A Thread That's Actually SUPPOSED To Be About PaulThomas!
by Nico on Mar 24, 2009 7:22 PM PDT
Email
PrintIf you have something to say about what follows, by all means have it at; I would just ask that the discussion be limited to this thread. I'm making all the following information public because I imagine the community would prefer to know that something has happened, and what has happened, straight up.
Narrative Background
Since 1/3/09, PaulThomas has had two "strikes" on his ledger. On Sunday afternoon, in greenmachines fanpost "Remember The Fallen Officers," PaulThomas made a comment that was flagged by users and moderators, and was subsequently ruled a "full strike." That's "strike three," which makes a user eligible to be banned according to the site's Community Guidelines.
My email to PaulThomas
Hi "PaulThomas,"
AN's moderators have asked me to let you know that your recent comment objecting to calling police officers "heroes," made on a thread mourning the murder of four officers in our community yesterday, was flagged by users and moderators, and was ruled to be a "strike."
The fact that the comment incited so much anger on the thread, and the fact that the thread became more about your comment (and your inability to see a problem with the comment) than about the fallen officers, should speak volumes to the fact that there is a problem with the way you relate to the AN community.
Speaking of problems, this "strike" makes three "strikes" which, according to AN's Community Guidelines, qualifies you to be banned. Instead of banning you permanently or irrevocably, I am banning you for at least 30 days. At the end of 30 days, you are welcome to contact me and attempt to reassure me that if reinstated it won't be "more of the same."
You have a lot to offer in regards to baseball analysis, but AN is not just a baseball site; it is a community. Feel free to contact me in 30 days, and if you wish I'm happy to consider your reinstatement.
Sincerely,
Nico.
PaulThomas' Reply
In his reply, PaulThomas asked if I would be willing to convey a message from him to the community. Here it is:
"As a consequence of the police thread and prior incidents, I have been banned from the site for an indefinite period not less than 30 days. I maintain that my comments and opinions on this thread were legitimate, but ultimately that does not matter. The moderators evidently feel that my presence is more of a disruption than a help to the site right now, and frankly, right now I have a hard time seeing how that isn't so, regardless of whether it's a technical CGV or not. The conversation became, as it has more than once in the past, about me and not about the topic at hand.
"I do feel an apology is in order, though it might not be the one many of you are hoping for. To wit: I feel that I have too often used AN as a sounding board for my own wonky ideas, and for that, I am sorry. Most of you didn't sign up for that. Well, hell, I didn't sign up for that either, but... that seems to be what it's become somehow. Lately there's been entirely too much punditry and too little productivity on my part. Perhaps an extended sabbatical will change things and refocus me in a different direction, so everyone can get back to talking about what they came here for-- A's baseball.
"Will I be back? I don't know. It's a question for the moderators, but even before that, it's a question for me. I may not wish to return. I may opt to restrict myself to fanposts-- pieces of a length sufficient to ensure that I review what I'm saying before hitting "submit." Or I may ask to be allowed to return to commenting. Any such requests will go through the management of the site, and they may choose not to allow me to return, as is their right.
"I would like to say again that I have always had the greatest respect for the people here. I don't doubt that I've caused people harm, which I regret. But I have never tried to hurt anyone. At my core, I am not a fighter. At another point on the police-officer thread, I mentioned the great pacifist Utah Phillips as one of my heroes. Perhaps I need to come to understand his message a little bit better." -Paul
And that's where we are, no more no less.
964 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Of course i realize that
paul thomas is occasionally, or maybe more than occasionally, obnoxious and thoughtless, and his comments about the cops irked the shit out of me. But the letter you have forwarded within your post emphasizes that he he has plenty more: smarts, self-awareness, and – here comes the important one – interesting things to say. Always.
I’ve been on AN for ~4 years and so of course have seen how online communities evolve – llifestyle and interests revolve and the activity of individual participants wax and wane. But doesn’t it seem like the the ones we can least do without are the ones whose absence we notice?
PT’s absence will make life on AN less interesting.
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
by Hot Cup Joe on Mar 24, 2009 7:40 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
All he really needs to do is simple
Stop making things about him (along with the general attitude) to the point it’s a drag on the rest of the site. I’ve met him and know he knows a lot about baseball, but there are occasionally, shall we say, personality issues that get in the way of things here to the point that the positives are outweighed by the negatives. There is a point where some things are better off not said and sometimes that takes a certain internal self-censoring, or an understanding that AN is not the place for some of it.
I think Paul brings a lot of value to AN with the baseball stuff and I hope if he does return things will go more smoothly in the future.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Mar 24, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Actually, i think this response is...
actually i’m going to think about it for an hour or two lest i get a cgv for my response.
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
I will admit,
I disagree with your phrasing at minimum.
wow! I didn't even get to read his comment or the diary in which said comment was posted.
Regardless, I will say that there have been plenty of times where Paul’s comments have more than “rubbed many folks” ahem, the wrong way. I, myself, have had a couple of personal reactions to some of his comments towards other posters here on AN, that includes me, and have wondered how he had not already been "x"d already.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love what the young man brings to the table as far as baseball knowledge goes, or at least in terms of stats, and there certainly have been many great debates because of his participation.
I find it unfortunate that things came to this point but I hope that it’s a lesson learned for everyone in that we’re all human and not any one of us is immune to having our feelings pinched or disturbed because of someone not taking the time to consider how one’s comments might affect others around us. I had to think about this very same thing when I received my first (and hopefully last) strike.
Good luck Paul…..hope you make it back, man.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
Yes, i disagree
but reading the petulant quibbles below confirmed my original thought that more conversation on this topic was unlikely to be anything but tedious.
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
by Hot Cup Joe on Mar 24, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
"There is a point where some things are better off not said and sometimes that takes a certain internal self-censoring, or an understanding that AN is not the place for some of it."
Why is Paul the only one involved in these things who’s expected to STFU? What about all you all who pile on top of the mess? This isn’t the place for that either.
Someone says something that seems out of line? Sounds like a good time to practice that “internal self-censoring” you’re talking about. There are things better off not said that are still being said by more folks than just PT.
I switched Cabreras when your back was turned!
I'm bummed he was banned.
I know he offended a lot of people but he always made me think and question my own assumptions.
by roscoe on Mar 24, 2009 7:42 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Please come home PT
Ok, hanging my head in shame, I put up a stupid joke about Barry Bonds two seasons ago and was lambasted on the site. I felt stupid and stayed away. We all make mistakes. But I just have to say, if you leave PT, with Blez not contributing as much and Taj taking a break, it just won’t be the same. I can live with the players leaving but come on PT, you were wrong and you took responsibility. Take your lumps and PLEASE come back. You are funny, concise, witty, and a pot stirrer and sometimes we need that.
