What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

State Of The Board - 2018 (10 Viewers)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Hey Guys.

We've done a thread like several times and they've been helpful I think. Thought I might start another one with a clean slate here. I'll do one in the Shark Pool and one in this forum. I've got a few points to ramble on and then you guys can throw out what you're seeing, what you like and what can be better.

The imminent death of message boards in general and this board, in particular, has been a topic as long as I can remember. This thread had me thinking today and it's several years old. It's something we've become quite used to seeing and hearing.  Not sure what that means.

I do think message boards have been dramatically impacted by the multitude of other social media platforms available for people to communicate with each other. I think that's great. More options and choices for the consumer is hardly ever a bad thing. It becomes an issue of time. You have ___ minutes a day to spend on this kind of stuff. If you start adding time spent on Twitter or Instagram or something else, that time is likely taken from somewhere else. It might be the old message board forum.

Obviously, there are huge boards like Reddit. But my take is most boards are not growing a lot. I think it's the normal progression for most things where a platform becomes "mature" and kind of levels out. Our data bears that out. I don't sense a ton of new folks coming in. But I think it's awesome we have so many "regulars" that are here a ton. Many for years and years.

I completely reject the common internet business idea of "grow or die". For me, I think of the board sort of like a neighborhood and this model feels just about right. If I could wave a magic wand and control how many people live in a neighborhood, I'd like it to be mostly stable with some new people coming in. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but it feels pretty right to me. I think our board here is similar. 

Now of course I don't have any magic wand and I can't really control who moves into the neighborhood. For that, what "control" I have is trying to set up the rules so it's a desirable neighborhood and people want to be here. Those rules aren't popular with everyone. I get it. And that's ok. I fully get I'm maybe not "normal" by internet standards. And neither is this board. You guys have to trust me when I say I've never begrudged a poster who says this is not what he wants and moves on. I want people, including the ones who think I'm wrong, to be happy. Community is so important. We're no different than any other group or community. If the rules are such that you're not comfortable, the right thing to do is find a place where you are comfortable. I've apologized as I've been insensitive in the past and sounded too flippant about this. But it's truly something I mean. I want people to be happy. I hope it's here. But if it's not here, find somewhere where you will be happy. I just want you to be happy somewhere. 

And I realize sometimes the neighborhood rules change. And that leaves long time "residents of the neighborhood" conflicted. I get that. But I'd say it's pretty much like life in general. Just like rules or laws or what's acceptable in society change. There are things one could get away with saying or doing in some neighborhoods 20 years ago that aren't appropriate today. Hopefully, that's for the good. Not to be dramatic, but we've had some changes too. In the past, we allowed the "who's hottest" threads which sometimes turned into locker room talk and guys making crude comments. I've asked that we please don't do that. I've asked that we not turn things like one cheating on their wife into jokes or make light of it. That's a change. Allowing those were mistakes I made and I've learned. 

The biggest challenge with changes though is sometimes not everyone knows the "rules". And the trouble of course is there's lots of gray area. I'll try to do what I did in the "cheating on your wife" thread and be proactive about asking folks to avoid certain things and being clear with the rules. It's not fair to penalize someone when they don't know the rules. 

Last thing, and I think the most important reason why message boards in general and our board in particular thrive are because I think we as humans are wired to desire community. There's a desire for people to gather and share. Sometimes it's pointless and light. Sometimes it's super heavy. We've seen a treasure of both over the years. And that's been because of you folks. I realize me posting on the boards is sort of like the goofy high school history teacher trying to talk to the cool kids in the lunch room. This is more about you folks. What I'll do is try to create the environment where you folks can thrive. That's my role in this. 

That's a little of where I see us in May of 2018. 

If you've got things you see that are positive, it'd be great to hear them so we can do more. If you've got things you see we can do better, that's great too. I'll try to understand the "other" side. But you have to know me understanding the other side doesn't necessarily mean we'll do it your way. But it's always good to have understanding. 

Bottom line is thanks for being part of the boards. They are you folks. 

J

 
Another thing I forgot to mention.

