Subscriber only forum (1 Viewer)

[Avery]

My apologies if this is the wrong forum, or if this has been discussed before.

As a suggestion, is it possible (or even a good idea ) to have a "subscriber only" forum on the board?

I enjoy the open dialog in the free forums between both subscribers and non-subscribers, but as a subscriber, I would enjoy a forum where the specifics of subscriber content (such as specific ranking or articles on waiver wire pickups, for example) could be discussed and debated freely.

Currently, I (and most of my fellow subscribers) are careful only to mention subscriber content in broad generalities therefore specifics or rankings and such are sometimes difficult to discuss.

Just my $0.02

 

[elshagon]

NO

 

[prymetyme25]

My apologies if this is the wrong forum, or if this has been discussed before.As a suggestion, is it possible (or even a good idea ) to have a "subscriber only" forum on the board?I enjoy the open dialog in the free forums between both subscribers and non-subscribers, but as a subscriber, I would enjoy a forum where the specifics of subscriber content (such as specific ranking or articles on waiver wire pickups, for example) could be discussed and debated freely.Currently, I (and most of my fellow subscribers) are careful only to mention subscriber content in broad generalities therefore specifics or rankings and such are sometimes difficult to discuss.Just my $0.02

I kind of agree with this.

 

[Jackal]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

 

[prymetyme25]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

I understand I just dont like swimming in the piss.

 

[Avery]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

I thought about that, and "watering down" the Shark Pool is the only decent argument not to have a "subscriber only" forum that I can think of. Although, I would see such a forum as an additional benefit and impetus for subscribing. Edit to add: ...and I guess that answers my question as to whether this has been discussed before.

 

[Sweet Love]

This is the first year in the last five that I have not subscribed (due to financial issues), but coming from a non-subscriber, I would not have a problem with it ONLY if it was used to to discuss subscriber-specific information. In fact, when I was a subscriber, I kind of wished there was a place to debate FBG rankings more openly, etc.

 

[JMJ]

<------ likes the idea.

 

[Sup_Yo]

Joe has said no many times.

 

[Nugget]

Why have to search two places for the info I want?

 

[BroadwayG]

I'd rather see certain people banished to an 'Idiots only' board. I'll be charter member.

 

[[icon]]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

I understand I just dont like swimming in the piss.

Yes... because the best way to separate the "sharks" from the "guppies" is by sorting based on who has $27 to spare for a Membership to FBG. Not going to happen guys.. been brought up before... will be brought up again.... won't happen then either.

 

[JoeSteeler]

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Someone brings it up and it gets discussed every year. Bad idea - the SP as it is right now is a fantastic resource for breaking news. Diluting that is not a good plan.

 

[prymetyme25]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

I understand I just dont like swimming in the piss.

Yes... because the best way to separate the "sharks" from the "guppies" is by sorting based on who has $27 to spare for a Membership to FBG. Not going to happen guys.. been brought up before... will be brought up again.... won't happen then either.

yeah i see what you mean.

 

[[icon]]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

I understand I just dont like swimming in the piss.

Yes... because the best way to separate the "sharks" from the "guppies" is by sorting based on who has $27 to spare for a Membership to FBG. Not going to happen guys.. been brought up before... will be brought up again.... won't happen then either.

yeah i see what you mean.

Glad you've come to your senses

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Guys. Pretty much what you vets have said.

I fully understand the desire. I'd like to see it too. I just fear it would dilute the Shark Pool with another forum. I think the answer is to try and keep the current Shark Pool as clean as we can. Keep helping us with the report function when you see a post or thread out of place.

You guys made this thing too cool to break up. Thanks.

J

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

How about labeling subscribers as just that on the forum? Maybe allowing just a members only thread? Not sure if it could be done or not, though.

 

[Big Dumb Ape]

This is the first year in the last five that I have not subscribed (due to financial issues), but coming from a non-subscriber, I would not have a problem with it ONLY if it was used to to discuss subscriber-specific information. In fact, when I was a subscriber, I kind of wished there was a place to debate FBG rankings more openly, etc.

Hey Joe, this guy's subscribed 5 years in a row, and can't this year. Throw the dude a bone?