Smells like team spirit
really, the only thing I really object to on AN
is if posters personally insult those with whom they don’t agree.
As someone who has been a baseball fan longer than most AN’ers have been alive, I always learn something from posters here, even when I don’t agree with them…and i enjoy that.
One of the best things about AN is that there are community guidelines, and that they will get enforced. I don’t see them as censoring disagreement, but rather making it possible to have this forum at all.
(BTW, I have plenty of opinions about all sorts of things, and I do have a life outside of baseball. But I try to keep out of discussions here that go way OT…)
Wow.
To be perfectly honest, I’m thrilled with the outcome. I wish I was happier about how the result was achieved. The community guidelines surrounding this issue are as follows:
1. Personal attacks on community members, directly or through sarcasm/belittling, e.g., “You’re an idiot,” “You don’t know what you’re talking about, dumbass,” “Apparently, you’ve never seen a baseball game, or you’d know…”, “My Chihuahua knows more about baseball than you do,” etc.
2. Comments that are intolerant or prejudiced (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.) in nature, e.g., “Why don’t you go play with your dolls?”, “The A’s shouldn’t sign black players,” “Doesn’t Damon look like a fag?”, etc.
3. Harassing/Baiting of users, e.g., “How about that Chavez; isn’t he great?” posted five consecutive times that Chavez makes an out, “The A’s will never win this game” posted 10 times in 30 minutes, etc.
4. Relentless negativity will not be tolerated. What constitutes “relentless negativity”? It’s simple: simply posting the A’s suck 100 percent of the time without reasoning or proposing solutions. There is nothing helpful about someone who constantly says that their team “sucks” and complains. We’re all fans and we all get frustrated when the team doesn’t perform or has bad luck, but regurgitating the same venom over and over again doesn’t help anything or anyone. AN is aiming to be better than that. If you continue to do nothing but post negativity, you may lose posting privileges without warning. There’s a difference between someone who aims to point out flaws and be constructive and someone who is destructive. 10 Fanposts, or 10 comments, in a row about how the A’s stink with no reasoning or proposals is basically trolling and that’s how it will be treated. The goal is to make this community fun for everyone.
5. Comments that bring politics into AN (which is a non-political blog), e.g., “Bush/Clinton ruined this country by…”, “Check out this link about the war in Iraq,” etc. And just so that all ANers are clear, AN does accept political advertising as long as it is not offensive in any way, shape or form, but we subscribe to the belief that advertising and editorial are separate. So there will occasionally be political ads that run. Just like any other media outlet, just because a political ad runs, it doesn’t mean we endorse or support whatever cause it happens to be.
Which one of those guidelines did his comment, however unfortunate and stupid it might have been, violate? I suppose you could say it’s a culmination of #4, but that’s a big stretch.
I think PT constantly treats people with little respect on this site, whether he intends to do so or not. Perhaps he simply doesn’t know how; the statement about his departure seems to support that theory. I’m not sure I’ve ever read something that conveyed a greater sense of self-importance that was actually written with the intent of being an apology.
All that said, I didn’t know that saying something stupid and then insisting on defending it was a community guidelines violation.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
An argument could be made (I'm not making arguments)
that 5 would apply.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I think the standard always has to be about maintaining healthy conversation
because healthy conversation is the substance of this community.
That’s the reason for the CGV system here, and for other troll/hiderate/bAnnINg WAnd systems at other blogs — the community here exists only when we write messages to each other, and if someone’s behavior makes that communication incredibly difficult, or nearly impossible, then the community really will cease to exist.
I guess that would be my bottom line about a particular community-member’s comments: to what extent do they advance the conversation (and, thus, the community) and to what extent to they damage the conversation (and, thus, the community)?
I want PT to be able to participate in and contribute to the conversation in a way that makes it, and the community, healthier and happier. I hope that can happen down the road.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 24, 2009 8:16 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
That makes sense.
It’s probably hard to get a set of rules to articulate that goal. That series of comments certainly did nothing to advance the conversation. Something to keep in mind for the next time they’re revised, I suppose.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Both the rules and the enforcement of them will be imperfect
I remember back during our discussions of rule #5 (“bringing politics into AN”) — I argued for giving people a lot of latitude because, well, politics and baseball aren’t completely separate realms, and we’ve had some really good discussions here that touched on politics, from local governments on stadiums, to the steroid hearings. Mentioning politics doesn’t necessarily mess with the conversation here — sometimes it enhances it.
I guess my standard is more a suggestion for whoever is enforcing the CGs now, and not a guideline in and of itself — it’s the way I hope they approach decisions on flagged comments. If you’re trying to disrupt conversation, I’m not real sympathetic. Cut it out or get lost. If you’re trying to contribute to the conversation and failing in a way that actually disrupts it, then that’s a much harder case.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
When I first came to AN
I thought he was a total ass. I mean, most of us when we start on this sight have received the wrath of PT, whether warranted or not. Over the last few months, i have come to have respect for his insight and his passion for his opinions. While he will be missed, hopefully he will come back ready to give more insight and an ability to better understand that everyone’s opinions should be regarded as intelligent and personal, whether he agrees with them or not…
by stranahanahan on Mar 24, 2009 8:28 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
In my opinion the third strike is, to potentially earn my first, bullshit.
Yes, he said something controversial, but it seemed the emerging consensus was that the controversy was making an obvious statement in an unfortunate place. That doesn’t seem strike-worthy, and I think the admins who voted to make it one need to take a step back from this one and, at the very least, make it 30 days instead of 30+ days. Were I an admin, I very much hope I could have prevented the vote from going so foolishly, as what I saw was more mob mentality than anything else. Were there a strike to award in that thread, I would award it to Nico’s comment about beating PT up. In fact, I’m going to go back and flag it now.
In a larger sense, I think PT is right that the thread was expressing an opinion, and the simple fact that it is a mainstream one does not make disagreeing a bannable offense. As an example, if someone posted a “God bless America” thread I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone on AN’s response was that such things are silly. Similarly, we don’t hand out strikes to everyone who doesn’t like Cust.
That said, I’m not going to vow to stop reading AN or anything, but this was a stupid decision clearly removed from the rules of this site. The admins blew it, and the admins were amongst the bad actors in the mess that the thread became. I think this is the first official AN decision since I joined that makes me embarrassed to be a member.
