Shark Poolers...Help Us, Help You (1 Viewer)

[hostile]

I'm in here all the time and I can honestly say I've never once run into a pursefight that involved dynasty vs. redraft. So based on that, I don't think a separate dynasty forum is needed, even though that's all I play.

I agree with this.If someone is vague in posting a question such as, "What is the value of John Doe Player?", people usually ask in return, "Redraft, keeper, or dynasty?". Some will just answer with their take on all three perspectives w/o even asking for a qualifier.I dont think separate forums are required. Besides, many of us play several formats, so its always good to get the multiple views in one place. It's easy to get high on a redraft player, who isnt such a great buy in dynasty...

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I'm in here all the time and I can honestly say I've never once run into a pursefight that involved dynasty vs. redraft. So based on that, I don't think a separate dynasty forum is needed, even though that's all I play.

I agree with this.If someone is vague in posting a question such as, "What is the value of John Doe Player?", people usually ask in return, "Redraft, keeper, or dynasty?". Some will just answer with their take on all three perspectives w/o even asking for a qualifier.I dont think separate forums are required. Besides, many of us play several formats, so its always good to get the multiple views in one place. It's easy to get high on a redraft player, who isnt such a great buy in dynasty...

Again, the post you are replying to has no merit. The issue with dynasty v. redraft has nothing to do with in-fighting (pursefights). I don't know where he got that. Instead, the issue is the muddled picture/topic each thread inevitably becomes. Big difference.Not being a jerk here, but if either of you had actually read the thread, you'd know that.

 

[pizzatyme]

I think it would be cool to have 3 or 4 staffers "live" on Sunday mornings to take interactive questions. Like a live IM box where you could post WDIS, Injury updates, etc. and get an immediate response and know who gave their opinion.

Does anyone else see value in this? To me, this is golden. I would think those that beg for input in ACF would agree as well.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I'm in here all the time and I can honestly say I've never once run into a pursefight that involved dynasty vs. redraft. So based on that, I don't think a separate dynasty forum is needed, even though that's all I play.

I agree with this.If someone is vague in posting a question such as, "What is the value of John Doe Player?", people usually ask in return, "Redraft, keeper, or dynasty?". Some will just answer with their take on all three perspectives w/o even asking for a qualifier.I dont think separate forums are required. Besides, many of us play several formats, so its always good to get the multiple views in one place. It's easy to get high on a redraft player, who isnt such a great buy in dynasty...

Again, the post you are replying to has no merit. The issue with dynasty v. redraft has nothing to do with in-fighting (pursefights). I don't know where he got that. Instead, the issue is the muddled picture/topic each thread inevitably becomes. Big difference.Not being a jerk here, but if either of you had actually read the thread, you'd know that.

I did read the thread. I've never seen any pursefights, confusion, mixups, arguments, distraction, whatever you want to call it on the subject of dynasty vs. redraft. I've never seen anything at all like that. Ever. Maybe I'm missing those threads, but I've been here for years and am in a lot of threads, and I've not ever seen anything that would make me think the forums need to be separated into redraft and dynasty.

 

[pizzatyme]

I think if every new thread that was started had either Dynasty or Re-draft in the title, we'd soon see how needed separate forums might be. Same thing goes for Re-draft PPR or Non-PPR.

Right now it is hard to judge since everything is basically co-mingled.

 

[stevegamer]

I think you need a good solid guide which indicates the "things you should know - but people don't":

- the crown means dynasty, and what other board tags mean and how they relating to what things things

- ability to search using Google for 3 letter words

- etc.

I do think you'll have less postings out here - especially if what I see in this thread regarding bannings are a guide. I've never been given a timeout, but I'm certainly going to post less seeing what's going on.

One thing I would like, but I'm sure won't happen - the ability to put staff on ignore. There are folks I find myself fighting hard to ignore sometimes, and I sometimes lose the battle with myself, and I engage them. I'm not going to change their mind, so there's no real reason to bother trying, but sometimes I feel I must post my opinion.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I'm in here all the time and I can honestly say I've never once run into a pursefight that involved dynasty vs. redraft. So based on that, I don't think a separate dynasty forum is needed, even though that's all I play.

I agree with this.If someone is vague in posting a question such as, "What is the value of John Doe Player?", people usually ask in return, "Redraft, keeper, or dynasty?". Some will just answer with their take on all three perspectives w/o even asking for a qualifier.

I dont think separate forums are required. Besides, many of us play several formats, so its always good to get the multiple views in one place. It's easy to get high on a redraft player, who isnt such a great buy in dynasty...

Again, the post you are replying to has no merit. The issue with dynasty v. redraft has nothing to do with in-fighting (pursefights). I don't know where he got that. Instead, the issue is the muddled picture/topic each thread inevitably becomes. Big difference.Not being a jerk here, but if either of you had actually read the thread, you'd know that.

