Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Isolation and New Forums

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John77
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    Rule 10 in the Forum Rules was added to direct that we shouldn't talk about politics or religion. That can be frustrating at times but there was a thread last election season that just created too many customer complaints to Ron. Hence, it's not necessarily that Ron personally doesn't like us broaching those topics but just that it's bad business for him to let the forum conversation wonder that way.
    ... and unfortunately in today's day and age, this is the way it has to be. I definitely think it's in the best interests of Ron and all of his subscribers that it's kept that way.

    I've been doing my own BLOG now for a month and a half and the two things I absolutely refuse to discuss there are politics and religion... I just don't want to alienate anyone or cause any arguments or contoversy. Yes, I have opinions on those things, but those are best kept to myself and those that I'm very close to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael@HQ
    replied
    Originally posted by jdwexler View Post
    Well, this is an important assertion, but it's an empirical one. And one I think we should test. I'd be willing to put a friendly wager that what's said in the politics forum, stays in the politics forum.
    I could be wrong, but I would guess that Ron already feels he has the empirical data. Before the November elections, there was a thread whose title clearly indicated that it was about polictics so those who didn't want to discuss the topic could easily have avoided it. Actually, the thread wasn't even about the substance of polictics but rather about a gaming strategy based on which party won control over the two houses of Congress. However, Ron got plenty of complaints anyway as shown in post #7 of this thread.

    We may not agree with Ron, but there certainly is some evidence that allowing discussion on contenious topics like politics or religion ends up as a distraction for him and a potential loss of customers. I was disappointed when Ron locked down the first thread but once I read that he had 18 complaints because of it, I could see it from his perspective more easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael@HQ
    replied
    Originally posted by Markus_ls View Post
    Ron/we just wants to rein in the hostility. I don't find that oppressive. (And when I step over the line because I'm in a bad mood I'm glad there's someone to rein ME in.)
    It's broader than that. Ron does not want us to discuss certain topics and rule #10 now makes that explicit.

    Leave a comment:


  • jdwexler
    replied
    Originally posted by Markus_ls View Post

    You can separate the forums......but not the psyche. The same human being will be reading in both forums. If they get upset in one it's GONNA carry over to the other - you can count on it.
    Well, this is an important assertion, but it's an empirical one. And one I think we should test. I'd be willing to put a friendly wager that what's said in the politics forum, stays in the politics forum. At the very least, you'd have an easier and more sensible way to enforce keeping contentious issues out of forums where we should be talking about non-controversial subjects like Barry Bonds, or Albert Pujols' slow start

    Leave a comment:


  • Markus_ls
    replied
    Originally posted by jdwexler View Post
    2)It's really disappointing to hear that the relatively high level of conversation I've experienced on the HQ forums could be so easily derailed. Nonetheless, a rule against contentious speech strikes me as pretty draconian and paternalistic.
    It's a matter of degree. There is a lot of dissension and debate around here. Ron/we just wants to rein in the hostility. I don't find that oppressive. (And when I step over the line because I'm in a bad mood I'm glad there's someone to rein ME in.)

    Originally posted by jdwexler View Post
    Again, I'd expect creating a separate group of forums for politics, religion, etc would solve the problems. (I am assuming that this hasn't been tried before, and that the problems occurred- predictably- when folks brought their politics into the baseball forums).
    You can separate the forums......but not the psyche. The same human being will be reading in both forums. If they get upset in one it's GONNA carry over to the other - you can count on it.

    Originally posted by jdwexler View Post
    It's just hard to know anything about someone when all you talk about is hit percentage and command ratio. At least, that's what my girlfriend tells me.
    We infuse a good deal about ourselves into our posts a little at a time. Plus there is always private messaging and email. I think a lot of people take some conversation to PM and get more familiar there - without the the whole world watching.

    Leave a comment:


  • PD@HQ
    replied
    I agree. If you set up separate fora for contentious discussion, then those who are bothered by the vigirous debate can easily avoid it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jdwexler
    replied
    Thanks for the background, fellas. I'd love to see

    1)My proposal is to add new forums specifically for these topics. I think that would help keep such distracting comments out of the forums intended for baseball.

    2)It's really disappointing to hear that the relatively high level of conversation I've experienced on the HQ forums could be so easily derailed. Nonetheless, a rule against contentious speech strikes me as pretty draconian and paternalistic. Again, I'd expect creating a separate group of forums for politics, religion, etc would solve the problems. (I am assuming that this hasn't been tried before, and that the problems occurred- predictably- when folks brought their politics into the baseball forums).

    3)The more I think about it, the more excited I get about the opportunity to discuss various topics of interest with a community for which I feel a great affinity, yet also a great disconnect.

    It's just hard to know anything about someone when all you talk about is hit percentage and command ratio. At least, that's what my girlfriend tells me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael@HQ
    replied
    Rule 10 in the Forum Rules was added to direct that we shouldn't talk about politics or religion. That can be frustrating at times but there was a thread last election season that just created too many customer complaints to Ron. Hence, it's not necessarily that Ron personally doesn't like us broaching those topics but just that it's bad business for him to let the forum conversation wonder that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Markus_ls
    replied
    Hi JD,

    I've also thought a forum for movie talk would be highly popular as we infuse that into other threads anyway now. But when this topic has come up in the past it's seemed like the majority of people want to keep it just baseball. (And that may be a good thing?) We've also had problems in the past with political comments that really get people upset. And I'm sure the more you loosen up the "baseball" restriction the more likely those are to cause problems.

    Not saying yea or nay here.....just giving you some background on what we've discussed before.

    Leave a comment:


  • jdwexler
    started a topic Isolation and New Forums

    Isolation and New Forums

    I really enjoyed reading the thousand posts in the "Explain Your Username and Avatar" thread. In light of Shandler's "Isolation" piece, it was was fulfilling to put a bit of persona to the usernames I see here everyday. So, how about a couple of new non-baseball related forums? I am an occasional reader of the poker forum website twoplustwo. They have done very well creating a community and an ability to connect with others through their non-poker forums (eg, Politics, Science/Math, Philosophy, Business/Investing, Books, Music). I'm pretty curious to find out how many fellow atheist, Cecil Taylor and Richard Brautigan-loving libertarians I've got here.
Working...
X
https://forums.baseballhq.com/forum/hq-support/editorial-helpline/34771-isolation-and-new-forums?view=stream
forums.baseballhq.com
CC-MAIN-2023-40
68245
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GN7SG2S2G7I7DWVHWX7WKLNBSGKIRKLL
<urn:uuid:a78ce725-f3ac-4779-a034-2cd287a3d383>
2023-09-27T01:05:43Z
172.66.40.166
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:I5YMXX5UYVXBEDD5ZYADXF2EMZXYHHMP
<urn:uuid:ee305956-cbbc-4a80-b455-5320e256ecc1>
https://forums.baseballhq.com/forum/hq-support/editorial-helpline/34771-isolation-and-new-forums?view=stream
response
<urn:uuid:75a67da6-d4df-4f14-b691-c323e33a180e>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-200
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/