Finally, the “everything is about PT” line is tired and wrong. To the extent it’s true, it’s because every time PT says something, someone feels contractually obligated to respond with something along the lines of “don’t be an ass PT” regardless of whether he was being one.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Mar 24, 2009 8:39 PM PDT reply actions 18 recs
The problem is simple
PT made a comment that would generally be seen as common sense by most of us, the gist being that certain people aren’t automatically heroes simply because they put on a uniform, and that many police officers aren’t the shining beacons of civility and justice many make them out to be.
It was completely unnecessary to say that in the post about the slain officers. Absolutely pointless to go there.
Of course it turned into another “PaulThomas vs. AN” situation because he made it that way by acting like he couldn’t be wrong thanks to constructing a real, if simplistic argument that is clearly going to be taken as controversial. Then when he got the predictable response, the defenses went up and out came the victim reaction.
Numerous people took it as Paul being Paul, Paul inciting a reaction, etc. It wasn’t just a mod thing. Let’s not forget he already had two strikes for past things. It isn’t like this was a first offense.
You don’t have to like the decision but it was probably bound to happen sooner or later. That doesn’t make him a bad person. It just means there are certain things that need to change in order to cut back on some of the issues. And no, this is not the mods playing censor. This is the mods trying to get someone to stop doing certain things that are a disruption to the site.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Im confused...
PT made a comment that would generally be seen as common sense by most of us,
but he should be banned because of it? Sounds like hes being judged not for his comments but for a general reputation, which doesn’t seem fair.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Next time, please read the rest of what I said instead of singling out the part you want to question.
Thanks.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Just so i'm clear with what you're saying
you believe what was actually said was within the realm of correct, but that as a response to the diary itself, it was a completely inappropriate time and place to say it?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
I could be wrong...
…but to me, that falls into “baiting other users”. People were obviously upset, and emotions were running strong. And a comment dropped in there fueled the fire. Whether or not it was intended to, that is up for debate. But it certainly wasn’t the first time it’s happened.
There was a similar incident on AN in the past; during a thread about a player’s death, someone made an extremely inappropriate comment that would have stood alone in a game thread, but absolutely fired people up in the thread it was posted in. Same thing.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course I believe the initial comment, at its core, was correct
There is no doubt that not all police officers are saints or that maybe some do it for less than pure reasons. That doesn’t mean they aren’t heroic when they put their lives on the line to protect others.
Nobody here claimed otherwise and there was no issue until Paul made his arguments. It came off as being his way of turning the discussion toward him over something that had no reason or need to be said, and if he didn’t think that was going to happen I don’t know what to tell you.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I was just hoping for clarity on your opinion/view of the situation on the whole
because what you said was a bit convoluted. Sorry if it came across any other way.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
No problem
I thought it was pretty clear, but maybe it wasn’t completely in some ways. I hope this did help enough.
I wish some people would take a step back and give things some time to settle down. Paul is not banished from AN forever. It’s 30 days. Whatever others think, the mods decided Paul needs to fix a few things. That is their right to decide but the conspiracy theories are getting, well, frustrating.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
That is my main problem with this
The mods are not saying Paul needs to fix a few things. If they actually said, “PT was being a pain in the ass, and we got sick and tired of it so we suspended him for 30 days” I might still disagree, but at least it would be honest. Instead, they use this bogus third strike and hide behind a CGV to give a sort of official unbiased feel to the process. All so they can say, “It wasn’t us that wanted PT gone, it was all part of the CGV process, same rules as apply to everyone.”
It just feels insulting to my intelligence to try and pass this off as anything but the mods/powers that be got sick of PT (as did many users I am sure) so they did something about it. Fine. Just be honest about it.
by AsFanInLA on Mar 24, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I stayed out of it until now
I read the thread, I am a law enforcement veteran of 25 years. I did not wish to respond at the time because my response would have been emotional. Yes, not all of us are “saints”. But the mistake he made, in my opinion is perhaps he was being pre judicial. He did not know those men, and to just make a statement like that made me unhappy, as did postings by another.
We do a job that most won’t do, we see mostly bad things, we pick up pieces, we see tears, we see death. I just think some forget that we are human, we hurt, we don’t talk about it we just keep it inside.
Sorry, I’m getting off track. As far s PT goes, I’m not sure, I was quite angered by his post but I’m used to it, but that does not make it right. But as in law enforcement it is not my place to judge, just report. Thanks
Stomp,em, stomp the piss out of em.Then pound the budweiser after the game. Joe Schultz Seattle Piolts Mgr 1969
by billyball1981 on Mar 25, 2009 6:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I did not comment either, but I agree, he most likely did not know those officers so you cannot pass judgement by making a statement saying in so many words that they are not “heros”. I live in Miami and I really only followed this story via the national news and some local news here that had small pieces on it, nothing more. So I am sure that the reporting of this story in OAK gave some sort of background on their characters from family, friends and other officers.
Nobody is perfect, but I found his conduct in that post to be off base for such a horrific incident.
Try reading his post.
PT didn’t say that these officers weren’t heroes but rather objected to the original poster’s claim that all cops are heroes simply because they are cops.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Point me to the rule against making a true statement at the wrong time
And not, it wasn’t just a mod thing, but the mods failed in their role as, well, moderators. I have no problem with people flagging the comment, I have a huge problem with the flag turning into a strike.
As to your “he already had two” point, that’s irrelevant. I’d be equally disappointed if it wasn’t his third. The only difference is that in that case I’d never have known it happened.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
true statements can be flagged and turned into strikes...
trust me, I know. LOL
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 24, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Just because something is true doesn't make it all right to say
Like I and many others have clearly stressed, there is a time and place for certain things to be said. This was not that time for what Paul said.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
so if someone
says something at a time that is not appropriate to you they should be banned?!? That’s insane. He didn’t make people get in huff about anything. He argued a point, one deepens the conversation.
If you’re just going to talk about how heroic cops are then what’s the point? It could’ve turned into a good debate about the gray areas but sadly this is a community that enjoys the depth of a human being. Nobody is always a hero, that’s what makes it interesting. My guess is that you don’t agree.
I find it all funny. Let’s ban everyone that doesn’t agree with us.
by CliveWarren on Mar 25, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the problem becomes...
…when one person becomes bigger than AN, and takes attention away from the site. It’s happened in the past; several times, and the moderators wouldn’t be doing their job if they didn’t monitor the community’s needs. Paul Thomas (in the post above) admitted as much; he has become a distraction to the site, and many more threads than I’m comfortable with fall into a pro-PT and anti-PT routine, that I personally think is detrimental to the site. We should be able to have a post about the A’s without fifty extra comments about something Paul Thomas has said. And whether or not he means to, he is guilty of baiting other users into predictable reactions. And it has become a distraction.
