What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Warning - Novel Length - A Forum Manifesto (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant said:
Better to not do them. 

Not to mention, making money bets with strangers on a message board without real names is likely not the best idea in general. And if you do it with a Fantasy Football League, I'd use a service like LeagueSafe.com or something where you know it's safe.
Click to expand...
If we still had signatures, we could bet those

 
Between this, the politics subforum and unlimited likes you guys are really trying to make up for the horrible board software upgrades. Thanks!

 
culdeus said:
Politics forum is great.  I had started spending a ton more time at Reddit just to get away from the nonsense here. 

Hopefully long term things improve everywhere. 
Click to expand...


After a few days of the politics forum I haven't found myself going there once.  I think it is good to isolate the problem members in their own echo chamber.

I'll continue to go to Reddit for politics type information and pretend the politics forum is like the shark pool.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
NewlyRetired said:
I understand that but I think I worded my question poorly.  

I think I was more wondering why politics were allowed to stay to not fracture the boards but that baseball and basketball (neither of which in tone or volume were a problem compared to politics) were sectioned off?
Click to expand...
No real reason. One could make an argument to bring the other sports back into the FFA. But this seems to be working ok now. 
Click to expand...
They should be sub-forums of the FFA like the politics forum. They really shouldn't exist on their own outside of the FFA. 

 
Murph said:
Enough people have spent enough time here that a lot of folks do feel comfortable with the idea though. In they heyday of FFA poker some nights thousands of dollars would change hands. As far as I can recall I only got stiffed for $10 once and the guy got banned from the group.

The only reason I bring this up is to emphasize the first point: a lot of people have spent a lot of time here. So this place feels like home. People want to feel comfortable at home. And for a lot of people that means less restrictions.

Which brings us to the heart of the problem. This place isn't home. It's your business. Which is why you get to make the rules. But I guess I'm just trying to think out loud about why some people react the way they do. Thanks for indulging me.
Click to expand...
Of course Murph. I totally get that. Creating a comfortable place is exactly what I'm trying to do. That can mean different things to different people. Myself included. Especially when it's inviting a few thousand people a day into your home. My job is to try and create the place. And for this place, it's going to be the things I laid out in the original post. I hope it'll be something where you can be comfortable still. Thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
culdeus said:
After a few days of the politics forum I haven't found myself going there once.  I think it is good to isolate the problem members in their own echo chamber.

I'll continue to go to Reddit for politics type information and pretend the politics forum is like the shark pool.  
Click to expand...


While it removes the clutter from the FFA for me, I do see a downside.  I'm not a big politics nerd like so many here, and you're not likely to catch me all incensed and engaging in iFights in some thread about politics anyway, and so I didn't feel the negative effects that had so many people here spazzing out on a regular basis (frankly, the fact that grown men get so upset about what a stranger on the internet thinks -- to the point of reporting posts and baiting and fighting or whatever -- is beyond me, but that's another thread). 

I did find it helpful to see threads on the first page dealing with the big political issues of the day, as a news source.  And if it was getting a lot of action, I'd click in and have a look.  Now I feel like I have no idea what's going on in politics.  It was kinda nice to get the cliff's notes before, but I don't care enough to actually go digging into the soccer forum or whatever to find it.

 
Otis said:
While it removes the clutter from the FFA for me, I do see a downside.  I'm not a big politics nerd like so many here, and you're not likely to catch me all incensed and engaging in iFights in some thread about politics anyway, and so I didn't feel the negative effects that had so many people here spazzing out on a regular basis (frankly, the fact that grown men get so upset about what a stranger on the internet thinks -- to the point of reporting posts and baiting and fighting or whatever -- is beyond me, but that's another thread). 

I did find it helpful to see threads on the first page dealing with the big political issues of the day, as a news source.  And if it was getting a lot of action, I'd click in and have a look.  Now I feel like I have no idea what's going on in politics.  It was kinda nice to get the cliff's notes before, but I don't care enough to actually go digging into the soccer forum or whatever to find it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That was always my hesitancy in doing it. But we had more people it seemed on the other side. It's where are now though and tons seem to love it (including me) so we'll see how it goes. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
As an example from the political sub forum.