I did read the thread. I've never seen any pursefights, confusion, mixups, arguments, distraction, whatever you want to call it on the subject of dynasty vs. redraft. I've never seen anything at all like that. Ever. Maybe I'm missing those threads, but I've been here for years and am in a lot of threads, and I've not ever seen anything that would make me think the forums need to be separated into redraft and dynasty.

You're misunderstanding this. You are thinking that because there are no fights or arguments between the two, then there is no reason to change, correct? Fine, but that's not the point. The issue is that there is indeed confusion, and definitely distractions taking place. Frankly, I don't know how you can say otherwise.When you/we are evaluating a player based on two different sets of factors, it is confusing, to say the least, when, in between the discussion, an entirely different conversation takes place...repeatedly. How does that not muddle the picture any of us are trying to paint?

Take Tomlinson, for example. What to do with him in each case (league) is miles apart, so defining the topic as such, I would think, should be paramount. It needs to be the premise. As it stands, it's become more of an afterthought.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

There has to be a way to limit the number of quotes allowed in a reply. I've been on other forums where only the two or three most recent in the quote string show up in new posts. If the argument against this is that it would blur the context of the reply, then I don't buy that. The only people following a 15-quote "conversation" are the two involved and they already know the context.

If this is possible, I think it would be a tremendous thing for all sub-forums. I don't think context is an issue once you get beyond the last couple of posts.I also agree that "less is more" when it comes to pinned threads and it seems, sometimes, that they are not reviewed often for "unpinning." Needs to get lengthy, unfortunately for Sun a.m. injury threads, but many thanks to Andy for staying on top of those.

Thanks for providing this resource and community for us.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I'm in here all the time and I can honestly say I've never once run into a pursefight that involved dynasty vs. redraft. So based on that, I don't think a separate dynasty forum is needed, even though that's all I play.

I agree with this.If someone is vague in posting a question such as, "What is the value of John Doe Player?", people usually ask in return, "Redraft, keeper, or dynasty?". Some will just answer with their take on all three perspectives w/o even asking for a qualifier.

I dont think separate forums are required. Besides, many of us play several formats, so its always good to get the multiple views in one place. It's easy to get high on a redraft player, who isnt such a great buy in dynasty...

Again, the post you are replying to has no merit. The issue with dynasty v. redraft has nothing to do with in-fighting (pursefights). I don't know where he got that. Instead, the issue is the muddled picture/topic each thread inevitably becomes. Big difference.Not being a jerk here, but if either of you had actually read the thread, you'd know that.

I did read the thread. I've never seen any pursefights, confusion, mixups, arguments, distraction, whatever you want to call it on the subject of dynasty vs. redraft. I've never seen anything at all like that. Ever. Maybe I'm missing those threads, but I've been here for years and am in a lot of threads, and I've not ever seen anything that would make me think the forums need to be separated into redraft and dynasty.

You're misunderstanding this. You are thinking that because there are no fights or arguments between the two, then there is no reason to change, correct? Fine, but that's not the point. The issue is that there is indeed confusion, and definitely distractions taking place. Frankly, I don't know how you can say otherwise.When you/we are evaluating a player based on two different sets of factors, it is confusing, to say the least, when, in between the discussion, an entirely different conversation takes place...repeatedly. How does that not muddle the picture any of us are trying to paint?

Take Tomlinson, for example. What to do with him in each case (league) is miles apart, so defining the topic as such, I would think, should be paramount. It needs to be the premise. As it stands, it's become more of an afterthought.

I approach every discussion from my own viewpoint. It's just not a big deal to me. I don't see what the problem is. I mean, don't you in your own mind know the difference between how a player is valued in dynasty vs. redraft? Can't you just realize that in the course of any discussion? I guess I just don't get it. I'd love to see an example of how this is a problem. Even if someone is talking about it from a redraft perspective, it can still be useful to you even if you're thinking about it from a dynasty perspective in your head. Again, I just don't even know what the problem is here.Is it that hard within a single thread to say that "I would still take LT pretty high in a redraft next year" or "What's LT's value in a dynasty league at this point?" I read things like that all the time. It's one extra word in any given sentence.

 

[Bri]

I think it would be cool to have 3 or 4 staffers "live" on Sunday mornings to take interactive questions. Like a live IM box where you could post WDIS, Injury updates, etc. and get an immediate response and know who gave their opinion.

Does anyone else see value in this? To me, this is golden. I would think those that beg for input in ACF would agree as well.

alot of sites, do this and alot of radio stations as well. Vinny Cerrato did this for ESPN between gigs in the NFL.I believe Bloom and Cecil do this over at BTR, not 100% thoughOh oh oh and Jeff T is just wonderful in the AC forum with this type of stuff in his thread

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think if every new thread that was started had either Dynasty or Re-draft in the title, we'd soon see how needed separate forums might be. Same thing goes for Re-draft PPR or Non-PPR.Right now it is hard to judge since everything is basically co-mingled.

I don't want to be too iron handed but I can say with pretty much certainty that we won't be subdividing the forums any further. It's a pet peeve of mine. But I do agree that we should do a better job of identifying whether it's a redraft or dynasty league as that obviously does make a difference.J

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think if every new thread that was started had either Dynasty or Re-draft in the title, we'd soon see how needed separate forums might be. Same thing goes for Re-draft PPR or Non-PPR.Right now it is hard to judge since everything is basically co-mingled.