I think the suspension seems a fair compromise; Paul Thomas is one of the best baseball minds on here, and I would GREATLY miss it if he decided not to come back. I hope he does. But I also know that there can’t be a thread every day about Paul Thomas.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then discipline the people who respond to his points with personal attacks.
And, for what it’s worth, I reject the premise. Most threads wind up being about one person or another.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Mar 24, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The moderators
do discipline folks who respond to his (and I use the term loosely) “points”. I know this personally as I got a strike for taking a shot at him awhile back. There were multiple occasions I could have reported him for attacking me but that’s not my style – I’m just surprised this didn’t happen sooner.
I think the moderators have done the right thing here. By the way, threads should not be about one AN person or another. They are much more enjoyable and interesting when they are about the team itself and issues surrounding the team.
PT
I really hope that he comes back because a great deal of his insight was, well, highly insightful.
I can see why his comments on the police thread were offensive to some. I may be inclined to agree with him to but as many said that was not the time or place and his response made the situation far worse.
In short, I really value his baseball insight and hope that we can have that from him again, only with a little bit more regard for the feelings of others.
More Rajai Davis & less mount Davis
by Athletics fan and runner on Mar 24, 2009 8:39 PM PDT reply actions
Interesting, though I will argue vehemently that PT's comment was nowhere near a bannable offense.
Personally, I thought it was a pretty stupid thing to post, the timing was awful, and it was an opinion of his that was pretty much universally disagreed with.
That said, it was his opinion, no more and no less. Sure, this is a private blog and you have to accept the terms of service when your register, so techinically the 1st Amendment/free speech/etc issue isn’t an issue, but nothing he said was directed at people here, or flaming, or baiting, or any other sort of malicious post.
As someone who has worn a uniform and a sidearm (not as a cop, or military, but armed security elsewhere) I found it personally insulting that PT could think someone who throws on a police uniform and potentially goes out to die every day for work was something other than heroic. Whatever, agree to disagree, but expressing one’s opinion – no matter how much it may be the opposite of what 99% of the rest of AN thinks – should not be a “strike” by any stretch of the imagination.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Mar 24, 2009 8:43 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
It wasn't a bannable offense in and of itself
It wasn’t the first offense, either.
It also wasn’t only because of what he said. It was because of how he handled the reaction to it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
The reaction to it was worse than how he handled it
And your continued harping on the fact that he already has two strikes is off point.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Mar 24, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
if each CGV is to be judged by itself bringing up that he already had two is irrelevant and prejudicial.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it is completely on point
The fact it is even discussed as a bannable offense is because of the two strikes he already had. If he had none, we’re not talking about a ban, temporary or otherwise.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Let me try this again
If it was the first strike, it would still be wrong to give it to him.
The only reason him having two strikes matters at all is that this one resulted in a ban and therefore we found out about it.
We clear now?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
It'd be a completely different situation if he had no strikes before
Then it’d be a first-time thing and it’d probably just be a warning.
When you have a history that has resulted in getting two strikes, that’s just the way it is. It’s too bad some people don’t seem to understand that. He was given a LOT of leeway in the hope he’d change on his own prior to this.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
So you're saying you wouldn't have made this strike one
But would have (or did, I don’t really know) made it strike three?
That logic is, at best, deeply flawed. At worst, proof of what a lot of people (myself included) think happened here.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I don't think you're separating things out here
Taken alone, by itself, it could be a warning or a first strike from someone without a track record here. I’m not going to repeat my opinions on the comment or its intent, considering I’ve done that already.
Taken with the understanding of how Paul has acted here in the past, it could and was deemed strike three. I believe he’s a good guy who is outspoken and at times overly harsh in things he says. Doesn’t make him a bad person, and he does bring value to the site with his baseball knowledge.
THAT’S WHY THE BAN IS FOR 30 DAYS INSTEAD OF PERMANENT.
The key element here is Paul already had two strikes and kept acting the same way. What are the mods supposed to do after giving him two strikes? Just ignore everything else? If that’s the case, what’s the point of giving strikes in the first place? I’m pretty sure that was being done to the extent that relatively minor things that could’ve earned someone else a warning were allowed to slide if nobody really said anything one way or the other – as you know, there has been a lot of give and take between Paul and others.
It was determined he baited people with the timing of what he said and the way he said it. Whether he had a point or not isn’t the issue. This is what people are disagreeing with, saying he didn’t break any rules, but he did.
The CGs aren’t flawless, but they are a part of AN. People should be used to them by now and if someone does something to get a strike, they have the ability to change what caused it. If people want to leave because Paul got a time out that he earned, go right ahead.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
To quote myself
If PT had said something like "Nico, you’re a total asshole with no social skills, STFU" and it was his third strike my reaction would be disappointment in PT. Because things were dramatically different, however, my reaction is disappointment in AN.
Strikes serve a valuable purpose. If you’re going to issue them, though, why not make sure you’re doing it for the right reasons. If the third strike was “inevitable,” then it would be much better to wait for a real one than to reach for one here.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Mar 25, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pretty clearly, the moderators think it was given for a right reason
It was also discussed via e-mail before being given in order to make sure people were in agreement about it.
As I said before, you don’t have to agree with it or like it. Clearly you and others don’t. That doesn’t change anything.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I just hope the moderators learn something from this
As you say, PT is banned and nothing in this thread will change that.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
When you get down to it, that's not even the case
PT isn’t really “banned” – he’ll be back in 30-days if he chooses to be. Pretty huge difference.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Well,
PT might be back in 30-days if you, and he, so choose. Yes, it’s different from a permanent ban (and, for the record, exactly what the community guidelines call for but with an explicit timeframe). That said, my point is that this decision is made.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I actually sent a proactive email out saying that
I saw the comment had been flagged and if was ruled a ‘strike’ it would be ‘strike three,’ so as you weigh in please just make sure you are being mindful, and intentional, about the implications.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I don't like your argument about
it not being the first offense. Shouldn’t each offense stand alone? Since Jack Cust has two strikes on him, should he strike out just because there was another pitch, ball or strike? Baseball analogy, doesn’t quite work but I’m rolling with it.
If you’re going to ban a guy for 3 strikes, give him 3 strikes. Don’t give him 2 strikes and then when he pisses you off give him a third.
by CliveWarren on Mar 25, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions
technical fouls
would be better if it took 3 to eject you
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
whatever the rights and wrongs of this situation
am I the only one who thinks it’s a bit off to have a thread specifically about someone who is unable to defend himself?
