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

[Tau837]

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.

Completely disagree with this.As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. I use the post a fair amount. What is wrong with agreeing with someone? It doesn't always require verbiage, but it provides support for someone's point. I know I like it when someone gives one of my posts a . And how about ? Pretty much the sole purpose for that icon is a single icon post.I agree with eliminating personal attacks, ACF material, poor attempts at humor, etc. But I'd hate to see the pendulum swing too far the other way, such that all the fun is taken out of the pool. Then it would be like... the NFL.

 

[Musesboy]

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.

Completely disagree with this.As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. I use the post a fair amount. What is wrong with agreeing with someone? It doesn't always require verbiage, but it provides support for someone's point. I know I like it when someone gives one of my posts a . And how about ? Pretty much the sole purpose for that icon is a single icon post.I agree with eliminating personal attacks, ACF material, poor attempts at humor, etc. But I'd hate to see the pendulum swing too far the other way, such that all the fun is taken out of the pool. Then it would be like... the NFL.

Fair enough.

 

[ScottyFargo]

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.

Completely disagree with this.As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. I use the post a fair amount. What is wrong with agreeing with someone? It doesn't always require verbiage, but it provides support for someone's point. I know I like it when someone gives one of my posts a . And how about ? Pretty much the sole purpose for that icon is a single icon post.

I agree with eliminating personal attacks, ACF material, poor attempts at humor, etc. But I'd hate to see the pendulum swing too far the other way, such that all the fun is taken out of the pool. Then it would be like... the NFL.

Yes, but three or four posters doing it in a row is still too much.But I agree with you, not all the fun should be taken out, and in keeping with that idea the board should consider adding this smiley, because it is pure awesome:

Awesome Smiley Suggestion

 

[Philo]

Probably should have sig police too.

 

[comfortably numb]

Like many posters, we have found tiers to be more useful than actual rankings.

Many of the SP Posters when adding in their rankings seperate them by tiers.

Is there a simple way the FBG rankings can indicate a tier?

Maybe just a simple line under the last number of that tier when you sort by individual FBG?

 

[Jason Wood]

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 attacks2) Inappropriate use of humor3) 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 reporting6) 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.

Great questions and comments, thanks for taking the time.In answer to your first question, this thread is an bit of both hearing your suggestions as well as seeing if some of our own views on things could in fact be verified. As we gear up for the 2009 season, our annual planning process involves reviewing every aspect of the company and one area we all agreed needed some re-focused attention was the Shark Pool. While we absolutely have our own ideas of what can and needs to be done, it would've been silly of us not to solicit the forum members' views on this, too. And I can emphatically say that a lot of what's being discussed both confirms and expands the options we're already looking at.

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.

That's a great point. I had never thought of that, but I too am guilty of using some of those smilies sometimes when it probably does change the tenor of the post for the worse.

 

[cobalt_27]

I would say an improvement would be less editing by mods of user created polls

Now here is a great example of just the kind of thing we're not looking for.ScottNorwood started a poll asking how many games the Bills will win with TO on board. He then proceeded to have 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 wins. Obviously he was doing this as a tongue in cheek statement of how great he thinks his Bills will be. But a poll like that, while funny to some, is just noise. Having a real conversation about how many games the Bills are going to win is NOT.

So I went in, added other options, and noted that I edited the poll and explained why.

Total upfront disclosure.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=460078

But Scotty comes in here with his feathers ruffled.

Unnecessary.

Consider this a warning Scotty. Do it again and it's a time out.

Jason and Joe,I think you guys have finally taken yourselves and this board far, far too seriously, if you're going to uptick on the moderation. Jason, you response to Scotty's poll is an obvious example of this.

Look, most of us are not football experts. But, you're steering this board like a Catholic school, hoping that everyone will be on his/her best behavior, so that we have only SERIOUS robotic football discussions where we analyze all facets and corners, deconstruct every play, every personnel decision, every nuance there is because this is the serious business we do here at the footballguys.com.

Stop it, already. Get over yourselves. This is a messageboard full of tools, but by and large, we manage ourselves just fine. Do topics steer off course? Sure, at times they do. But, so what? What's lost here?

If you want to mimic the No Fun League and delete tongue-in-cheek posts like Scotty's Bills thing, you're out of your minds. He's not LHUCKS here.