The last big time we talked about this kind of big changes was moving the Political Forum to it's own forum. 

I've got mixed feelings there. I think by and large, it was the right move. I'm still super discouraged we have such a tough time actually having real and civil discussion. But I also realize it's a tense time in politics. 

I think the net for the FFA was a positive in moving the political talk to it's own thing. But I would like the political forum to be way cooler. I'm completely open to ideas on how to better to do that. 

So there's that. 

 
But in all seriousness, thanks for the breakdown. While I think the amount of gray area you’re adding to this environment is only adding to the difficulty of modding it, you’re at least being a stand-up guy about the whole thing. If there’s still something around here that’s been the same as day one, that’s probably it. 

 
But in all seriousness, thanks for the breakdown. While I think the amount of gray area you’re adding to this environment is only adding to the difficulty of modding it, you’re at least being a stand-up guy about the whole thing. If there’s still something around here that’s been the same as day one, that’s probably it. 
Thank you @Epic Problem  That's super kind thing for you to say. 

 
Another thing I forgot to mention.

The last big time we talked about this kind of big changes was moving the Political Forum to it's own forum. 

I've got mixed feelings there. I think by and large, it was the right move. I'm still super discouraged we have such a tough time actually having real and civil discussion. But I also realize it's a tense time in politics. 

I think the net for the FFA was a positive in moving the political talk to it's own thing. But I would like the political forum to be way cooler. I'm completely open to ideas on how to better to do that. 

So there's that. 
The net effect of this was extremely positive.  A great decision was made. 

Conversations in here are better now because they aren't be smothered out by the posters that feel the need to dominate every topic and reply to nearly every post.  If they are still doing that over there, good for them.

 
The board was clicking along just fine Joe, until you decided to go wahhabi Islam and put a burka on all women. 

If you had a problem with comfortably numb putting up too many "who's hottest" threads you could have talked directly to him and solved it. Instead you dropped a Moab and changed the nature of the forum to a 5th grade level. We're all adults, we can handle a chick in a bikini. 

Other than that you've done a great job for over twenty years and I appreciate this "neighborhood". It's the only forum I use online.

 
If you are changing the rules of the neighborhood, I think people want to know why. If there was a rash of break-ins, everyone would get why the rules change in that example.

If we knew what problem you were trying to solve, it would help us better self-police here.  Most people here know that this forum is tame relative to the rest of the internet, so it's confusing to adults why there is a need to make this more tame. 

Additionally, I don't think there is good guidance given on what the new line is.  Give examples of what is over the line and what is OK and then people can more easily adopt to the new rules.

 
Another thing I forgot to mention.

I think the net for the FFA was a positive in moving the political talk to it's own thing. But I would like the political forum to be way cooler. I'm completely open to ideas on how to better to do that. 

So there's that. 
Clean it up, set the rules, and moderate based on your rules.  Just like you’re doing with who’s hottest or cheating on your wife. No one over there is going to clean their own mess up. 

 
Here's the problem I see regarding the PSF in particular but elsewhere to a lesser degree.  Something needs to be done regarding rudeness to other posters.  I know the "rule" is to be excellent to one another.  Also, we should report posts that "go over the line".

However, the "line" and the "rule" are at two different places.  If you start reading random pages in the PSF you will notice several posts than are rude, disrespectful or snarky (certainly not being "excellent") but aren't at the level that posters report or moderators discipline.  An example is the whole  :lmao:  thing.  A poster spends the time writing out an opinion, sometimes extensively, and someone with a different political opinion will reply with  :lmao:  basically just ridiculing him.  That's certainly not being excellent to one another but hasn't been considered "over the line".  This kind of stuff not only can lead to escalations of poor behavior but, perhaps more importantly, just lowers the standard of discourse on the forum.  Of course, the  :lmao:  is only an example.  The rudeness/snarkiness is done with words too.