Most of us use the Shark Pool for general football info. We are alrady missing a lot of relevant info here to the IDP. If you want to cut a shrinking pie in 1/2 so you don't have to be confused as to whether a player is judged to be a 2nd round dynasty or redraft value, you'll be losing a lot of valuable information unless you have the time to peruse all the threads. Myself, I barely have time to keep up on what interests me in the Shark Pool alone.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I don't see where I've changed my tune, Sonny, but if you want to claim "victory," go ahead, you can. Looks like it's a moot point anyway since Joe says a separate forum isn't happening.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I can't believe I just went through all that...

 

[TheFanatic]

Lotta irony here, in that we now do have a bonafide pursefight, and the quoting issue rears its head too...

Is there any better proof than this that there needs to be more crack downs by the Mods in the Shark Pool? A thread about how to make the forum better has dozens of posts from people who state they hate threads that degenerate into a purse fight and then this very thread did just that...Bravo gentlemen.

 

[mightyeskimo]

Great ideas here! Here's my take.

1. I don't like the idea of separate forums for different styles of fantasy play and scoring. Many of us play in more than one league with different scoring systems and formats. Would you really post or search for information about a player you own in two different leagues in two different forums on the same board just because the formats differ? I believe that better visual separation is needed to make it easier to recognize the context that the poster is using.

So, how do we accomplish this?

It would be nice if there was a way to employ a color scheme to the background of any post. For example, if I post an opinion or comment about a player that is based in a Dynasty context I could click an option button and the background of my post, from the top bold dividing line to the bottom bold dividing line, would have a different color. Nothing radical mind you. It has to be easy on the eyes and fit into the overall color scheme of the page. Same thing for PPR. Now I'm not suggesting that we go overboard and have a different color for players that score 4 points for a passing TD instead of 6. That's taking things too far. Start simple, perhaps use our current background for redraft and add two additional choices, one for PPR and one for Dynasty. Or, even simpler still, start with just one alternate color background that can be used to immediately identify your post as having a PPR/Dynasty slant.

2. Content. I'm big on content. Or should I say, how that content is displayed. Up this point, it's really been a text only type of world here. We type out our opinions and comments. Consider what kind of information we are dealing with here. Basic information such as players names, height, weight, age, college attended, pro team, specific physical attributes, etc.. Stats of all kinds! Rushing, passing, special teams, current season totals, past season totals, game logs, in season trends, etc... Audio/Video information such as game tape, pressers, interviews, workouts. Both pro and college. We use all this information, and more, to begin to come to our conclusions. And what is the final media of those conclusions? A text only message board. (Cue the loud sigh by the studio audience here).

How many of you hard core fantasy GM's run your own spreadsheets? How many of you have your own library of game film. How many of you have downloaded Bob Sorters work? This is the type of data that can't be accurately expressed by typing sentences.

I would like to see the addition of an entire array of multimedia capability throughout the whole board. The ability to share audio clips and video clips. The ability to upload charts, graphs, pictures and spreadsheets.

Invision

This is a link to Invision, the company that created the software we currently use on this board. In addition to IP.Board, I would like to see Football Guys start using IP.Gallery, IP.Blog and IP.Downloads.

3. The search feature. It's good but it could use some tweaking. Software permitting, if I'm searching for information about Michael Crabtree I want to see the results of my search displayed as individual posts. I don't want to see a list of threads as my search results. I want to see each post that matches my criteria on my screen in full, no matter what thread it comes from. If this is already possible please tell me how to do it!

4. Quotes. Again, software permitting, it would be great if we could treat all quotes (both single and multiple) as an entire collapsible entity. Imagine a + or - box at the top of any post that would allow you to expand and collapse the quote. Then, taking things a step further, each user could have a user preference entitled "Expand all quotes" or "Collapse all quotes" and could choose a default way to view them while on the board. One of the single most annoying things is scrolling through two full screens of quotes that I do not want to see.

Thanks for the opportunity to try and make a great site better. You guys are the best.

 

[GregR_2]

3. The search feature. It's good but it could use some tweaking. Software permitting, if I'm searching for information about Michael Crabtree I want to see the results of my search displayed as individual posts. I don't want to see a list of threads as my search results. I want to see each post that matches my criteria on my screen in full, no matter what thread it comes from. If this is already possible please tell me how to do it!

You can sort of do it, but only sort of.Go into the Search -> more search Options window. Bottom right option is:

Result Type:

Show results as topics

Show results as posts

Problem is that it doesn't show the whole post, it just shows the first line or so. Which often doesn't get you to any post content, it just shows the top of the quote string like "QUOTE (Cookiemonster @ Mar 13 2009, 03:10 PM) QUOTE (fruity pebbles @ Mar 13 2009, 10..."