I'd really do a double-check on how silly this all is. You're going to lose more than you gain, if you go down this road, me thinks.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I would say an improvement would be less editing by mods of user created polls

Now here is a great example of just the kind of thing we're not looking for.ScottNorwood started a poll asking how many games the Bills will win with TO on board. He then proceeded to have 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 wins. Obviously he was doing this as a tongue in cheek statement of how great he thinks his Bills will be. But a poll like that, while funny to some, is just noise. Having a real conversation about how many games the Bills are going to win is NOT.

So I went in, added other options, and noted that I edited the poll and explained why.

Total upfront disclosure.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=460078

But Scotty comes in here with his feathers ruffled.

Unnecessary.

Consider this a warning Scotty. Do it again and it's a time out.

Jason and Joe,I think you guys have finally taken yourselves and this board far, far too seriously, if you're going to uptick on the moderation. Jason, you response to Scotty's poll is an obvious example of this.

Look, most of us are not football experts. But, you're steering this board like a Catholic school, hoping that everyone will be on his/her best behavior, so that we have only SERIOUS robotic football discussions where we analyze all facets and corners, deconstruct every play, every personnel decision, every nuance there is because this is the serious business we do here at the footballguys.com.

Stop it, already. Get over yourselves. This is a messageboard full of tools, but by and large, we manage ourselves just fine. Do topics steer off course? Sure, at times they do.

If you want to mimic the No Fun League and delete tongue-in-cheek posts like Scotty's Bills thing, you're out of your minds. He's not LHUCKS here.

I'd really do a double-check on how silly this all is. You're going to lose more than you gain, if you go down this road, me thinks.

This isn't a game, guy. This is fantasy football.

 

[cobalt_27]

This isn't a game, guy. This is fantasy football.

Something tells me that this "noise" Jason is referring to is the very thing that draws people to this board. Sure, it's an information source. But, it's equally, if not more so, an entertainment venue for the vast majority of us.

What I'm hearing here is that entertainment and fun and banter is going to be sterilized out of this so we can all be real serious and just have serious fantasy football discussions.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

I have not read every post, so I apologize if this has been discussed already.

I would find it helpful if I could see under a poster's avatar if he is a homer for a certain team. There is enough space to add this information, and I would sometimes find it helpful to know this.

For example, if someone is passionate about Ronnie Brown, and I can see that the poster is a Fins fan, I can evaluate better how much credibility I give to the opinions expressed. In some cases, a homer's opinion would be more valued, while in others it could be construed that the poster is partial to his hometown boy.

 

[Tau837]

What I'm hearing here is that entertainment and fun and banter is going to be sterilized out of this so we can all be real serious and just have serious fantasy football discussions.

I agree with this concern. This what I meant when I posted:

I agree with eliminating personal attacks, ACF material, poor attempts at humor, etc. But I'd hate to see the pendulum swing too far the other way, such that all the fun is taken out of the pool. Then it would be like... the NFL.

 

[cobalt_27]

What I'm hearing here is that entertainment and fun and banter is going to be sterilized out of this so we can all be real serious and just have serious fantasy football discussions.

I agree with this concern. This what I meant when I posted:

I agree with eliminating personal attacks, ACF material, poor attempts at humor, etc. But I'd hate to see the pendulum swing too far the other way, such that all the fun is taken out of the pool. Then it would be like... the NFL.

Yup, I followed ya'. After further reflection and thinking about how infrequently I visit the SP, it really has changed into a different culture than years ago. It's virtually indistinguishable from the AC forum now. I'm just clinging on to the past, perhaps.

 

[cobalt_27]

This place would be better if...

1. Less moderation. Continued enforcement against the personal attacks is necessary; but, let's not go overboard here...a certain degree of back-and-forth should be permitted.

2. Continued enforcement of the AC-SP division.

3. There are two major segments of material in the SP: NFL News and Fantasy Talk. Sometimes the two merge and blend together; other times not so much. I imagine I'm the only one who doesn't typically care about fantasy projections/opinions. As a technical point, it would be pretty interesting to have two different forums. But, the caveat here is that an OP for a particular topic could click on an option that gives the option of having his/her post go into an NFL News Forum (NFL), the Fantasy Forum (FAN), or both.