The challenge for you is get posters to follow the "rule" and not just stay under "the line".  One way, of course, if to moderate more strictly but that will be a lot of work and will result in many upset posters who think they are being treated unfairly.  There isn't an easy solution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clean it up, set the rules, and moderate based on your rules.  Just like you’re doing with who’s hottest or cheating on your wife. No one over there is going to clean their own mess up. 
:goodposting:

One sided bashing is allowed in there and it’s not moderated fairly. Cleaning up the board is fine, but the blind eye this gets isn’t right. 

 
Splitting off a politics forum was absolutely and unequivocally the right move. 

Cracking down on the objectification of women is probably also a good move. 

I wish certain posters didn't chafe so much as a result and move on. That's the only downside to this for me. I never really opened the Who's Hottest threads much and I'm pretty sure I never opened the yoga pants or over 50 threads. But I miss @otb_lifer and others. They were neighbors I never wanted to move away. That's the only real bummer in all of this.

I've always been of the mind that the moderation here, even if it's not entirely in lockstep with how I would do it, makes the board better. Those who cannot express themselves without constant unedited vulgarity or personal attacks tend to fall by the wayside. It separates the wheat from the chaff. 

And these guys are all chaff.

Well... no, we're all wheat.

Why would you want to be wheat, dude?

WHY WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO BE CHAFF?! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Facts:

  • The only reason these kinds of threads are popping up is because people are bored during football offseason.
  • Sometimes I post things over the line and try to get banned because I feel guilty about not spending enough time with my family.
  • Timschochet is not and never was never a troll.
  • Crab Rangoon tastes weird.
  • The Pug breed of dogs should not exist.
  • Arguing politics on the internet is always a bad time.
  • One time during a Super Bowl half time show I watched Oprah interview Steven Tyler.
 
The board was clicking along just fine Joe, until you decided to go wahhabi Islam and put a burka on all women. 

If you had a problem with comfortably numb putting up too many "who's hottest" threads you could have talked directly to him and solved it. Instead you dropped a Moab and changed the nature of the forum to a 5th grade level. We're all adults, we can handle a chick in a bikini. 

Other than that you've done a great job for over twenty years and I appreciate this "neighborhood". It's the only forum I use online.
Basically this.

Its Joe's board in the sense that he owns it. So he has the "right" to make the rules whatever he wants. But as someone else put it, the community doesn't belong to him. Only the URL does.  IMO, its not his place to be the moral police on this sort of level. Censored cursing? Ok, no big deal. No Porn?  Absolutely fine. No inappropriate discussion about illegal stuff? (drugs, underage girls, illegal streaming, etc). I can't imagine anyone would have any issues with any of that.  And I even sort of get killing the who's hottest threads if people can't participate in them without getting vile and nasty.  A lot of that stuff could POTENTIALLY lead to legal issues with the board and its owners, so I certainly understand dropping the hammer on it.

But we're now at the point where we're being told we can't discuss things (decidedly PG-13 topics AT WORST) solely because Joe doesn't feel right about it. I dont know if its a religious thing or a cover your butt thing (I know people in the past have made somewhat joking references about "the church ladies" from Joe's real life finding the board) but its quite silly, especially for a gambling website.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've received a 24 hour and 8 day suspension in the last 6 months. The only explanation I've received is a post quoting my offending post that said, "Don't." I try to be excellent to others and when I get a suspension I feel I should be given a clear explanation of why I was suspended. I've emailed boards@footballguys.com and received no reply. Why can a moderator ban me but give no explanation why? How am I supposed to understand what rule(s) I've violated if there is no explanation? 

I'm an adult and can humbly accept a suspension for something I've done wrong. When I don't know why I've been suspended I'm not likely to change because I don't know what I did wrong.

Moderators need to take responsibility for their actions. And perhaps if moderators and posters knew exactly what the rules are there'd be less confusion.

Also, if a moderator deletes my post because I referred to DJT as Drumpf (because that's the name his immigrant family came to our country with) it just reeks of pettiness. DJT hates and despises immigrants and my posts using that name highlights the fact that he forgets that he himself comes from a family of immigrants.

Sorry for the highjack.

Thanks for providing this forum for me Joe. It's the only one I've ever used.