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

It will never happen. The Shark Pool is the best possible advertising for the subscription fee.

 

[LordHusker]

This is the first year in the last five that I have not subscribed (due to financial issues), but coming from a non-subscriber, I would not have a problem with it ONLY if it was used to to discuss subscriber-specific information. In fact, when I was a subscriber, I kind of wished there was a place to debate FBG rankings more openly, etc.

Hey Joe, this guy's subscribed 5 years in a row, and can't this year. Throw the dude a bone?

I'm calling bluff. I think that, like me, he just balked at $27. I subscribed the last four years and drew the line this year. I'm feeling good about my drafts. We'll see how it pans out. As for separating the boards, it gets brought up every year by frustrated subscribers who can't "spill the secrets." Never gonna happen. And shouldn't.

 

[tombonneau]

As someone is a professional marketer, it blows my mind that the Shark Pool is not subscriber only. Just like the daily updates I would make it free up until a the season and then lock it down to paid only. It's simply too good to just give away.

In fact, I wouldn't even give away the daily updates for free up until the season. I would give them and the pool away until mid-August when fantasy fever pitch hits its peak.

Then I'd take the free crack away and make folks pony up $27.

I'm sure Joe & Co. would see a nice bump in subscriptions. You're just lucky they aren't cold-blooded marketers like me.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I think a subscriber only forum would be great! It would eliminate some of the garbage posts.

 

[Enforcer]

I think a subscriber only forum would be great! It would eliminate some of the garbage posts.

I don't understand this attitude. There are plenty of #######s that subscribe. Making a subscriber only forum would only make it more difficult to deal with them as they would feel more entitled than they already do.

 

[SSOG]

I 100% agree that diluting the Shark Pool would be a horrible, horrible idea... but I would still like to see a place where the ratings could be discussed more freely. A nice workaround would be to make a private subforum to the Shark Pool that was visible to members, but only grant thread-creation rights to FBGs staff. Since it's a subforum, then it wouldn't split the information (a simple search of the pool would turn up results in the private subforum, provided you were a subscriber), and since subscribers couldn't make threads there, there'd be no chance of the pool getting abandoned. The only downside is the additional workload it would create for the staff (since anyone who wanted to discuss a specific ranking would have to PM someone on the staff to get a thread up), but with some solid forethought and organization that wouldn't be too big of a deal (if someone put up a ranking that was clearly out of line with the herd, he could just pre-emptively start a discussion thread for it), and there could be a pinned general-purpose discussion thread for each individual staff member's rankings that would get unpinned and replaced every time that staff member updated his rankings, to keep it current, and another non-pinned discussion thread for every article that goes up, too.

Really, I think that the ideal solution to all issues. It provides a place to discuss sensitive materials without any risk of subscribers retreating there and depriving the pool of their insights. It gives a little extra something to subscribers without making non-subscribers feel like they're missing anything they weren't already missing in the first place. Most importantly, it does all of this while keeping the Shark Pool the thriving melting pot that it is today.

 

[BroadwayG]

I'd rather see certain people banished to an 'Idiots only' board. I'll be charter member.

I've got a few more nominees after today.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Having been on a site that has done this it doesn't work. What ends up happening is that people navigate to where the traffic is and you'll just end up right back here anyway.

 

[djjosee]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

I understand I just dont like swimming in the piss.

Membership does not mean sharks ... btw

 

[Marc Levin]

I 100% agree that diluting the Shark Pool would be a horrible, horrible idea... but I would still like to see a place where the ratings could be discussed more freely. A nice workaround would be to make a private subforum to the Shark Pool that was visible to members, but only grant thread-creation rights to FBGs staff. Since it's a subforum, then it wouldn't split the information (a simple search of the pool would turn up results in the private subforum, provided you were a subscriber), and since subscribers couldn't make threads there, there'd be no chance of the pool getting abandoned. The only downside is the additional workload it would create for the staff (since anyone who wanted to discuss a specific ranking would have to PM someone on the staff to get a thread up), but with some solid forethought and organization that wouldn't be too big of a deal (if someone put up a ranking that was clearly out of line with the herd, he could just pre-emptively start a discussion thread for it), and there could be a pinned general-purpose discussion thread for each individual staff member's rankings that would get unpinned and replaced every time that staff member updated his rankings, to keep it current, and another non-pinned discussion thread for every article that goes up, too.