For example...

a. Torry Holt signs with Team X. This would have an impact on the team he signs with, the division he joins, etc. This could go into the NFL News Forum. But, it also has potential fantasy impact. So, an OP who comes in to give a heads-up about the signing could check both the NFL and FAN boxes, which provides a link to his created thread in both the NFL and FAN Forums.

b. Scotty wants to create a poll about how many wins the Bills will have by the end of the season. He would select only the NFL box.

c. I want to create a stupid poll about what people estimate Sage Rosenfels fantasy impact. I would select the FAN box.

Again, the reason for the division is, I imagine people are self-selecting to some degree what interests them. Some people like me come here for just straight news/updates, but couldn't care less about "fantasy advice" stuff. Others want both. This would create another level of specificity that has already been applied to the AC Forum.

But, overall...the level of moderation has really gotten silly. I understand that there's a lot of money that this rakes in, and it is becoming more of a business. But, I would think seriously about biting the hand that feeds and has helped to generate so much of the success that's been earned here. The social interaction and entertainment likely generates as much or more interest here as anything.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This place would be better if...1. Less moderation. Continued enforcement against the personal attacks is necessary; but, let's not go overboard here...a certain degree of back-and-forth should be permitted.2. Continued enforcement of the AC-SP division.3. There are two major segments of material in the SP: NFL News and Fantasy Talk. Sometimes the two merge and blend together; other times not so much. I imagine I'm the only one who doesn't typically care about fantasy projections/opinions. As a technical point, it would be pretty interesting to have two different forums. But, the caveat here is that an OP for a particular topic could click on an option that gives the option of having his/her post go into an NFL News Forum (NFL), the Fantasy Forum (FAN), or both. For example...a. Torry Holt signs with Team X. This would have an impact on the team he signs with, the division he joins, etc. This could go into the NFL News Forum. But, it also has potential fantasy impact. So, an OP who comes in to give a heads-up about the signing could check both the NFL and FAN boxes, which provides a link to his created thread in both the NFL and FAN Forums.b. Scotty wants to create a poll about how many wins the Bills will have by the end of the season. He would select only the NFL box.c. I want to create a stupid poll about what people estimate Sage Rosenfels fantasy impact. I would select the FAN box.Again, the reason for the division is, I imagine people are self-selecting to some degree what interests them. Some people like me come here for just straight news/updates, but couldn't care less about "fantasy advice" stuff. Others want both. This would create another level of specificity that has already been applied to the AC Forum.But, overall...the level of moderation has really gotten silly. I understand that there's a lot of money that this rakes in, and it is becoming more of a business. But, I would think seriously about biting the hand that feeds and has helped to generate so much of the success that's been earned here. The social interaction and entertainment likely generates as much or more interest here as anything.

Thanks for the feedback. The level of moderation is definitely going to increase from what it has been. Of that I'm totally certain. Yes, that means some posters here won't be here. But I'm certain that we are losing posters and potential posters by the dooshbaggery that we've allowed to go on in the SP. I'm certain of that and we will absolutely be having less of the personal stuff back and forth. J

 

[Joe Bryant]

You're going to lose more than you gain, if you go down this road, me thinks.

Thanks cobalt. That's certainly possible. I don't have any crystal ball that tells the future. We will absolutely lose some people with this. But I believe we'll gain the people that have started to drop off because of the increased tool level here. I've heard that again and again how people used to love the SP but now don't want to wade through the noise. I don't disagree with you that some people DO like the noise. There are plenty of boards out there that prove that. I just believe we allowed the noise to overtake the signal a bit and that has cost us. Which one of is right? Who knows. But I think I'm right and this is the way we're going to take the board.J

 

[Tom Cody]

You're going to lose more than you gain, if you go down this road, me thinks.

Thanks cobalt. That's certainly possible. I don't have any crystal ball that tells the future. We will absolutely lose some people with this. But I believe we'll gain the people that have started to drop off because of the increased tool level here. I've heard that again and again how people used to love the SP but now don't want to wade through the noise. I don't disagree with you that some people DO like the noise. There are plenty of boards out there that prove that. I just believe we allowed the noise to overtake the signal a bit and that has cost us. Which one of is right? Who knows. But I think I'm right and this is the way we're going to take the board.J

I like this direction. Thank you Joe and all the other staff members and mods in advance!

 

[Tiger Fan]

1. I understand the downside of starting multiple forums , but if there would be a for the original poster to "categorize" a thread, and give each user the abilty to filter through threads, I'd imagine that would be a wonderful feature. This could cure the dynasty/redraft, basic/ppr confusion a few folks have mentioned.