 

[BeTheMatch]

Lotta irony here, in that we now do have a bonafide pursefight, and the quoting issue rears its head too...

Is there any better proof than this that there needs to be more crack downs by the Mods in the Shark Pool? A thread about how to make the forum better has dozens of posts from people who state they hate threads that degenerate into a purse fight and then this very thread did just that...Bravo gentlemen.

I don't think it was a pursefight, more like a failure to communicate. There was no name-calling!

 

[Moonlight_Graham]

I think if every new thread that was started had either Dynasty or Re-draft in the title, we'd soon see how needed separate forums might be. Same thing goes for Re-draft PPR or Non-PPR.Right now it is hard to judge since everything is basically co-mingled.

I don't want to be too iron handed but I can say with pretty much certainty that we won't be subdividing the forums any further. It's a pet peeve of mine. But I do agree that we should do a better job of identifying whether it's a redraft or dynasty league as that obviously does make a difference.J

We certainly don't want it to end up like FantsyCafe where they have too many forums. Hell you can't find the trees for the forest over there. Too many is worse that too few.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I mentioned this in the Fantasy Jungle thread, but it seems to fit here. If the goal is to keep this forum as newsy as possible, avoiding "personal situation" threads, why not expand the ACF to include all things related to an individual's team/league. I'm thinking of issues related to league management, problems with a commissioner, "would you veto this trade" type stuff. All of these are related to fantasy football, but not very beneficial to others --really no different in theory from a WSIS question.This should also increase traffic in the ACF.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I mentioned this in the Fantasy Jungle thread, but it seems to fit here. If the goal is to keep this forum as newsy as possible, avoiding "personal situation" threads, why not expand the ACF to include all things related to an individual's team/league. I'm thinking of issues related to league management, problems with a commissioner, "would you veto this trade" type stuff. All of these are related to fantasy football, but not very beneficial to others --really no different in theory from a WSIS question.This should also increase traffic in the ACF.

That's a good point, MA. That's how I already see the Assistant Coach forum. But obviously I'm not getting that message out to everyone. The ACF forum really needs to be anything that pertains to your specific league / team / situation. I'll see about changing the description.J

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I mentioned this in the Fantasy Jungle thread, but it seems to fit here. If the goal is to keep this forum as newsy as possible, avoiding "personal situation" threads, why not expand the ACF to include all things related to an individual's team/league. I'm thinking of issues related to league management, problems with a commissioner, "would you veto this trade" type stuff. All of these are related to fantasy football, but not very beneficial to others --really no different in theory from a WSIS question.This should also increase traffic in the ACF.

That's a good point, MA. That's how I already see the Assistant Coach forum. But obviously I'm not getting that message out to everyone. The ACF forum really needs to be anything that pertains to your specific league / team / situation. I'll see about changing the description.

I may have missed them, but I don't remember the Shark Pool previously " policed" for these types of threads or any having been moved. I think that "push-through" strategy would be the more powerful piece in changing behavior.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I mentioned this in the Fantasy Jungle thread, but it seems to fit here. If the goal is to keep this forum as newsy as possible, avoiding "personal situation" threads, why not expand the ACF to include all things related to an individual's team/league. I'm thinking of issues related to league management, problems with a commissioner, "would you veto this trade" type stuff. All of these are related to fantasy football, but not very beneficial to others --really no different in theory from a WSIS question.This should also increase traffic in the ACF.

That's a good point, MA. That's how I already see the Assistant Coach forum. But obviously I'm not getting that message out to everyone. The ACF forum really needs to be anything that pertains to your specific league / team / situation. I'll see about changing the description.

I may have missed them, but I don't remember the Shark Pool previously " policed" for these types of threads or any having been moved. I think that "push-through" strategy would be the more powerful piece in changing behavior.

They get through I'm sure but I always move those types of threads to the ACF Forum.J

 

[Tick]

The search function continues to be approximately 99.2 percent useless. Something needs to be fixed there.

Just curious... have you used the Google site search at the bottom of the Search page? I like it. Use +, -, and quotes and you can do pretty well with it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The search function continues to be approximately 99.2 percent useless. Something needs to be fixed there.

Hi btm,What about it gives you trouble? We're working on the google search so you can do the 3 letter searches but I use the search a lot and it works pretty well. What are you having trouble with 90% of the time?J

 

[chuckster]

ACF is too sparsely populated to be useful.

SP is too over populated to be useful.

Probably should divide the SP into subforums like:

Teams, Players, & Game threads

News, Injuries, Trades, and Rumors

Fantasy Football Strategy, Theory, and Discussion

College & other non-NFL football

 

[BeTheMatch]

The search function continues to be approximately 99.2 percent useless. Something needs to be fixed there.