Really, I think that the ideal solution to all issues. It provides a place to discuss sensitive materials without any risk of subscribers retreating there and depriving the pool of their insights. It gives a little extra something to subscribers without making non-subscribers feel like they're missing anything they weren't already missing in the first place. Most importantly, it does all of this while keeping the Shark Pool the thriving melting pot that it is today.

Not a minor issue here. And, if the staff allowed solicitation of topics for subscribers only, a "clique" forum would develop in the middle of the Pool. Plus, there would be the inevitable subscribers having discussions in the "regular Pool" about issues discussed in subscriber content only areas. I can envision a thousand scenarios that would be discussed in threads over aberrant rankings that would then emerge over the season (or, for that matter, over the next several years) in non-suscriber threads.I like the ideas here, but Joe has closed this issue for very good reasons that really are not easily resolved.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It should be a forum board free of monickers and nicknames. Using verification and real names only.

But the possible financial implications make any sunbscriber only forum unlikely.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I 100% agree that diluting the Shark Pool would be a horrible, horrible idea... but I would still like to see a place where the ratings could be discussed more freely. A nice workaround would be to make a private subforum to the Shark Pool that was visible to members, but only grant thread-creation rights to FBGs staff. Since it's a subforum, then it wouldn't split the information (a simple search of the pool would turn up results in the private subforum, provided you were a subscriber), and since subscribers couldn't make threads there, there'd be no chance of the pool getting abandoned. The only downside is the additional workload it would create for the staff (since anyone who wanted to discuss a specific ranking would have to PM someone on the staff to get a thread up), but with some solid forethought and organization that wouldn't be too big of a deal (if someone put up a ranking that was clearly out of line with the herd, he could just pre-emptively start a discussion thread for it), and there could be a pinned general-purpose discussion thread for each individual staff member's rankings that would get unpinned and replaced every time that staff member updated his rankings, to keep it current, and another non-pinned discussion thread for every article that goes up, too.

Really, I think that the ideal solution to all issues. It provides a place to discuss sensitive materials without any risk of subscribers retreating there and depriving the pool of their insights. It gives a little extra something to subscribers without making non-subscribers feel like they're missing anything they weren't already missing in the first place. Most importantly, it does all of this while keeping the Shark Pool the thriving melting pot that it is today.

Not a minor issue here. And, if the staff allowed solicitation of topics for subscribers only, a "clique" forum would develop in the middle of the Pool. Plus, there would be the inevitable subscribers having discussions in the "regular Pool" about issues discussed in subscriber content only areas. I can envision a thousand scenarios that would be discussed in threads over aberrant rankings that would then emerge over the season (or, for that matter, over the next several years) in non-suscriber threads.I like the ideas here, but Joe has closed this issue for very good reasons that really are not easily resolved.

Unless it's changed........we're still allowed to bring up something that's in the member's only content.For example..........if I had a question and wanted to bring it up on the forums to discuss, like why is Peyton Manning the

No.9 fantasy football QB this week when I think he should be No. 1, what am I not seeing, to my memory that would be OK.

What's not Ok is listing the 8 Qb's in front of him etc......

If that still holds true, that's fine by me because I don't want to discuss every single thing to death every week anyway. But it is nice to bring up a single issue if one arises with some other people out there who might be thinking the same thing I am that given week for that player.

 

[moleculo]

if you want any real solutions, you first have to shut down the FFA.

 

[Marc Levin]

I 100% agree that diluting the Shark Pool would be a horrible, horrible idea... but I would still like to see a place where the ratings could be discussed more freely. A nice workaround would be to make a private subforum to the Shark Pool that was visible to members, but only grant thread-creation rights to FBGs staff. Since it's a subforum, then it wouldn't split the information (a simple search of the pool would turn up results in the private subforum, provided you were a subscriber), and since subscribers couldn't make threads there, there'd be no chance of the pool getting abandoned. The only downside is the additional workload it would create for the staff (since anyone who wanted to discuss a specific ranking would have to PM someone on the staff to get a thread up), but with some solid forethought and organization that wouldn't be too big of a deal (if someone put up a ranking that was clearly out of line with the herd, he could just pre-emptively start a discussion thread for it), and there could be a pinned general-purpose discussion thread for each individual staff member's rankings that would get unpinned and replaced every time that staff member updated his rankings, to keep it current, and another non-pinned discussion thread for every article that goes up, too.