1a. One of the things I find lacking is actual fantasy football strategy discussion....Maybe it's there, but it's very difficult to find if it is. Personally, SP rankings, and news feeds really isn't my cup of tea, but I could really get behind some actually fantasy strategy (AVT, dynamic VBD, etc) discussion. I think thats what probably brought in a lot of original members, but it really hasn't been there lately IMO.

 

[bentley]

1a. One of the things I find lacking is actual fantasy football strategy discussion....Maybe it's there, but it's very difficult to find if it is. Personally, SP rankings, and news feeds really isn't my cup of tea, but I could really get behind some actually fantasy strategy (AVT, dynamic VBD, etc) discussion. I think thats what probably brought in a lot of original members, but it really hasn't been there lately IMO.

I agree completely with this one. I'm glad you mentioned that. I've been trying to put my finger on what's really "missing" from the Shark Pool, and I think this is one of the key elements. One of the contributing factors is that a lot of the guys that engage in this end up being on staff and then they're focused on projections & submitting articles on time instead of the open strategy discussion that was so great.

 

[Tiger Fan]

1a. One of the things I find lacking is actual fantasy football strategy discussion....Maybe it's there, but it's very difficult to find if it is. Personally, SP rankings, and news feeds really isn't my cup of tea, but I could really get behind some actually fantasy strategy (AVT, dynamic VBD, etc) discussion. I think thats what probably brought in a lot of original members, but it really hasn't been there lately IMO.

I agree completely with this one. I'm glad you mentioned that. I've been trying to put my finger on what's really "missing" from the Shark Pool, and I think this is one of the key elements. One of the contributing factors is that a lot of the guys that engage in this end up being on staff and then they're focused on projections & submitting articles on time instead of the open strategy discussion that was so great.

 

[Jason Wood]

I would say an improvement would be less editing by mods of user created polls

Now here is a great example of just the kind of thing we're not looking for.ScottNorwood started a poll asking how many games the Bills will win with TO on board. He then proceeded to have 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 wins. Obviously he was doing this as a tongue in cheek statement of how great he thinks his Bills will be. But a poll like that, while funny to some, is just noise. Having a real conversation about how many games the Bills are going to win is NOT.

So I went in, added other options, and noted that I edited the poll and explained why.

Total upfront disclosure.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=460078

But Scotty comes in here with his feathers ruffled.

Unnecessary.

Consider this a warning Scotty. Do it again and it's a time out.

Jason and Joe,I think you guys have finally taken yourselves and this board far, far too seriously, if you're going to uptick on the moderation. Jason, you response to Scotty's poll is an obvious example of this.

Look, most of us are not football experts. But, you're steering this board like a Catholic school, hoping that everyone will be on his/her best behavior, so that we have only SERIOUS robotic football discussions where we analyze all facets and corners, deconstruct every play, every personnel decision, every nuance there is because this is the serious business we do here at the footballguys.com.

Stop it, already. Get over yourselves. This is a messageboard full of tools, but by and large, we manage ourselves just fine. Do topics steer off course? Sure, at times they do. But, so what? What's lost here?

If you want to mimic the No Fun League and delete tongue-in-cheek posts like Scotty's Bills thing, you're out of your minds. He's not LHUCKS here.

I'd really do a double-check on how silly this all is. You're going to lose more than you gain, if you go down this road, me thinks.

Sorry you feel that way. Let's just say that the feedback we're getting on the other side of the ledger overwhelms the feedback you're giving.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Sorry you feel that way. Let's just say that the feedback we're getting on the other side of the ledger overwhelms the feedback you're giving.

If the goal is to simply get as many members as possible in the SP then this majority opinion is a good indicator that you'll achieve your goal.The premise of the OP, though, was an effort to improve the SP. Maximizing the quantity of members by no means guarantees an improvement in the quality of the SP content.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry you feel that way. Let's just say that the feedback we're getting on the other side of the ledger overwhelms the feedback you're giving.

If the goal is to simply get as many members as possible in the SP then this majority opinion is a good indicator that you'll achieve your goal.The premise of the OP, though, was an effort to improve the SP. Maximizing the quantity of members by no means guarantees an improvement in the quality of the SP content.