Posting in the investigation thread that you'll wait til the investigation is over to believe something's that have been speculated is ok.  ???

Posting in the same thread..."hey is this still going...you guys still wasting time in this uncle jerk echo chamber?"  Probably not ok?
Click to expand...
I'd guess the bolded is approaching/at/just over the line.  

I can't see the value in limiting off the cuff / sarcastic remarks.  But let's not make them personal against posters, or used to paint an entire group in a negative light (stupid lefties/trumpers that type of accusatory language).

 
Joe Bryant said:
Agreed. That was always my hesitancy in doing it. But we had more people it seemed on the other side. It's where are now though and tons seem to love it (including me) so we'll see how it goes. 
Click to expand...
thanks for doing this.   its the single best change around here in a long long time

 
Henry Ford said:
Yeah, I think the entire tenor of the political threads will need to change - and I think that's a great shift. I think we can all take it down a notch and things will be much better on the aggregate for it having happened.
Click to expand...
I feel they already, to a large degree, have.  And this is less than a week into the subforum, with only a cursory statement of what is (now) considered appropriate.

Would you not agree (by and large, not perfect)

 
Otis said:
While it removes the clutter from the FFA for me, I do see a downside.  I'm not a big politics nerd like so many here, and you're not likely to catch me all incensed and engaging in iFights in some thread about politics anyway, and so I didn't feel the negative effects that had so many people here spazzing out on a regular basis (frankly, the fact that grown men get so upset about what a stranger on the internet thinks -- to the point of reporting posts and baiting and fighting or whatever -- is beyond me, but that's another thread). 

I did find it helpful to see threads on the first page dealing with the big political issues of the day, as a news source.  And if it was getting a lot of action, I'd click in and have a look.  Now I feel like I have no idea what's going on in politics.  It was kinda nice to get the cliff's notes before, but I don't care enough to actually go digging into the soccer forum or whatever to find it.
Click to expand...
you can always scan huffpost, ny times, wash post for liberal politics and then drudge, free beacon and brietbart for conservative politics.   would take you about 10 mins

 
@Joe Bryant - To echo a repeated sentiment, thank you.  For your time, effort and dedication to this community.  As noted, providing a clear understanding of what behaviors are allowed and what toe or go over the line is all we can ask for... and we can always adjust/evolve in one direction or another, but the foundation of respect is truly the hinge that pulls it all together.

While I might tinker around the edges, what you put forth makes a ton of sense and a applaud the re-dedication to more consistent moderation. :thumbup:  

Now, can we get :wastedbanana: and, especially since it's becoming ever more legal, :stonedbanana:

TIA

 
Joe Bryant said:
Agreed. That was always my hesitancy in doing it. But we had more people it seemed on the other side. It's where are now though and tons seem to love it (including me) so we'll see how it goes. 
Click to expand...
The test will be transitioning from a 2500 page thread to individual topics inside of them.  

There is ZERO value going into a thread on 20 topics that has 500 posts a day.  The reason that thread existed like that was because if there were 3-4 threads a day started on political topics people would freak so they contained themselves to primarily 2 big ones, and 2-3 smaller ones at a time.

So to an extent the moderation and posters need to create value now that they have their own sandbox, or they won't attract casuals.  Either way they can just fall off the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned but that's just me.

Reddit and dozens of other sites have much better ways to handle digestion of today's news.  Up/down voting isn't perfect, but it sure is better than the asynchronous threading that happens with this board software.  

 
Koya said:
@Joe Bryant - To echo a repeated sentiment, thank you.  For your time, effort and dedication to this community.  As noted, providing a clear understanding of what behaviors are allowed and what toe or go over the line is all we can ask for... and we can always adjust/evolve in one direction or another, but the foundation of respect is truly the hinge that pulls it all together.