Hi btm,What about it gives you trouble? We're working on the google search so you can do the 3 letter searches but I use the search a lot and it works pretty well. What are you having trouble with 90% of the time?J

I never knew that search function at the bottom was any different than the one at the top. Still haven't tried that out. Sounds like it's better. But the regular search at the top, I'll search for things and it just never seems to turn up what I'm looking for. There will be things I know were out there, but I can't find them again. Maybe there could be a way to break down your search to titles only or something if you wanted. That could limit the number of returns you get and make it easier to find. But you could also expand the search if that didn't work. I don't know. I've just never had any luck with it. As people have pointed out, the three-letter word restrictions, etc., have also been a pain. I guess I'll have to try out the one at the bottom.

 

[habsfan]

Forgive me if it's been said but part of the issue is that the SP seems more a "place" (read: hang out at the pub) than a way to organize topics. I'm not saying it's a bad thing exactly but it does muddy the waters when you try to "purify" it.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Maybe there could be a way to break down your search to titles only or something if you wanted.

you've always been able to do this.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?act=Search

Search Where:

_ Search Entire Post

_ Search Titles Only

 

[Bernman2]

I apologize if anyone already suggested this, because I didn't read through all the posts. However, for the confusion on whether someone is referring to Dynasty or Redraft, and PPR or no in their comments, couldn't it be setup so that the next time each person posts, it makes them answer the question:

What type of a league do you primarily play in? Dynasty, Keeper, or Redraft? ANd then the question, do you use PPR or not?

Once those two questions are answered, by their name in all the postings you could put underneath that the poster is primarily a 'Redraft League' player using PPR, for example. That way, if anyone had any doubts about what type of a league their answer was based on, they could just look to the left of the post for the most likely answer.

Not sure if that's do-able, but it seems like it would solve that little riddle.

 

[RC94]

I apologize if anyone already suggested this, because I didn't read through all the posts. However, for the confusion on whether someone is referring to Dynasty or Redraft, and PPR or no in their comments, couldn't it be setup so that the next time each person posts, it makes them answer the question:What type of a league do you primarily play in? Dynasty, Keeper, or Redraft? ANd then the question, do you use PPR or not?Once those two questions are answered, by their name in all the postings you could put underneath that the poster is primarily a 'Redraft League' player using PPR, for example. That way, if anyone had any doubts about what type of a league their answer was based on, they could just look to the left of the post for the most likely answer.Not sure if that's do-able, but it seems like it would solve that little riddle.

If you put the crown smiley next to your thread or post, it is supposed to signify that you are talking about a dynasty league. I think it can be effective, but they have to get the word out better because most people don't seem to be aware of it right now.

 

[bentley]

This is a fantasy football forum so I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears...but I wish there were game threads for actual game discussion and then game threads for FF discussion. A few years ago I would come home from the Bucs game and see 100+ replies on the game, and most of them would be actual interesting game conversation.

There's nothing I hate here more than the posts that you talked about in this thread. There are already threads for venting/bragging about your team that nobody else cares about. Generally, we need a game discussion thread, and then everyone else should be punched in the face for the "COME ON WITTEN! ONE MORE CATCH FOR 13 YARDS AND I WIN MY GAME!" comments. You should check out the Dallas Cowboys game threads when Bogart and I are both around. We usually manage to police it pretty well.

 

[bentley]

The shark pool is not the place for dooshbaggery. That's what the FFA is for. I think the whip should be cracked faster and harder when the discussion veers from the topic into personal attacks. I don't want to have to weed through a myriad of name calling to find a well thought out opinion by someone with some great statistical support. That great post is lost to people that don't scroll down through that crap...I don't mind a little policing of a board such as when discussing what a player will do in the following year some guy chimes in with, "I just traded X and Y for that player," and someone responds with "good to hear. Can you keep us posted on all of your teams this year." But when someone says X player is going to run for Y amount of yards and Z TD's because in the second half he really started to come into his own with X carries per game, Y YPC, and Z TD's per game, yada yada yada and someone responds with "your an idiot if you think that teams won't game plan against this guy now." No logical argument, just opinion backed with more opinion and some name calling...

I agree with this. Every time I decide to be part of the solution and not problem, I wander in to a thread and it's nothing but a bunch of guys talking nonsense to each other. You must be a XXX owner, You must be an idiot, etc. etc. etc. I usually getting frustrated, posting a wisecrack or two that don't help, and moving on.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The shark pool is not the place for dooshbaggery. That's what the FFA is for.

I think the whip should be cracked faster and harder when the discussion veers from the topic into personal attacks. I don't want to have to weed through a myriad of name calling to find a well thought out opinion by someone with some great statistical support. That great post is lost to people that don't scroll down through that crap...

I don't mind a little policing of a board such as when discussing what a player will do in the following year some guy chimes in with, "I just traded X and Y for that player," and someone responds with "good to hear. Can you keep us posted on all of your teams this year." But when someone says X player is going to run for Y amount of yards and Z TD's because in the second half he really started to come into his own with X carries per game, Y YPC, and Z TD's per game, yada yada yada and someone responds with "your an idiot if you think that teams won't game plan against this guy now." No logical argument, just opinion backed with more opinion and some name calling...