This is completely focused on the quality of the board. If the quality is good, the numbers will take care of themselves.J

 

[phrozen]

any one remember the master index thread...yeaahhhhhh those were the days

 

[Sidewinder16]

Sorry you feel that way. Let's just say that the feedback we're getting on the other side of the ledger overwhelms the feedback you're giving.

If the goal is to simply get as many members as possible in the SP then this majority opinion is a good indicator that you'll achieve your goal.The premise of the OP, though, was an effort to improve the SP. Maximizing the quantity of members by no means guarantees an improvement in the quality of the SP content.

This is completely focused on the quality of the board. If the quality is good, the numbers will take care of themselves.J

Completely agree. Which is why I am against sanitizing the board of humor, or any other emotion. That may be a minority opinion, but I think it's a completely valid opinion.The SP has been, and can only continue to be, a quality place because of the personalities that have congregated here. Not in spite of them. Again, nobody is calling for an increase in dooshbaggery*. But I want to discuss the NFL and FF with people. If I want a dry rundown of the latest news, I can check out the Blogger. I just don't see any possible way for the quality of this place to increase by coming down heavy handed on every slightest expression of humor.

*See, if we didn't have a great collection of personalities, such as TheFanatic, we wouldn't have this wonderful new addition to the FBG lexicon.

 

[Tau837]

Completely agree. Which is why I am against sanitizing the board of humor, or any other emotion. That may be a minority opinion, but I think it's a completely valid opinion.

The SP has been, and can only continue to be, a quality place because of the personalities that have congregated here. Not in spite of them. Again, nobody is calling for an increase in dooshbaggery*. But I want to discuss the NFL and FF with people. If I want a dry rundown of the latest news, I can check out the Blogger. I just don't see any possible way for the quality of this place to increase by coming down heavy handed on every slightest expression of humor.

*See, if we didn't have a great collection of personalities, such as TheFanatic, we wouldn't have this wonderful new addition to the FBG lexicon.

Great post. Agree 100%.

 

[Tau837]

By the way, I guess you guys must have cut down on the number of acceptable quotes just within the past day or two? For example, I was unable to quote Sidewinder's entire post because it exceeded the maximum. I understand the rationale but using the Reply button has just become much less convenient.

 

[bentley]

Just one brief point. "Dooshbaggery" has been part of the FFA lexicon for years.

I'm surprised by the turn that this page has taken. Joe didn't say anything about taking all the life out of the Shark Pool. I'm pretty sure he's just trying to drop the quality content to unfunny one-liner ratio around here. Which is a good thing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Completely agree. Which is why I am against sanitizing the board of humor, or any other emotion. That may be a minority opinion, but I think it's a completely valid opinion.

The SP has been, and can only continue to be, a quality place because of the personalities that have congregated here. Not in spite of them. Again, nobody is calling for an increase in dooshbaggery*. But I want to discuss the NFL and FF with people. If I want a dry rundown of the latest news, I can check out the Blogger. I just don't see any possible way for the quality of this place to increase by coming down heavy handed on every slightest expression of humor.

*See, if we didn't have a great collection of personalities, such as TheFanatic, we wouldn't have this wonderful new addition to the FBG lexicon.

That's for sure a valid opinion. And it's not like we're going to try and squash any semblance of fun. We'll still have that. Just less noise and more real talk. I think we can hit a good medium that works. I think we can limit the tools and still be interesting. We'll see.J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just one brief point. "Dooshbaggery" has been part of the FFA lexicon for years.I'm surprised by the turn that this page has taken. Joe didn't say anything about taking all the life out of the Shark Pool. I'm pretty sure he's just trying to drop the quality content to unfunny one-liner ratio around here. Which is a good thing.

Yes.J

 

[bentley]

Just one brief point. "Dooshbaggery" has been part of the FFA lexicon for years.I'm surprised by the turn that this page has taken. Joe didn't say anything about taking all the life out of the Shark Pool. I'm pretty sure he's just trying to drop the quality content to unfunny one-liner ratio around here. Which is a good thing.

Yes.J

Well, yes except that I had it exactly backwards. Fewer unfunny one-liners. More quality content. I think we still agree.

