing too much skin, but it was just a fun distraction for many years here and it's a shame seeing it go away. I never really gave the threads much thought since they seemed harmless but if Joe was bothered by them, there's not much left to say to get them back.

 
Well it's about time. My 70 year old church going mother and all of her friends can finally join the forums. 

 
flranger said:
Are you kidding me, he is getting rid of Yoga Pants and Over 50.  What kind of ##### ### country has this become.  For God's sakes, if StudsandDuds were still posting here he would go on a rant that would live in infamy about the ####ification of this country.

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.  If we lose simple threads like these, whats next.  No more AZRon stories.  No more NRJ.  No man in the yellow hat, no Roy Karpis pool time stories.   I mean this is a travesty upon all travesties.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers used to put women in mental institutions for showing too much ankle and didn’t let them vote. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
It doesn't necessarily. That's why I said I'd been thinking about this well before the #MeToo issues. 
Click to expand...
Wow, you deliberate longer than the Supreme Court @Joe Bryant

Curious as to where you stand on avatars?  More than a few scantily clad, showing cleavage, etc.

FTR mine is not an objectification of Malcolm McDowell or Alex Delarge (although there is nothing wrong with anyone seeing it that way ;) )

 
kupcho1 said:
Wow, you deliberate longer than the Supreme Court @Joe Bryant

Curious as to where you stand on avatars?  More than a few scantily clad, showing cleavage, etc.

FTR mine is not an objectification of Malcolm McDowell or Alex Delarge (although there is nothing wrong with anyone seeing it that way ;) )
Click to expand...
Mine is definitely objectifying overweight marine mammals.

:scared:

 
I still don't understand how we're allowed to appreciate someone's intelligence, or character, or work ethic, or anything that makes them them, but appreciation of their physical beauty automatically equates to objectification.  Someone please explain.  

 
Remember back when the FFA used to have a Babe Bracket?  I think the last one was the year that a bunch of LABSians nominated a transgender who made it through the first couple rounds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
Remember back when the FFA used to have a Babe Bracket?  I think the last one was the year that a bunch of LABSians nominated a transgender who made it through the first couple rounds.
Click to expand...
I think it was actually organized by a moderator. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kupcho1 said:
http://bfy.tw/I5MN
Click to expand...
"Objectification involves viewing and/or treating a person as an object, devoid of thought or feeling."  Determining attractiveness <> objectification.  If I say, girl A looks better than girl B, I'm not viewing them as objects devoid of thought or feeling.  I'm giving an opinion on which girl I find more attractive.  

 
Henry Ford said:
“Objectification” in this context is shorthand for “sexual objectification” which our society has decided is not acceptable while “labor objectification” is. 
Click to expand...
I think in both cases people are being judged on appearance.   Now if you say judging a woman's looks is sexual and a man's isn't then that might be a legitimate argument.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SWC
link me some great old threads brohans
Replies
22
Views
623
rustycolts
rustycolts
R
  • Locked
Dark Mode for League Dominator (PC)?
Replies
2
Views
76
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Big Idea And A Brand New Footballguys Tool - The Assistant Coach
Replies
4
Views
593
Mr.Pack
Mr.Pack

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top