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 8:43 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I thought so for a moment
but how else should his statement have been communicated? I suppose it could have been a FanPost with commenting locked, assuming that’s technically feasible.
Either way, this meta discussion would have happened anyway, so best to bring it straight to the table. He’s made more than 14,000 posts here in a year and a half. That kind of absence would have been noticed.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
See Ball, Monkey as an example
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Not really
He requested the e-mails be made public.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
it's not so much the emails
more the discussion afterwards
but, as jeepers says, i guess it was inevitable anyway
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm surprised he lasted this long
PT has a sound baseball mind but he lacks people skills. I don’t know if his 3rd strike comment was worthy of punishment or not… nor do I care. All I know for certain is that AN was created to be an virtual sports bar, and if this was an actual sports bar with people instead of avatars PT would have gotten his ass kicked long ago. Maybe he comes back with a touch more humility?
We’ll see.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Mar 24, 2009 8:53 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
you gotta wonder tho
In your proverbial bar, does the guy who is passionate about the home team and ruffles feathers get kicked out sooner or later than the guy making the constant jokes about him having sex with goats?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
You kidding me?
Hey, a pun!
In this proverbial bar the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place.
The monster at the end of this blog.
True...
However, saying that you want to have sex with goats in the real world shows about the same level of social grace as saying that all police officers aren’t heroes.
Just because Nico has the power to enforce the rules doesn’t mean that the standards he sets shouldn’t be applied to everybody.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
The difference between Nico’s objectionable comment and PT’s is the humor that goes with the goat joke. He’s also directing the comment at himself, and making fun of oneself allows a lot more latitude then when you direct the joke at someone else. PT’s objectionable comments were directed at other people and that has a different set of rules.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I disagree.
The CG clearly state that individual comments should be judged individually. PT’s comments in the police officers thread weren’t really directed at anyone in particular.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions
comments not directed at anyone in particular...
can be flagged and turned into a strike. Trust me, I know. ;-)
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 24, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll say it again
I don’t know or care if PT’s comments in the police thread were worthy of a strike. You were asking why Nico’s goat comments didn’t merit a virtual beatdown (or a strike). Nico’s goat jokes are directed at himself, the vast majority of PT’s comments are meant for others. If you flagged Nico for one of his goat sex comments he’d probably get a warning to tone it down. However, no one takes it seriously when he goes goat so I doubt anyone has ever flagged him for it.
The monster at the end of this blog.
It's easy to skim over Goat...
But I draw the line at housecat.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Well...
like you said he does own the bar. To be honest I find goat sex comments much more devoid of value and obnoxious than anything that I have read coming from PT. I don’t think that I necessarily think that my sense of judgment should have to be placated on the issue but I also think that banning PT is ridiculous so take what you will from it.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed on that point.
I too find the goat sex comments much more devoid of value and obnoxious than anything that I have read coming from PT.
Come to think of it, my attitude toward the two types of comments is similar. They both make me cringe — not because I’m offended but because I feel sympathy. I like Paul, and I like Nico, and it pains me when they embarrass themselves.
Maybe I’m way off base, but in my view this goat stuff comes from a personality issue just as much as Paul’s inability to get along. Nico is older than Paul and thus much better integrated, but even so he still has something that compels him to constantly put himself down with self-deprecating humor. Sorry to psychoanalyze you here on the board, Nico, but I think you’re better than that. Much much better. You can still play the clown — that’s all in good fun — but the goat stuff is just sick. Cut it out.
Just my opinion.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
by iglew on Mar 25, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
i think it’s a) not funny and b) if this is really a “community”, there are a bunch of 15 and 16 year olds on this site that don’t need to be reading bestiality jokes.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
New tag line
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Humility?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Not quite
PT got himself banned, I didn’t. And I don’t think its ’cause I “play the game” better or am smarter than the guy.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Maybe it's because lacking humility isn't (and shouldn't) be a CGV
For example, I’ve never flagged anything either your or PT posted. I think Nico’s post is the first I’ve ever flagged.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
PT has responded to people with utter contempt, simply because they don't think like he does
free speech does not mean “the right to say what you want, when you want, how you want,” without being sensitive to, and respectful towards, the community as a whole.
Taken straight from the Community Guidelines. It’s my hope that a touch of humility would make it easier for PT to refrain from the contempt. Very often its not so much what PT says but how he says it.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Granted,
but the viral bar is more interesting with PT here, no?
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions
come now, grover
AN is surely more interesting with PT. It might be more annoying and unpalatable to you, but surely it’s more interesting.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Not really. That which annoys me does not interest me, in fact, I tune it out
Well, as best I can.
The monster at the end of this blog.
case in point
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm with grover
From the first PT post beginning with “Um” (the dickish springboard to many a condescending post through the Internets), I’ve found AN to be less fun, less civil, less a community. Apparently, I’m in the minority on this, but, so be it.
by Ray of Lite on Mar 25, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1 to nevermoor's response, but also:
Authors
grover email this user
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I think mods definitely get away with more
I think people are less likely to report them, because of some suck-up-itude or something
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
obviously
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
huh?
i’m agreeing with the idea that “anyone whose name is listed at the bottom of AN can get away with more because other users are less likely to report them.”
that applies to everyone, not just you.
whether you have ever said anything CGV-worthy, and whether you actually have any power here, is totally irrelevant.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
So you pull my name out to run up the flag?
Here’s what I don’t understand about this argument… are you afraid of a reprisal if you turn in a CGV on a mod? Did you run up a CGV on someone prior to getting tapped with your strikes?
Thing is, I could almost understand your concerns if you were talking about one of the site managers but to single me out makes no sense. I’m a writer, which means I have Front Page access and my name shows up at the bottom of the site. I have absolutely no administrative powers, meaning I can’t delete comments or posts or users.
Let me make this clear to everyone. If you think I say something that violates the Community Guidelines then REPORT ME. But if you don’t, do not sit there and cry about how nothing happens to the mods when they cross the line. To the best of my knowledge, AN does not have someone who’s job is to police the site 24/7, looking for CGV comments. The community is the police force.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Mar 24, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Uh, grover...
It was already about you when nevermoor called you a hypocrite. I doubt if xbox is singling you out here.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
The hypocrite bit was inaccurate and merely a skirmish type event
Bringing up my status as a Front Page writer is an escalation to a higher level of warfare. Especially since the charge of me receiving preferential treatment is ridiculous considering my past run-ins with upper management.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I agree with grover on this point
And I didn’t so much call him a hypocrite as point out that his humility is not exactly Christ-like.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
dude, you are taking this way too personally
-i used your name as an example, that does not mean i’m attacking you. this is getting out of hand, please replace your name with “devo” and let’s move on.