 
Cutting down on the objectification of women was the right thing to do. Some threads may have gotten caught in the backwash that may not have been strong examples of it, but I think the overall effect is probably worth the price.

I'd like to see a lot less whining about other posters' posts and the moderation. It adds nothing but petty bickering and childishness.

 
Splitting off a politics forum was absolutely and unequivocally the right move. 

Cracking down on the objectification of women is probably also a good move. 

I wish certain posters didn't chafe so much as a result and move on. That's the only downside to this for me. I never really opened the Who's Hottest threads much and I'm pretty sure I never opened the yoga pants or over 50 threads. But I miss @otb_lifer and others. They were neighbors I never wanted to move away. That's the only real bummer in all of this.

I've always been of the mind that the moderation here, even if it's not entirely in lockstep with how I would do it, makes the board better. Those who cannot express themselves without constant unedited vulgarity or personal attacks tend to fall by the wayside. It separates the wheat from the chaff. 
Yep. 

I don't agree with some of the threads that are no longer cool - the "Over 50" removal mystifies me - but I can dig the general sentiment.

If that political forum gets moved back here, I'm gone, though. 

 
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Someone did a bad thing - not the editing of the boards, but doing so without forewarning nor consultation nor any show of respect for membership - and wants to feel good about it. You are the finest person I have ever known, Joe Bryant. Does that shorten this revolting arc?

 
Your board, your rules. I get it.

However, cracking down on certain things here, while still allowing the clown show that is P/R, makes very little sense. And your "report any post that you find over the line" suggestion last week was absurd.  If the mods can read P/R for 10 minutes and not figure out what a cluster it is, no amount of reporting will make a difference.  Threads in P/R divide, while light-hearted threads about hot women or whatever can result in a lot of joking and getting along, but I guess we can't have that. 

Note: I think the "who's hottest" threads were totally out of control, but nothing wrong with the yoga thread or women over 50. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with a lot of this, and I share the sentiment that as a grown man I have mixed feelings about being treated otherwise, and about having to bend to someone else’s moral whims on matters that are PG.  That said, I absolutely accept and support the idea that it’s Joe’s board to do with it as he pleases, and this is the best and only board I go to on the Internet, and on balance the moderating is a positive thing. Just not crazy about the recent changes; seems we had a pretty good thing already that wasn’t broke, and this feels like heading in the direction of breaking it. 

 
I'd like to see a lot less whining about other posters' posts and the moderation. It adds nothing but petty bickering and childishness.
Yep. A lot of, “Come on, Joe, we are adults!”  And yet there is so much childish behavior. 

 
This is one of three message boards and the one I visit most frequently due to the diversity of topics.

I did check out the yoga pants and vote in the who's hottest threads though I hardly ever posted in them.  I get the concept that with voting/comparing, less-than-flattering things get said and that can be uncomfortable.  Not sure an outright ban on these threads was the right solution and I admit I will miss them, but not enough to lessen my visits here.

 
If we are to think about the board as a neighborhood it is really tough not to think of the recent changes as gentrification. Typically, long time residents of neighborhoods being gentrified are perhaps a bit rough around the edges that don’t always talk and act in a politically correct manner but are salt of the earth people that really care about one another. They are what give neighborhoods their character. Just seems to me that telling the neighbors they need to conform to the changes of the gentrification or find another neighborhood rubs a lot of us wrong.

 
I've received a 24 hour and 8 day suspension in the last 6 months. The only explanation I've received is a post quoting my offending post that said, "Don't." I try to be excellent to others and when I get a suspension I feel I should be given a clear explanation of why I was suspended. I've emailed boards@footballguys.com and received no reply. Why can a moderator ban me but give no explanation why? How am I supposed to understand what rule(s) I've violated if there is no explanation? 

I'm an adult and can humbly accept a suspension for something I've done wrong. When I don't know why I've been suspended I'm not likely to change because I don't know what I did wrong.

Moderators need to take responsibility for their actions. And perhaps if moderators and posters knew exactly what the rules are there'd be less confusion.