I agree with this. Every time I decide to be part of the solution and not problem, I wander in to a thread and it's nothing but a bunch of guys talking nonsense to each other. You must be a XXX owner, You must be an idiot, etc. etc. etc. I usually getting frustrated, posting a wisecrack or two that don't help, and moving on.

That's a good example. This is how most people react I think. Most people will roll with the flow of how the thread is going. If they see it falling apart, they throw more fuel on the fire and get out. The key is getting folks to care and help police some of the noise and keep things on track. I think we can do that.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another really important thing is reporting threads. If you don't feel like trying to police it yourself, just take 2 seconds to click the report button so we can take a look.

J

 

[Couch Potato]

I would like to see the 'Expert Rankings' updated a lot more often by a lot more of the staff than what looks to be happening now.I understand it's the non-playing season, but they're still a very useful tool (when reasonably current) in offseason trading.Right now if you look at 'Dynasty Overall Rankings' one staff member has updated it since 11/10/08, while 3 others' latest entries are from July and August of '08.If it's not reasonably current, they're really not worthwhile.Just my

I would like a page, set up just like the 'Expert Rankings' page, but for 'Message Boarder Rankings' which would link from the Shark Pool or even be part of the Message Board somehow. I think if FBG approved 20-40+ willing and knowledgeable posters to contribute in this regard it'd be valuable to a lot of us. I wouldn't want every poster in this place to be allowed to have rankings on the page, but I think staff could select a pretty good list of knowledgeable guys. I'd love to be a contributor to the dynasty rankings for example.It's likely that if there were 20-40 guys allowed to do this, there would be more sets of rankings that were up-to-date at any given time, and would reflect recent news and events more quickly.

 

[bentley]

The shark pool is not the place for dooshbaggery. That's what the FFA is for.

I think the whip should be cracked faster and harder when the discussion veers from the topic into personal attacks. I don't want to have to weed through a myriad of name calling to find a well thought out opinion by someone with some great statistical support. That great post is lost to people that don't scroll down through that crap...

I don't mind a little policing of a board such as when discussing what a player will do in the following year some guy chimes in with, "I just traded X and Y for that player," and someone responds with "good to hear. Can you keep us posted on all of your teams this year." But when someone says X player is going to run for Y amount of yards and Z TD's because in the second half he really started to come into his own with X carries per game, Y YPC, and Z TD's per game, yada yada yada and someone responds with "your an idiot if you think that teams won't game plan against this guy now." No logical argument, just opinion backed with more opinion and some name calling...

I agree with this. Every time I decide to be part of the solution and not problem, I wander in to a thread and it's nothing but a bunch of guys talking nonsense to each other. You must be a XXX owner, You must be an idiot, etc. etc. etc. I usually getting frustrated, posting a wisecrack or two that don't help, and moving on.

That's a good example. This is how most people react I think. Most people will roll with the flow of how the thread is going. If they see it falling apart, they throw more fuel on the fire and get out. The key is getting folks to care and help police some of the noise and keep things on track. I think we can do that.

J

Am I allowed to crack on my own use of the English language? That was terrible.But I think the stuff here is what we really need to get at. That's what's holding the Shark Pool back. It seems like the number of good posters has remained generally constant while the number of gooberheads has grown as the member count grows.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think we're on board with the need for more policing of the stuff that clogs threads. It's going to happen.

Here's what we need though...reporting threads is key, but please be explicit when you report something. Or, if someone in particular is really bothering you, feel free to PM or email me [or another admin] directly and make your case. Links to specific examples of the egregious behavior will help make things happen a lot quicker than otherwise.

 

[Couch Potato]

np. I'm not sure it was a good analogy. I tend to go for humor sometimes, which worries me if they cut down on it.

No offense but we definitely want more discussion and less attempts at humor in the Shark Pool. Hit up the FFA for the humor stuff.J

No problem. But can Couch Potato be exempt from that?

I don't know whether to say thanks... or for putting the spotlight on me for Joe. Ouch.I've cut way back on the nonsense the last couple years at Joe's request. I know I was doing way too much of it at one time. One thing I didn't / don't do though is use the comedy as a veiled shot at someone on the board. It was never about that.I still like to have fun though, that's part of why I'm here, so I really have to remind myself to be careful. Sometimes I forget. It's my nature I guess.I had a recent thread that had fun with player names (I called it 'Connections I'd like to See' or something like that) and figured that since it's March and things are slow, maybe no one would mind. No one complained or reprimanded me for it, but I wouldn't have posted it in August.But I'm trying to be good!

 

[rzrback77]

np. I'm not sure it was a good analogy. I tend to go for humor sometimes, which worries me if they cut down on it.

No offense but we definitely want more discussion and less attempts at humor in the Shark Pool. Hit up the FFA for the humor stuff.J

No problem. But can Couch Potato be exempt from that?