-i can’t think of a comment you have made that i consider CGV-worthy.
-even if i did, i wouldn’t flag you. i don’t flag comments because i don’t support the CGV process. i’m not AN’s nikolai yezhov. or to quote woody allen:
I don’t recognize the right of this committee to ask me these kind of questions. And furthermore, you can all go fuck yourselves.
-you’re making this about me and concerns i may have, but i already assumed you have no administrative powers. instead, think of a more casual user who might think “hey i’m offended by devo’s comment, but i don’t want to flag it because i see he holds a position of authority here. what if he’s a member of the CGV committee? not only will he not be punished, but they might even retaliate by going after me. it’s probably best to stay out of it.”
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I'm not trying to make this about you, I was honestly asking if that scenario had played out
And damn straight I took it personal when you singled me out to use me as an example! Let’s take advantage of devo’s absence and pick on him if we must.
I think you have valid concerns about the CGV process and I think this is the thread to bring the topic up. But I don’t share those same concerns with you and it has nothing to do with my Front Page status, I’ve felt this way pretty much since the system went in place years ago.
And just to play Devil’s Advocate and defend Nico for a minute, what could he possibly say to a casual user that would convince them that there is no risk of reprisal for flagging one of his comments as a CGV and that he could be punished for the transgression? You tell me, because I don’t feel like that message has been implied in any way but I’m willing to deal with it if there’s a ready solution.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't know about anyone else on the Front Page staff so I can't speak about them being covered
But as someone who has received strikes and warnings in the past, I can assure you I have never asked for or been promised “protection” from on high.
Furthermore, if your idea of sucking up to me is to not report my questionable comments then I have bad news for you… I haven’t noticed your efforts.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't know if I've ever flagged a comment by anybody.
So, no sucking up from me. Sorry, charlie (I didn’t capitalize it for you, so maybe I am sucking up a little).
Have you received strikes or warnings after your move to the front page?
Either way, I think that people let mods’ comments slide when other users would get flagged. The only way I can possibly know this is the fact that fewer people seem to respond to mod comments that seem flag-worthy than to others.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
I have received 1 strike during my tenure, and that was before I made the Front Page
If memory serves, I have received 1 formal warning, 1 semi-formal warning and a couple private warnings since becoming a writer for the site.
The formal warning was on a comment that was flagged and went through the CGV process.
Thing to remember about the mods is they have, by and large, been around a long time. AN has built up a tolerance to my style, for example. I’m sure if a newbie had made some of my comments they might have had folks call ‘em on it and report them. But don’t make this about the AN hierarchy, if you and other users aren’t reporting myself or the other mods for comments you deem inappropriate then there is no way we’ll ever get punished! You have to give the system (yes, I rolled my eyes as I said it) a chance to do its job by getting the process rolling. You have to report CGVs.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Mar 24, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm weird
I always want to have closure. So, rather than reporting someone, I’ll continue conversation until understanding is reached. I’ll even apologize when I’m even slightly out of line (socially, not logically). I’ve always felt that healthy discussion is much more effective than bell ringing. But, I do see the necessity of some sort of ringable bell for comments that go too far. I’m just not usually involved in those exchanges.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
I'm with you on that
Although I will admit to having lowered my standards on what worthy of my reporting the comment.
Before you had to threaten physical violence, now the trigger is a hair lower than that.
I’m not encouraging you to make it your life’s work to report CGVs on AN. What I’m saying is, if you aren’t going to report anyone then you shouldn’t turn around and accuse a select few of escaping punishment.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Whether I report them or not is irrelevant, since I report nobody.
The bottom line is, I don’t want anybody to get banned. I don’t know how many strikes a user has. If I know that a user has a clean slate, I might be okay with giving them a warning. But I definitely am not looking to get someone kicked. Especially a PT or Nico.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
"PT would have gotten his ass kicked long ago."
Hmm. And you?
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 24, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd have gotten my bell rung a time or two, no doubt
The thing to remember with me is, I’m a counter puncher by nature. So if someone treats me right I try to do the same unto them. And yes, I’ve failed in that regard on occasion.
The monster at the end of this blog.
He wouldn't have stood alone.
I’m outta here, too. So long, A’s fans.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
grover is right on the money.
But just to put in a quick two cents…I do hope that Paul comes back. However, if he does not…AN will go on and perhaps some of the creative posters will feel a little more free to post. The site has become pre-dominately informational and less creative in the Paul era. That being said, I will miss him as a young wordsmith most of all. He writes so well. You can’t help but admire that skill. I think Paul will come back to AN . He posted often and so you know that he cared about the site but if he does not…well, Paul, thanks for your many interesting posts over these last couple of years. I have enjoyed reading many of them.
Banning PT I think is really quite unfair
Paul Thomas made a unpopular political opinion in a political post. I do not see how PT’s comment met any of the community standards for getting a strike besides being an unpopular opinion. To state that all police officers are heroes is inherently political, yet I didn’t see anyone get banned for that. Good to know that popular political opinions will be tolerated and unpopular ones will be strikes.
PT was one of the main reasons I frequent AN. I found his baseball mind to be among the best on this site. I also found his famous “antagonism” to be blown way out of proportion by AN legend. PT backed up his assertions with logic, statistics, and wit, I see no problem with that. I find this whole thing quite disappointing.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 9:08 PM PDT reply actions 9 recs
I agree
There seem to be a lot of people happy about PT’s banning which is odd to say the least.
He’s insightful and provokes discussion, is that not what you want from AN?
I hope he doesn’t come back, this is awkward. I believe everyone deserves better than to be banned for their opinion.
by CliveWarren on Mar 25, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I dunno, from the response in this thread, I think most people are against the banning
Which is odd to me. I mean if the CGV committee is supposed to make decisions representative of the feelings of the community, why have they made a decision that clearly doesn’t reflect the feelings of the community?
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 25, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions
People typically speak up when they are upset/disagree.
If they are happy or in agreement, they usually won’t say anything.
If ever a game should have been called on account of wind, that one was it. Good thing Jerry Blevins didn't have to pitch; he's tall, skinny, and I could practically see one of the 40-mph gusts...sweeping him off the bump and pinning him to the left-field fence. --Mychael Urban
I disagree strongly
with your evolving self-awareness!
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions
The "silent majority" theory does not always work.