Also, if a moderator deletes my post because I referred to DJT as Drumpf (because that's the name his immigrant family came to our country with) it just reeks of pettiness. DJT hates and despises immigrants and my posts using that name highlights the fact that he forgets that he himself comes from a family of immigrants.

Sorry for the highjack.

Thanks for providing this forum for me Joe. It's the only one I've ever used.
Hi @Ruffrodys05   

Those are fair questions. Here's how we see it for the most part: I've asked the moderators to copy the content that caused the suspension and paste into the warning. There's an area for the moderators that's "message for poster". I think it's important to let people know.

But here's the other thing. As long as we've been doing this, I'd say way less than 1% of the time when a moderator has engaged the suspended poster in discussion does it turn out to be anything but a negative. Sometimes a huge negative as it did with the Shick issue and the guy who trying to cause trouble for Shick at his real job. The poster almost always disagrees with the suspension unless they were just trying to flame out. It turns into a back and forth mostly "whataboutism" and is usually never productive. So I've advised the moderators to not argue. Just let the user know what was the thing that caused them to be suspended. 

I realize that's not an ideal solution. In a perfect world, it would be best to have a back and forth thing. But it's just not feasible for us. 

So for better or for worse, that's where we are on the moderators and discussing suspensions.

 
I am not leaving even though I don't like some of the new changes but I have been pondering whether it would be better for everyone involved if Joe gave a two month warning to shutting down, giving us time to find a new home all together instead of maybe watching people leave in tiny drips and drabs, slowly reducing the community and having no real way of getting those people back......

 
Hi @Ruffrodys05   

Those are fair questions. Here's how we see it for the most part: I've asked the moderators to copy the content that caused the suspension and paste into the warning. There's an area for the moderators that's "message for poster". I think it's important to let people know.

But here's the other thing. As long as we've been doing this, I'd say way less than 1% of the time when a moderator has engaged the suspended poster in discussion does it turn out to be anything but a negative. Sometimes a huge negative as it did with the Shick issue and the guy who trying to cause trouble for Shick at his real job. The poster almost always disagrees with the suspension unless they were just trying to flame out. It turns into a back and forth mostly "whataboutism" and is usually never productive. So I've advised the moderators to not argue. Just let the user know what was the thing that caused them to be suspended. 

I realize that's not an ideal solution. In a perfect world, it would be best to have a back and forth thing. But it's just not feasible for us. 

So for better or for worse, that's where we are on the moderators and discussing suspensions.
In neither case was this area filled out by the moderator, hence my email(s) asking for clarification. If it had been filled out I wouldn't be asking these questions now. I'd know exactly what I did wrong. 

Thanks for replying Joe.

 
In neither case was this area filled out by the moderator, hence my email(s) asking for clarification. If it had been filled out I wouldn't be asking these questions now. I'd know exactly what I did wrong. 

Thanks for replying Joe.
Thanks. I asked the moderators today to make sure we do that. 

 
Bad analogy using a neighborhood. I don't know where you live but you can't just change the local rules without a vote first.

but if we are going to use the analogy I moved in here 15 years ago along with a lot of other folks with the precived notion that this was an adult board of 20-30 something men but it was a PG forum.  We painted the house, put in storm shutters, kept up the grass and the values of the neighborhood have gone up in part for us being here.

Now we got a rouge politician with the only vote that counts that's calling the shots for what he precives may impact his brand going forward.

The brand is in charge here, not the neighborhood - and that's what upsetting most around here including myself - and you really haven't acknowledged that fact.  It's 100% The truth of the situation.

mind you it's your prerogative - but don't act surprised if some of us aren't completely on board.  don't act suprised when you say "well some of you won't like it and your free to leave if you don't" and then be suprised when some of us are angry/shocked with the "there is the door" approach after 15+ years.  That part really sucks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The brand is in charge here, not the neighborhood - and that's what upsetting most around here including myself - and you really haven't acknowledged that fact because it's 100% Fact.




 
Hi @The Ref  I want to make sure I understand. When you say "the brand" is in charge. What do you mean?