While I might tinker around the edges, what you put forth makes a ton of sense and a applaud the re-dedication to more consistent moderation. :thumbup:  

Now, can we get :wastedbanana: and, especially since it's becoming ever more legal, :stonedbanana:

TIA
Click to expand...
Thanks Koya. Much appreciated. I'm glad you guys were able to see it how I meant the original post. I wanted to be detailed and clear but as it got so wordy, I was worried it would be taken poorly. Of course it has by some but by and large the public and private feedback has been exceptional. I'm 100% convinced it's the right thing. Thanks. Let us have a few more days to get stable then shoot me a pm this weekend about the bananas and I'll see what Keith can do. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks Koya. Much appreciated. I'm glad you guys were able to see it how I meant the original post. I wanted to be detailed and clear but as it got so wordy, I was worried it would be taken poorly. Of course it has by some but by and large the public and private feedback has been exceptional. I'm 100% convinced it's the right thing. Thanks. Let us have a few more days to get stable then shoot me a pm this weekend about the bananas and I'll see what Keith can do. 
Click to expand...
:dancingbanana: 

 
culdeus said:
The test will be transitioning from a 2500 page thread to individual topics inside of them.  

There is ZERO value going into a thread on 20 topics that has 500 posts a day.  The reason that thread existed like that was because if there were 3-4 threads a day started on political topics people would freak so they contained themselves to primarily 2 big ones, and 2-3 smaller ones at a time.

So to an extent the moderation and posters need to create value now that they have their own sandbox, or they won't attract casuals.  Either way they can just fall off the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned but that's just me.

Reddit and dozens of other sites have much better ways to handle digestion of today's news.  Up/down voting isn't perfect, but it sure is better than the asynchronous threading that happens with this board software.  
Click to expand...
You're an asynchronous thread. 
 

 
Joe, over time I came to realize that what is special about this place are the guardrails. Thanks for all you do.

 
Scoresman said:
They always have been.  Images aren't allowed, really bad words get ###'d out.    It's pretty easy to not click on a thread titled "yoga pants" while at work.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point :shrug:

 
Henry Ford said:
I'd like to suggest something I try to do myself, and I've mentioned it a number of times on here.  Obviously no one is perfect at it, but the more we try to read each other's posts charitably - that is, when there are two ways to take something that's written, to assume it's the one that isn't foolish/offensive/insulting/attacking rather than the one that is - makes a massive difference in the discussion.  I find when I'm able to do that, most of the rest of the rules in the original post kind of fall into place.
Click to expand...
As one that mostly lurks, I heartily applaud this suggestion. Certainly, it can at times be obvious when a poster is concern trolling or otherwise disingenuous. But I am not interested by those sussing out a poster's true intent. So Poster X is a troll. I really don't care. If the words are thought-provoking enough to warrant a response, then pretend it was written by someone else.

 
tommyboy said:
thanks for doing this.   its the single best change around here in a long long time
Click to expand...
Says the guy who who was trolling  the Obama/Benghazi threads for years!  

Didn't you start the thread: Obamacare: He lied straight to your face? 

Ool

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hov34 said:
Are you offering to check my #######?

:wub:
Click to expand...
Of course.

But I'm also saying it's perfectly fine to have opinions. They're not all smelly. Some opinions are informed, clever, creative and very imaginative. It's one of the things I love about this place. Still, no opinion is a substitute for facts.  Challenge yourself, check your bias, consider the thoughts of an expert on the particular topic.

 
FishTacoTuesday said:
Says the guy who who was trolling  the Obama/Benghazi threads for years!  

Didn't you start the thread: Obamacare: He lied straight to your face? 

Ool
Click to expand...
Well if you read my opening post in that thread (Obamacare) you'll see it was fairly accurate. It started out as an Obamacare title but after the whole keep your doctor thing proved to be false and after Ben Rhodes was busted for outright manipulation and lying and after Gruber was busted it became clear that Obama flat out lied. Then I changed the thread title to it's current form.

I don't recall trolling the benghazi thread for years. I used to be more active in the political threads but the last several years I've stayed away mostly. It's boring having the same argument over and over with the same folks. It's actually really dumb and a waste of time. If I'm going to waste time id rather do it in interesting or funny threads.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Apologies - Forums running very slow
Replies
19
Views
520
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Big Idea And A Brand New Footballguys Tool - The Assistant Coach
Replies
4
Views
732
Mr.Pack
Mr.Pack
TakiToki
Online Poker Warning
Replies
0
Views
223
TakiToki
TakiToki

Users who are viewing this thread

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