If it did, then all criticism would be dismissed as irrelevant ramblings of the vocal minority and nothing would be done to change a flawed status quo.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 25, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions
but it is handy...just for that reason.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions
The nature of the internet is the people who don't like something are always the most vocal about it
The silent majority remains, well, silent and goes on about their business like normal.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
So with your logic
most people agreed with PT about cops?
by CliveWarren on Mar 25, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I think most people did with the core point, yes
Even though it was presented in an inflammatory way about cops in general and wasn’t appropriate for the situation at the time. Nobody said all cops are pillars of society. I think I’ve made that pretty clear above.
I think I’ve also made it clear why it was also baiting, as has baseballgirl.
You don’t have to agree, but I would appreciate it if you at least acknowledged this instead of acting like he was only banned for speaking his mind. That is absolutely not the case.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
“self-designated veterans” and many other ANers: against banning
AN officials, their buddies, admin in training (^): for banning
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 25, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Insightful and provocative is not enough.
Plenty of people on this site provide insight without being arrogant and disrespectful. It’s not enough to provide meaningful information if you can’t do so in a constructive way.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I have one problem with this.
PT made a politcal comment on a politcal blog. If making a politcal statement is against the rules, then shouldn’t the person who posted the post be given a strike as well.
Agree
He was speaking in a political blog, the person who wrote the blog should be given a strike.
If you rule that PT was baiting then how about the title to this blog, in my mind it is kind of demeaning to PT (and on top of that he can’t defend himself except for his initial letter)
+1
too many other blogs cover politics. let this one cover baseball.
by rollierollieOxenfree on Mar 25, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
As long as PT can take it,
I think we should give it. As unpopular as his comments are, he manages to make us think in a way we wouldn’t normally. I read some of his comments and think, why continue with this jackassery. Yet, with others, he’s the sole voice of reason.
I’d like you to stay PT. I know its hard to put your opinions out there sometimes, and sometimes they are hard for us to hear.
I just keep hoping we’ll come to some kind of halfway point.
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
I might be the only person banned from this site only to return again after promising to behave. Of course, I almost never post anything anymore. Nevertheless, it is possible to pull it together and be a mensch. I’m amazed PT lasted as long as he did. He got away with more nonsense than anyone in the history of AN. I couldn’t believe the stuff he posted. I don’t think being intelligent is an excuse for being a jerk. Being banned may be a good thing for him. It helped me get my act together. Or thsumpthin.
VIVA LA MIKE HEATH!
Nope.
Don’t forget about this guy.
99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod
i'm trying to rank this incident on my mental list of "most ridiculous things that have ever happened on AN"....
i think i made my own feelings regarding PT’s classless comment clear in the original thread here, so i won’t do so again.
the CGV system is completely broken if it’s banning intelligent and productive members of the “community” for being socially awkward, while there are so many people around here who add absolutely nothing of value. ah, but actual baseball knowledge is not valued around here, whereas random people finding the site via yahoo sports and writing “cust sucks too many strickouts” is where the money is made.
besides that, there are the cases of administrators abusing their power. do you think PT is a bad guy for arguing that no job should be considered intrinsically heroic at a time when the bay area is mourning the death of four local police officers? what about a diary comparing US troops to Nazis and those who “support the troops” to Nazi sympathizers? i bet a lot more than four soldiers from the bay area were killed in 2006 alone. yet a mod actually defended the statement in the comments. and then all of a sudden that portion of the diary, and the mod’s comments, were all deleted. disappeared. and of course no CGVs were handed out. and that’s not the only time a mod has deleted his own questionable comments around here.
who even makes these decisions? who are the “board” members? no one knows.
the CGV process is secretive and arbitrary. there was another incident where a group of people engaged in a long political discussion, and all but one got a CGV. there is no transparency whatsoever, who knows how often that happens? it only came out in that particular instance because the person actually admitted it by publicly thanking the admin for removing his strike after he begged them to do so over email.
the whole system is somewhere between kafkaesque and stalinist.
i received these two emails over the last few weeks:
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:36:25 PM
To: "xbhaskarx"
From: Nico, on behalf of Athletics Nation’s moderators
Re: "strike" for violating AN’s Community Guidelines
Hi "xbhaskarx,"
AN’s moderators have asked me to let you know that your recent comment, "The A’s front office is not smoking whatever you are" violated the Community Guideline of not insulting or belittling fellow AN users.
As a result, you have received a "full strike" to go with the "warning" issued a couple days ago.
A couple things to note about being given a "strike" or "warning": The issuance of a "strike" or "warning" is never a reflection, in any way, of your participation on AN in general – just that the specific comment was judged to be in violation of the Community Guidelines. Also, I am simply the messenger of the information and am thus not in a position to answer any specific questions about the moderators’ decision to issue a "strike" or "warning".
Sincerely,
-Nico.
Sunday, March 8, 2009, 9:28 PM
To: "xbhaskarx"
From: Nico, on behalf of Athletics Nation’s moderators
Re: "warning" for violating AN’s Community
Guidelines
Hi "xbhaskarx,"
AN’s moderators have asked me to let you know that your recent comment
1) are you going to post this in every thread?
2) he’s not on the a’s, chances are he will never be on the a’s
3) are you going to misspell dejesus every time you post this?
earned a "warning" for being unnecessarily obnoxious to a fellow user.
Again.
As a result, you have received a "strike one – just a warning"
according to the rules outlined in AN’s Community Guidelines (see link on
AN’s home page).
A couple things to note about being given a "strike" or "warning":
The issuance of a "strike" or "warning" is never a reflection, in any
way, of your participation on AN in general – just that the specific comment
was judged to be in violation of the Community Guidelines. Also, I am simply the
messenger of the information and am thus
not in a position to answer any
specific questions about the moderators’ decision to issue a "strike" or
"warning".
Sincerely,
-Nico.
i forwarded the emails to a small group of veteran ANers… i would love to share their comments (anonymously) with “the community” if any of them give me permission to do so via email.
meanwhile the head mod and CGV enforcer can write comments like this:
It shows the clear difference between the internet and a bar:
PaulThomas still has his teeth.
by Nico on Mar 22, 2009 6:00 PM PDT
can the administration let the AN community know if that comment received a CGV? or is that not considered insulting, belittling, or obnoxious to a fellow AN user?
this place is supposedly a virtual bar… at a real bar saying “you’re lucky to still have your teeth” would be far more likely to get an ass kicking (as grover said above) than saying “you must be smoking something”.
meanwhile, monkeyball has left the site, and informed people over email that he’s never coming back. salb918 has posted once in the last month, freeseatupgrade hasn’t posted in over a week…
paulthomas: please email me at xbhaskarx@yahoo.com, i would love to see your correspondence with admin, and to know what other comments of yours were considered CGV-worthy.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 24, 2009 9:43 PM PDT reply actions 21 recs
+a lot and rec'd
To me, it seems like the mods have let personal feelings influence their decision on this.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 24, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
/slaps grover with a metal gauntlet
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
/takes back gauntlet. Kicks dirt.