Really, I think that the ideal solution to all issues. It provides a place to discuss sensitive materials without any risk of subscribers retreating there and depriving the pool of their insights. It gives a little extra something to subscribers without making non-subscribers feel like they're missing anything they weren't already missing in the first place. Most importantly, it does all of this while keeping the Shark Pool the thriving melting pot that it is today.

Not a minor issue here. And, if the staff allowed solicitation of topics for subscribers only, a "clique" forum would develop in the middle of the Pool. Plus, there would be the inevitable subscribers having discussions in the "regular Pool" about issues discussed in subscriber content only areas. I can envision a thousand scenarios that would be discussed in threads over aberrant rankings that would then emerge over the season (or, for that matter, over the next several years) in non-suscriber threads.I like the ideas here, but Joe has closed this issue for very good reasons that really are not easily resolved.

Unless it's changed........we're still allowed to bring up something that's in the member's only content.For example..........if I had a question and wanted to bring it up on the forums to discuss, like why is Peyton Manning the

No.9 fantasy football QB this week when I think he should be No. 1, what am I not seeing, to my memory that would be OK.

What's not Ok is listing the 8 Qb's in front of him etc......

If that still holds true, that's fine by me because I don't want to discuss every single thing to death every week anyway. But it is nice to bring up a single issue if one arises with some other people out there who might be thinking the same thing I am that given week for that player.

Thanks Iwannabeacowboybaby!That is exactly how it works. You may single out any staff member's ranking, or Joe and David's ranking, or any specific item you want. And you can discuss articles and stuff as well - as long as you are not making wholesale releases of the info available only to subscribers, it is all good to discuss here.

 

[Marc Levin]

if you want any real solutions, you first have to shut down the FFA.

The FFA - it takes less than a day to figure it out, but it takes a lifetime to appreciate it.

 

[Englishteacher]

Splitting up the Shark Pool would be a financial bullet in the foot for FBG whether or not this would be a good idea.

Keeping these boards free is a tremendous marketing tool. A person can come to the Shark Pool (or the other forums) and see the quality and then plunk down their money. Free advertising fellas.

 

[GregR_2]

...I enjoy the open dialog in the free forums between both subscribers and non-subscribers, but as a subscriber, I would enjoy a forum where the specifics of subscriber content (such as specific ranking or articles on waiver wire pickups, for example) could be discussed and debated freely....

People always bring this up as a reason for a subscribe only forum. Yet we're able to do that right now, here in the Shark Pool.Yes, FBG would understandably get upset if everything they produced was posted in its complete form in the Shark Pool. But that isn't going to happen anyway. Not every one of 32 passing matchups or of 60 WR projections need to be discussed. We're able to discuss the ones we think warrant discussion now.So I've never seen what we gain in content or ability. The tool factor might be a little lower, but that's about it.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

Splitting up the Shark Pool would be a financial bullet in the foot for FBG whether or not this would be a good idea. Keeping these boards free is a tremendous marketing tool. A person can come to the Shark Pool (or the other forums) and see the quality and then plunk down their money. Free advertising fellas.

Yup I agree..and when they see all this info they get..they reconsider becoming a member..at a cost of only 7 CENT a day!

 

[ßlue Meanie]

never happen. joe has stated that he will not do it for fear of the shark pool being split

I understand I just dont like swimming in the piss.

Yes... because the best way to separate the "sharks" from the "guppies" is by sorting based on who has $27 to spare for a Membership to FBG. Not going to happen guys.. been brought up before... will be brought up again.... won't happen then either.

 

[BoltzNBrew]

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Someone brings it up and it gets discussed every year. Bad idea - the SP as it is right now is a fantastic resource for breaking news. Diluting that is not a good plan.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

if you want any real solutions, you first have to shut down the FFA.

That's BGP's shtick.