 

[chook]

I have not read every post, so I apologize if this has been discussed already.I would find it helpful if I could see under a poster's avatar if he is a homer for a certain team. There is enough space to add this information, and I would sometimes find it helpful to know this.For example, if someone is passionate about Ronnie Brown, and I can see that the poster is a Fins fan, I can evaluate better how much credibility I give to the opinions expressed. In some cases, a homer's opinion would be more valued, while in others it could be construed that the poster is partial to his hometown boy.

I came in here to post the same thing. I think knowing which team somebody follows can have a great bearing on how to interpret their posts (ie SD fans like Maurile & TommyGunz in the Cutler threads).

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just one brief point. "Dooshbaggery" has been part of the FFA lexicon for years.I'm surprised by the turn that this page has taken. Joe didn't say anything about taking all the life out of the Shark Pool. I'm pretty sure he's just trying to drop the quality content to unfunny one-liner ratio around here. Which is a good thing.

Yes.J

Well, yes except that I had it exactly backwards. Fewer unfunny one-liners. More quality content. I think we still agree.

Yes. May say something about my (lack of) reading skills but I read it the way you meant it.J

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have not read every post, so I apologize if this has been discussed already.I would find it helpful if I could see under a poster's avatar if he is a homer for a certain team. There is enough space to add this information, and I would sometimes find it helpful to know this.For example, if someone is passionate about Ronnie Brown, and I can see that the poster is a Fins fan, I can evaluate better how much credibility I give to the opinions expressed. In some cases, a homer's opinion would be more valued, while in others it could be construed that the poster is partial to his hometown boy.

I came in here to post the same thing. I think knowing which team somebody follows can have a great bearing on how to interpret their posts (ie SD fans like Maurile & TommyGunz in the Cutler threads).

That's an interesting idea. I don't think the software allows an easy way to do that right now but let me look. It might be a thing where we had all the team's logos available as an avatar to select and the Dolphins fans just select the Miami avatar. It would be better if we had the words below the name that said "Dolphins Fan" or something but I dont think that's easy to do right now. I'll ask.J

 

[chook]

That's an interesting idea. I don't think the software allows an easy way to do that right now but let me look. It might be a thing where we had all the team's logos available as an avatar to select and the Dolphins fans just select the Miami avatar. It would be better if we had the words below the name that said "Dolphins Fan" or something but I dont think that's easy to do right now. I'll ask.

J

Although on a different platform, Big Footy (one of the larger Aussie Rules forums) has users list their team along with their avatar/join date info, which seems to work pretty well for the aforementioned purposes.So I think the "Dolphins Fan" words instead of an avatar would be plenty, should the software eventually allow.

 

[pizzatyme]

Thing I like about this forum:

The ability to use the 'Ignore" button. This tool has cut down on my personal "tool" factor.

The report feature. See above.

The great collection of insight and humor from most of my fellow posters.

What I don't think I'll like going forward:

No humor in the SP.

What I belive the SP could use:

A clearly defined legend that is used to identify threads as being based on Dynasty, PPR, IDP, Re-draft basis.

A way to personally pin threads that are of interest to me. Sometimes, in-season, you can be away from the boards for 12 hours and have to look through 4 or 5 pages of stuff that is unimportant to get to what is important to you. I'm thinking of a Facebook type tool where I can have my "homepage" as I want it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thing I like about this forum:The ability to use the 'Ignore" button. This tool has cut down on my personal "tool" factor.The report feature. See above.The great collection of insight and humor from most of my fellow posters.What I don't think I'll like going forward:No humor in the SP. What I belive the SP could use:A clearly defined legend that is used to identify threads as being based on Dynasty, PPR, IDP, Re-draft basis.A way to personally pin threads that are of interest to me. Sometimes, in-season, you can be away from the boards for 12 hours and have to look through 4 or 5 pages of stuff that is unimportant to get to what is important to you. I'm thinking of a Facebook type tool where I can have my "homepage" as I want it.

Thanks. And to be clear, we're not saying "no humor" as in none. Just less noise and more real discussion. There will always be some lighter stuff. What I'm talking about is the humor attempts (most that aren't humorous - sorry) that clog up a thread. I don't want people having to sift through the humor attempts to get to the real information. If you're into humor attempts, the FFA is the place.J

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The ability to use the 'Ignore" button. This tool has cut down on my personal "tool" factor.

I think making the Ignore button more prominent, or even adding a simple "Add this poster to your ignore list" button on every post would go a LONG way to letting people solve the problems of the SP for themselves.