 
It may be hard to tell looking at my post count but I have been around since the cheatsheet days and visit almost every day. The move of the politics to the sub forum was the best change ever made to this board. As I stated in the cheating thread, I didn't care about the "who's hottest" threads. I just didn't like the tone of JB's post in the cheating thread. It may not have been your intentions but it comes off as pushing your morality unto the rest of us. I think anyone who cheats is a scumbag but not everyone may feel the same way. So what if a poster has a positive cheating story! If it going down the road of a penthouse forum letter was your intention, I get that but it didn't come out that way, at least to me and others viewing it.

 
Splitting off a politics forum was absolutely and unequivocally the right move. 
I totally disagree with this. But I don't see you in the political subforum much.

So my guess is - if you don't like the political threads, you want it separate from the FFA. And if you do like the political threads, you want it all one forum with the FFA.

I am in the latter group. I don't come to the FFA main forum as much and that kind of bums me out. I realize its not a big deal to go from one forum to the other - just lazy I guess.

 
I totally disagree with this. But I don't see you in the political subforum much.

So my guess is - if you don't like the political threads, you want it separate from the FFA. And if you do like the political threads, you want it all one forum with the FFA.

I am in the latter group. I don't come to the FFA main forum as much and that kind of bums me out. I realize its not a big deal to go from one forum to the other - just lazy I guess.
It's not the absence of political threads that I am grateful for, it's the absence of a certain subset of posters who just couldn't seem to avoid turning any and every thread they read into a political argument.  Not everything has to be political.  It's a huge relief to have them in their own sandbox which I can avoid.

 
I totally disagree with this. But I don't see you in the political subforum much.

So my guess is - if you don't like the political threads, you want it separate from the FFA. And if you do like the political threads, you want it all one forum with the FFA.

I am in the latter group. I don't come to the FFA main forum as much and that kind of bums me out. I realize its not a big deal to go from one forum to the other - just lazy I guess.
I like many of the political threads and am a big fan of it being its own subforum. Some threads get bogged down with the same crap they did in here, but with more room to breathe and create specialized threads, they're easier to ignore. 

 
I totally disagree with this. But I don't see you in the political subforum much.

So my guess is - if you don't like the political threads, you want it separate from the FFA. And if you do like the political threads, you want it all one forum with the FFA.

I am in the latter group. I don't come to the FFA main forum as much and that kind of bums me out. I realize its not a big deal to go from one forum to the other - just lazy I guess.
The political threads took over the first page and beat down the momentum of the other threads.  Just their existence was obnoxious. 

 
Thanks. I asked the moderators today to make sure we do that. 
I liked this post as I think making sure your moderators do just that is very, very important. As someone has said (not sure originator,) communication is key to a solid relationship.

That being said, however, still leaves me personally in a bit of a quandry. You see, I still do not know why I was suspended. I would appreciate a PM or email from someone on staff who could enlighten me.

[The 24 hour suspension I'm pretty sure I get (though disagree with on principle) but, I'm at a loss regarding the 8-day one.]

Thanks again Joe.

 
@Joe Bryant I've tried to not really jump in too much with the recent changes but I'll go ahead and add my $.02.

I never got into the Who's Hottest polls.  Didn't think they were a big deal, weren't really my thing, but completely get wanting to put an end to those, especially with the recent explosion in the number of them.  My impression is that, even for those that did regularly participate in those, they get it and it's not a big deal.

I also understand your sentiment in the wife cheating thread.  I think the issue that has rubbed people the wrong way that I haven't seen mentioned but I think is the crux of it was not just putting your stance on it and posting what was allowed, but doing so from the very outset before anything was even posted.  I don't think I've seen that in my time here. 

To further explain, if that thread had been allowed to just go without your post about what was and wasn't allowed, there's a good chance it would have been a productive thread.  There might have been a joke or story mixed in.  Most likely they wouldn't have crossed any lines, but if they did, they would likely have been noticed, possibly reported, and then dealt with.  It's how pretty much every thread here has always taken place and it's worked.  Even if you had taken down some relatively "PG" comments or posts, I doubt there would have been much backlash. 