I don't know whether to say thanks... or for putting the spotlight on me for Joe. Ouch.I've cut way back on the nonsense the last couple years at Joe's request. I know I was doing way too much of it at one time. One thing I didn't / don't do though is use the comedy as a veiled shot at someone on the board. It was never about that.I still like to have fun though, that's part of why I'm here, so I really have to remind myself to be careful. Sometimes I forget. It's my nature I guess.I had a recent thread that had fun with player names (I called it 'Connections I'd like to See' or something like that) and figured that since it's March and things are slow, maybe no one would mind. No one complained or reprimanded me for it, but I wouldn't have posted it in August.But I'm trying to be good!

I agree that name calling (especially attempts to outquote the other) should be policed, but information and well thought out opinions along with humor is much needed and I appreciate most all of CP's posts. I think that policing and increased use of the report button will help a lot.

 

[Joe Bryant]

np. I'm not sure it was a good analogy. I tend to go for humor sometimes, which worries me if they cut down on it.

No offense but we definitely want more discussion and less attempts at humor in the Shark Pool. Hit up the FFA for the humor stuff.J

No problem. But can Couch Potato be exempt from that?

I don't know whether to say thanks... or for putting the spotlight on me for Joe. Ouch.I've cut way back on the nonsense the last couple years at Joe's request. I know I was doing way too much of it at one time. One thing I didn't / don't do though is use the comedy as a veiled shot at someone on the board. It was never about that.I still like to have fun though, that's part of why I'm here, so I really have to remind myself to be careful. Sometimes I forget. It's my nature I guess.I had a recent thread that had fun with player names (I called it 'Connections I'd like to See' or something like that) and figured that since it's March and things are slow, maybe no one would mind. No one complained or reprimanded me for it, but I wouldn't have posted it in August.But I'm trying to be good!

You're ok. I know you're trying to cut back on it and that's fine, no worries. The trouble is that for every guy that does succeed in being funny on something, there are 5 that think they're funny but are not. And it's hard to tell them without hurting feelings. So as a general rule, be funny in the FFA. In the Shark Pool, not as much. J

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Another really important thing is reporting threads. If you don't feel like trying to police it yourself, just take 2 seconds to click the report button so we can take a look. J

Do you really want your posters to start policing each other? You've discussed that one-liners usually tick off someone and starts sending a thread downhill already. I can promise you that if other users start acting as board cops that you're going to create a lot of unnecessary back and forth between the self-proclaimed cop and the person he/she is policing.The mods need to do the policing if you want to keep the threads on topic, IMO.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Another really important thing is reporting threads. If you don't feel like trying to police it yourself, just take 2 seconds to click the report button so we can take a look. J

Do you really want your posters to start policing each other? You've discussed that one-liners usually tick off someone and starts sending a thread downhill already. I can promise you that if other users start acting as board cops that you're going to create a lot of unnecessary back and forth between the self-proclaimed cop and the person he/she is policing.The mods need to do the policing if you want to keep the threads on topic, IMO.

Reporting lets staff know that there is something a poster thinks that might require our attention. We can't be everywhere, so it does help.

 

[Bri]

I mentioned this in the Fantasy Jungle thread, but it seems to fit here. If the goal is to keep this forum as newsy as possible, avoiding "personal situation" threads, why not expand the ACF to include all things related to an individual's team/league. I'm thinking of issues related to league management, problems with a commissioner, "would you veto this trade" type stuff. All of these are related to fantasy football, but not very beneficial to others --really no different in theory from a WSIS question.This should also increase traffic in the ACF.

That's a good point, MA. That's how I already see the Assistant Coach forum. But obviously I'm not getting that message out to everyone. The ACF forum really needs to be anything that pertains to your specific league / team / situation. I'll see about changing the description.J

what if the staff re-hashed out what they wanted in ACF and what they wanted in the Pool. There's a good amount that I'd guess alot of us think could go in either forum but, it gets posted in the Pool because it's got more traffic.Do you think Pool members could adjust or would it be a nightmare for you guys to have to transfer a zillion threads to the AC forum?what are your thoughts on all this Joe? It seems like ACF v Pool has been a point of contention for a long time.

 

[Musesboy]

This thread is making me think, and that's something I like to do. So for the last couple of hours, I have been wondering why I hardly ever post in the Shark Pool anymore. It used to be something I enjoyed. Is it a change in me, or in the Shark Pool itself?

This opportunity to voice our ideas suggests that Footballguys has identified a problem. So is this thread just for us to have our say, or does Footballguys have an idea of what it wants? I think this is an important question. In order to reach a goal, you first have to identify what that goal is. So is this thread to gather a collection of ideas and sift out those with value, or is it to confirm something that Footballguys already believes about the Shark Pool? Maybe it is both?

The general feeling seems to be that the following types of post are superfluous:

1) Personal attacks

2) Inappropriate use of humor

3) Timewasters that just want to talk about how a player has just affected the outcome of their fantasy game (particularly in injury threads)

4) Confusion over the intent of a thread (dynasty, PPR, or whatever)

5) False reporting

6) Clutter - by failing to use the search function or by inappropriate bumping of old posts to say "I told you so" or "you're an idiot"

There are probably others.

Human beings have the power to change or achieve almost anything in life. The first step is deciding the goal(s).

So what do we want? What does Footballguys want? Can we define it and get on the same page?