 

[Jason Wood]

Yep...let's not confuse the "no humor" statement as fact. That's not the intent at all.

 

[guderian]

Sorry you feel that way. Let's just say that the feedback we're getting on the other side of the ledger overwhelms the feedback you're giving.

If the goal is to simply get as many members as possible in the SP then this majority opinion is a good indicator that you'll achieve your goal.The premise of the OP, though, was an effort to improve the SP. Maximizing the quantity of members by no means guarantees an improvement in the quality of the SP content.

This is completely focused on the quality of the board. If the quality is good, the numbers will take care of themselves.J

Completely agree. Which is why I am against sanitizing the board of humor, or any other emotion. That may be a minority opinion, but I think it's a completely valid opinion.The SP has been, and can only continue to be, a quality place because of the personalities that have congregated here. Not in spite of them. Again, nobody is calling for an increase in dooshbaggery*. But I want to discuss the NFL and FF with people. If I want a dry rundown of the latest news, I can check out the Blogger. I just don't see any possible way for the quality of this place to increase by coming down heavy handed on every slightest expression of humor.

*See, if we didn't have a great collection of personalities, such as TheFanatic, we wouldn't have this wonderful new addition to the FBG lexicon.

I won't speak for everyone, but I think we'd like to see the battles eliminated where 2 or more posters go at each other post-after-post-after-post. I don't think people want to rid the board of emotion or humor.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry you feel that way. Let's just say that the feedback we're getting on the other side of the ledger overwhelms the feedback you're giving.

If the goal is to simply get as many members as possible in the SP then this majority opinion is a good indicator that you'll achieve your goal.The premise of the OP, though, was an effort to improve the SP. Maximizing the quantity of members by no means guarantees an improvement in the quality of the SP content.

This is completely focused on the quality of the board. If the quality is good, the numbers will take care of themselves.J

Completely agree. Which is why I am against sanitizing the board of humor, or any other emotion. That may be a minority opinion, but I think it's a completely valid opinion.The SP has been, and can only continue to be, a quality place because of the personalities that have congregated here. Not in spite of them. Again, nobody is calling for an increase in dooshbaggery*. But I want to discuss the NFL and FF with people. If I want a dry rundown of the latest news, I can check out the Blogger. I just don't see any possible way for the quality of this place to increase by coming down heavy handed on every slightest expression of humor.

*See, if we didn't have a great collection of personalities, such as TheFanatic, we wouldn't have this wonderful new addition to the FBG lexicon.

I won't speak for everyone, but I think we'd like to see the battles eliminated where 2 or more posters go at each other post-after-post-after-post. I don't think people want to rid the board of emotion or humor.

Agreed. It's the back and forth "noise" where people get on a smack talking tangent muddying up what could be a good discussion. Most of the time, other people have zero interest in that and want to get back to the topic being discussed.J

 

[PatsWillWin]

I won't speak for everyone, but I think we'd like to see the battles eliminated where 2 or more posters go at each other post-after-post-after-post. I don't think people want to rid the board of emotion or humor.

Agreed. It's the back and forth "noise" where people get on a smack talking tangent muddying up what could be a good discussion. Most of the time, other people have zero interest in that and want to get back to the topic being discussed.J

So how do you enforce this? Are we to report poster who have a "back and forth" that's longer than, what, 4-5 exchanges?I think at some point people need to understand that this is an open forum, and you're going to have to, :gas:, go through the burden of reading some posts that you don't find terribly worthwhile. That includes "back and forth" arguments, posts that contribute nothing more than a , and homers posting biased perspectives about players on their team. You call it homerism, that guy calls it his opinion. You call it "back and forth," those two guys call it a debate. That's just how it is. Everyone has their own opinions of what "noise" is and you simply can't make this place fit all those definitions.

 

[Couch Potato]

Here's the kind of crap I'm sick of, and why I'm here less and less. It seems every time there's an opinion given by someone that isn't already obvious to everyone, this is the response from the dimwits.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=10074570

 

[PatsWillWin]

Here's the kind of crap I'm sick of, and why I'm here less and less. It seems every time there's an opinion given by someone that isn't already obvious to everyone, this is the response from the dimwits.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=10074570

Oh brother. You're going to have a frustrating life if stuff like this makes you .