I think the issue came when you jumped in before anything even took place, probably in light of the recent change of heart with the other stuff, similar to what a chaperone does with young kids.  I can see why you did it but I can completely understand why it rubbed a LOT of people the wrong way.  It's assuming the worst of the community when, in general, that kind of behavior hasn't been present and the self-policing has worked quite well.  There's a level of trust you should have in the people that frequent this place and it completely came across as you were assuming the worst before anything even happened.  I think most everyone here has a pretty good feel for what is allowed and what isn't and has a pretty good feel for what you'll tolerate and what you won't.  Not everyone has to agree with it but most everyone gets it.  But the whole "Minority Report" thing of barking what is and isn't allowed when nothing had taken place was a line that I haven't seen crossed before. 

In even some of the worst threads, when things got out of control, they were still pretty tame by most standards and things were often dealt with.  Threads get locked, posters get warned or suspended or banned and the line gets reset.  That way has worked for a long time.  I don't think the number of threads where that happens is a lot.  In fact, I'm surprised it's so few.  So when you jumped the gun  in an attempt to head off whatever you thought might have been a bad way for that thread to go, in a sense you started punishing posters and getting everyone to walk on eggshells on what could be written and what couldn't.  IMO, that is far worse than any commentary that might have taken place because it starts to stifle what this place has been mostly built on.  Good people with mostly good intentions, good insight, good humor, and in the end, a good understanding of having fun and still being excellent.

In the end, your preemptive post probably didn't change a single thing of what 99% of the people would have posted otherwise.  So instead of just dealing with that 1% when it happens, you "punished" everyone and assumed we aren't smart enough/mature enough to handle that kind of thread on our own.  I think THAT is what was most unsettling, not whatever new "line in the sand of what's allowed". 

 
I totally disagree with this. But I don't see you in the political subforum much.

So my guess is - if you don't like the political threads, you want it separate from the FFA. And if you do like the political threads, you want it all one forum with the FFA.

I am in the latter group. I don't come to the FFA main forum as much and that kind of bums me out. I realize its not a big deal to go from one forum to the other - just lazy I guess.
I'm 75% Political Forum Guy; it's no trouble at all to click over to the FFA when I'm ready for something lighter. Now we don't have to hear the whining from everybody who didn't like political threads "cluttering up" the FFA. Win win.

 
i'll say a positive thing is the wagering thread. Not sure if it is just the people who have been residing in there for years or what, but that thread seems to self-regulate very well and maintains a good vibe. not sure what the trick of that thread is, but it works

 
Hey Guys.

We've done a thread like several times and they've been helpful I think. Thought I might start another one with a clean slate here. I'll do one in the Shark Pool and one in this forum. I've got a few points to ramble on and then you guys can throw out what you're seeing, what you like and what can be better.

The imminent death of message boards in general and this board, in particular, has been a topic as long as I can remember. This thread had me thinking today and it's several years old. It's something we've become quite used to seeing and hearing.  Not sure what that means.

I do think message boards have been dramatically impacted by the multitude of other social media platforms available for people to communicate with each other. I think that's great. More options and choices for the consumer is hardly ever a bad thing. It becomes an issue of time. You have 5 minutes a day to spend on this kind of stuff. If you start adding time spent on Twitter or Instagram or something else, that time is likely taken from somewhere else. It might be the old message board forum.

Obviously, there are huge boards like Reddit. But my take is most boards are not growing a lot. I think it's the normal progression for most things where a platform becomes "mature" and kind of levels out. Our data bears that out. I don't sense a t
Sorry Joe, ran out of time 

 
Thanks @gianmarco   I understand what you're saying and I'll try my best to balance that against the (pretty frequent) comments I get that we don't communicate the "rules" clearly enough. Thanks for taking the time to write. 

 
The political threads took over the first page and beat down the momentum of the other threads.  Just their existence was obnoxious. 
yup. and i am one who would enjoy a good political discourse, but those threads have a way of making themselves very uninviting. but i think if you could have a good political thread without having the pee'ing contests in every one it could be good

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top