Here are some things that I would like to see:

1) Elimination of personal attacks. Three strikes in a certain time period (or ever?) and you are gone.

2) No more posts that only have interest to the OP. Such as "Westbrook just knelt down and cost me my season." If people really can't live without the bragging aspect, or how this affects me, then confine it to one thread that is stickied. Those that have no interest can simply stay out of that thread. Enforce the rule if posters don't respect it.

3) If a post is a rumor, then clearly state it. Anything reported as fact, such as "player X is about to be cut," should not be reported as fact unless there is a clear reason to do so (provide a link/state a source).

4) Sites such as Amazon give readers the ability to vote whether a comment was a useful addition to the conversation. That would help identify people that genuinely want to discuss something, as well as the timewasters (unless that too is misused).

5) No more threads that are simply one icon. Only post something that adds to the discussion. It can be annoying when someone adds and the next two or three posters add in approval of the use of the icon. Do we really need that? Sure, it's fine to approve, but please say why.

6) This is my main suggestion. When making a post, add radio buttons to say what the post is. Is it dynasty, redraft, PPR, injury news, speculation, a performance projection? Make the use of this a requirement so that the post will not go through without a designation. That would clearly identify what it is, and would remove any need for subforums. The only thing I can see against this is when someone wants to talk about things that fall into more than one category. For example: What is the value of Owens this year? For dynasty purposes? For PPR leagues? That might inflate the number of posts. An alternative would be to make posters designate individual replies as PPR, dynasty, redraft etc. instead of just having a post for each. By making the poster think about and state the rationale, it would help eliminate confusion.

As with any rule or law, these things are only as good as the quality of those that choose to abide by it. So again: decide what you/we want; define it; police it and make it happen.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another really important thing is reporting threads. If you don't feel like trying to police it yourself, just take 2 seconds to click the report button so we can take a look. J

Do you really want your posters to start policing each other? You've discussed that one-liners usually tick off someone and starts sending a thread downhill already. I can promise you that if other users start acting as board cops that you're going to create a lot of unnecessary back and forth between the self-proclaimed cop and the person he/she is policing.The mods need to do the policing if you want to keep the threads on topic, IMO.

Absolutely I want the posters to police each other by use of the report button. We don't just want that, we need that. The moderators will do the actual policing by deleting posts or moving threads or removing posters. But with so many threads open at one time, they need help. The report button is by far the best way to help this happen.J

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Another really important thing is reporting threads. If you don't feel like trying to police it yourself, just take 2 seconds to click the report button so we can take a look. J

Do you really want your posters to start policing each other? You've discussed that one-liners usually tick off someone and starts sending a thread downhill already. I can promise you that if other users start acting as board cops that you're going to create a lot of unnecessary back and forth between the self-proclaimed cop and the person he/she is policing.The mods need to do the policing if you want to keep the threads on topic, IMO.

Absolutely I want the posters to police each other by use of the report button. We don't just want that, we need that. The moderators will do the actual policing by deleting posts or moving threads or removing posters. But with so many threads open at one time, they need help. The report button is by far the best way to help this happen.J

I misread your original post. I originally thought you wanted posters policing each other on the boards; not with the report button. Sorry about that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another really important thing is reporting threads. If you don't feel like trying to police it yourself, just take 2 seconds to click the report button so we can take a look. J

Do you really want your posters to start policing each other? You've discussed that one-liners usually tick off someone and starts sending a thread downhill already. I can promise you that if other users start acting as board cops that you're going to create a lot of unnecessary back and forth between the self-proclaimed cop and the person he/she is policing.The mods need to do the policing if you want to keep the threads on topic, IMO.

Absolutely I want the posters to police each other by use of the report button. We don't just want that, we need that. The moderators will do the actual policing by deleting posts or moving threads or removing posters. But with so many threads open at one time, they need help. The report button is by far the best way to help this happen.J

I misread your original post. I originally thought you wanted posters policing each other on the boards; not with the report button. Sorry about that.

No worries, RW. When you write like I do, it's not hard for people to misinterpret. All good.J

 

[obxlegends]

Half the people are talking dynasty. The other half, re-draft. Hard to tell when; and muddles the picture/thread.

I would definitely start here with any changes...

I understand what you guys are talking about here, but just to flesh it out more. How would you propose we monitor that? It would be redundant to have to duplicate every thread and discuss the merits from both dynasty and redraft. Would having people clearly state whether they were speaking dynasty or redraft help?

Maybe there could be a check box for "dynasty" or "re-draft" or "ppr" or not when you post (either in topic of initiating one). You check all the applicable boxes that apply to what you're speaking about. Then we you get to a post and you see (for example) a big blue "D" and a green "PPR" you know it's about Dynasty - Point per Reception. It seems quickest and easiest.But is it do-able?

 

[guderian]

One last suggestion. What about getting rid of the more antagonistic smilies? If you were talking to someone in person you'd probably wouldn't after they made a point. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking about how that smilie could be used in a "be excellent" manner.