 

[Couch Potato]

Here's the kind of crap I'm sick of, and why I'm here less and less. It seems every time there's an opinion given by someone that isn't already obvious to everyone, this is the response from the dimwits.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=10074570

Oh brother. You're going to have a frustrating life if stuff like this makes you .

The problem is it's all the time around here. I get to the point I just don't bother posting.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Searching 3 letters? PPR is a great term to add to things, for instance.

 

[H.K.]

Elimination of personal attacks.

Just enforce the be excellent rule and everything else will take care of itself.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I won't speak for everyone, but I think we'd like to see the battles eliminated where 2 or more posters go at each other post-after-post-after-post. I don't think people want to rid the board of emotion or humor.

Agreed. It's the back and forth "noise" where people get on a smack talking tangent muddying up what could be a good discussion. Most of the time, other people have zero interest in that and want to get back to the topic being discussed.J

So how do you enforce this? Are we to report poster who have a "back and forth" that's longer than, what, 4-5 exchanges?I think at some point people need to understand that this is an open forum, and you're going to have to, :gas:, go through the burden of reading some posts that you don't find terribly worthwhile. That includes "back and forth" arguments, posts that contribute nothing more than a , and homers posting biased perspectives about players on their team. You call it homerism, that guy calls it his opinion. You call it "back and forth," those two guys call it a debate. That's just how it is. Everyone has their own opinions of what "noise" is and you simply can't make this place fit all those definitions.

Sure, it's a gray area. But I think we all have a pretty good of what "noise" constitutes. When it gets to back and forth taking shots at each other instead of discussing the topic, that's noise. And we're going to limit that severely compared to what we've had. Yes, reporting is one way. The other is just mods watching closer.As I said, I'm fully aware that there are some that won't like this. That would prefer a more rambling go anywhere smack talking type feel. We're not that. J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Here's the kind of crap I'm sick of, and why I'm here less and less. It seems every time there's an opinion given by someone that isn't already obvious to everyone, this is the response from the dimwits.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=10074570

Oh brother. You're going to have a frustrating life if stuff like this makes you .

Read the rest of that thread. Bicycle rephrased his post and instead of laughing at the guy, responded with something constructive and the conversation continued. He did EXACTLY what I'm asking people to do.So instead of CP posting something heartfelt and feeling like he'd just as soon leave if people aren't really going to discuss things, CP wants to offer MORE good discussion. Instead of bicycle throwing out a one liner jab, he offers real discussion and a post that moves the topic forward. Perfect.

J

 

[Musesboy]

Here's the kind of crap I'm sick of, and why I'm here less and less. It seems every time there's an opinion given by someone that isn't already obvious to everyone, this is the response from the dimwits.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=10074570

Oh brother. You're going to have a frustrating life if stuff like this makes you .

Read the rest of that thread. Bicycle rephrased his post and instead of laughing at the guy, responded with something constructive and the conversation continued. He did EXACTLY what I'm asking people to do.So instead of CP posting something heartfelt and feeling like he'd just as soon leave if people aren't really going to discuss things, CP wants to offer MORE good discussion. Instead of bicycle throwing out a one liner jab, he offers real discussion and a post that moves the topic forward. Perfect.

J

I think everyone instinctively knows what we are talking about here, and when we are stepping over the line. In the same way that people know the difference between right and wrong. The best way of policing this is by each of us thinking about our own actions.I like humor but I'll probably try to add something to the conversation as well as throwing in my one-liner when I post.

We can improve this place ourselves, without making others watch what we do.

 

[roadkill1292]

Here's the kind of crap I'm sick of, and why I'm here less and less. It seems every time there's an opinion given by someone that isn't already obvious to everyone, this is the response from the dimwits.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=10074570

Oh brother. You're going to have a frustrating life if stuff like this makes you .

Read the rest of that thread. Bicycle rephrased his post and instead of laughing at the guy, responded with something constructive and the conversation continued. He did EXACTLY what I'm asking people to do.So instead of CP posting something heartfelt and feeling like he'd just as soon leave if people aren't really going to discuss things, CP wants to offer MORE good discussion. Instead of bicycle throwing out a one liner jab, he offers real discussion and a post that moves the topic forward. Perfect.

J

Wish we could make this work with Christo.Just joking, of course, but not entirely. Simple rebuttals with no explanation are unhelpful at the very most.

Fantasy football is fun. I like joking around while I'm talking about it.