We’re good.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 24, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, this much is certainly curious.
A couple things to note about being given a “strike” or “warning”: The issuance of a “strike” or “warning” is never a reflection, in any way, of your participation on AN in general – just that the specific comment was judged to be in violation of the Community Guidelines. Also, I am simply the messenger of the information and am thus not in a position to answer any specific questions about the moderators’ decision to issue a “strike” or “warning”.
O RLY? PT getting chucked was over a specific comment, and in no way a reflection of his participation on AN in general? I really hate arguing on PT’s behalf, but it sure isn’t easy to avoid.
It’s hilarious you got a full strike for the “what are you smoking?” comment. Well, not “ha ha” funny, but amazing nonetheless. The rapid sequence says someone’s out to get you. Wouldn’t be fair to say it’s a moderator, because it could very well be a user, but somebody decided you needed to be put in your place.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Again....
….AN works because it is a community. Where everyone gets a say. In the past, when the site has become all about one user, something has to be done. There is a three strike process; and nothing is even brought to the committee’s attention unless it has been flagged as a CGV. Did you flag the posts you referenced above? Your average users (not the moderators) flag posts they deem inappropriate and action is taken on those posts.
Paul Thomas received two strikes before the most recent one, or he wouldn’t have been banned. Paul Thomas, whether you think it is because of social awkwardness or not, consistently baits users into reacting to him; a clear cut case of violating the CGVs, and it’s not like he hasn’t been warned already about his behavior. I have no problem with someone making a comment and correcting it, but when you make an inappropriate comment; people call you out on it, and you defend it up to the point of turning a baseball site into your own personal argument, day after day, to the point where you drive other users (and not unintelligent “Yahoo” users, as you claim) away, what do you want the moderators to do?
By the way, monkeyball left the site for completely different reasons. It’s disingenuous of you to suggest that these incidents are related.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions
AN works because it is a community. Where everyone gets a say.
i stopped reading right there.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Okay, really?
You can post whatever you want on AN, clearly. You just posted the William Wallace equivalent above.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
And you have a say. You could have flagged any of the comments you referenced above.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
right, i could flag a "US soldiers = nazis" comment
and i will NEVER find out if anything was done about it. so, yes, i have the power to press a button that sends things into a black hole. awesome.
and don’t give me this “average users (not the moderators) flag posts” BS. how is anyone supposed to know who flags the comments? even if all moderators somehow had the “flag” button removed from their accounts, which i seriously doubt is the case, do you know how easy it is to sign out and then sign back in using another account?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Okay, honestly, this is not a conspiracy!
If you had flagged US soldiers = nazis, and brought it to the AN committee’s attention, you don’t think a comment like that would have assigned a strike to the poster!? But you didn’t (I’m guessing). That is the only way to moderate; to have YOU tell THEM that a comment was over the line.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions
THE COMMENTS WERE DELETED
1) a mod’s CGV-worthy comments mysteriously deleted, yeah no conspiracy there.
2) how the f*ck does one flag a comment that is GONE?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Okay, I obviously can't explain either one of those things.
I was clearly out of the loop on that one.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Okay, I'm bowing out.
I did my best to give my point of view, coming from both a user and a front page poster, and I’m not sure it did any good. I hope Paul Thomas comes back as a baseball mind and contributes to the site, and can do that without antagonizing other users. And I’m sorry that you’re upset, too.
And I just want us to get along and watch baseball. I just don’t want to be the MLB message boards…and I feel like the moderators have done such a good job keeping that mess off AN. It’s not perfect; nothing ever will be, but it’s pretty good. And that’s what I have to work with.
xbhaskarx, I appreciate your passion and your loyalty, even if I don’t always agree with your conclusions.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
If you're the only one that flags it, nothing's probably going to be done
It takes more than just you or I to have action taken on something.
Most people probably just ignore things, skip over them or aren’t bothered by some of what they read where others are. Or, in many cases, they never see them in the first place if they aren’t reading every comment.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I get what you're saying and in theory, yes you're right
I think the disconnect with the practice is what’s actually going on in the background and because it’s not transparent to the general public, because we’re not involved really outside the “flag” button, it doesn’t really give the sense that the community really is involved in the process. Case in point, you’re seeing a lot of defense over PT’s situation. Now, is that representative of the population as a whole, maybe, maybe not. But because most of the people who would defend him weren’t involved with the process in any way, it leaves something to be desired in the “community” sense.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
And I see what you are saying....but I don't see a better way.
It wouldn’t be….well….ideal to openly say that user1, user34, and user99 flagged this post, it was voted on, and it received a strike. It’s what happens, but I don’t think people want their names out there like that. Instead, anyone can flag any post, and it is reviewed by a user committee, and strikes are assigned, or not.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe let the flagger know the result?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
But wouldn't that turn into a lot of back and forth?
Like, “This is a strike”, “no it’s not”, “why isn’t it”? etc?
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe
Maybe it would help the offended party understand whether they had a reason to be offended.
Also, I would very much like to know the result of my first AN flag, so that may be my bias.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
So other people should be deciding whether or not I should be offended?
I hope to God it’s not you.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Wow
1. Of course it isn’t me
2. Be offended at whatever you want
3. If it isn’t a CGV, then that means the comment was ok, which is all I was getting at.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Sorry, I was a bit harsh
What I should have said was…
People are offended for different reasons. I interpreted your post to mean that the flaggers should be told that they shouldn’t be offended. Sorry, I now realize that you probably meant through introspection.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
No worries
It was poorly worded
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Wow, that was inappropriate
All that nevermoor was saying was that if there was some dialogue to let the person who flags a comment know why it was not given a strike (if it was in fact not given a strike) then maybe the flagger would have a better understanding of the CGV’s. Sheesh.
Yeah, I'm wishing I had an overcharge button right now
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Why do that when the outcome HAS no result?
People! You are getting worked up for no reason. I’m sure the mods deal with this shit WAY more than we realize, and find for no reason. Or find for a reason even though they know the CGV is all in good fun.
Lighten up! Is this this a job YOU want to do every day?
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
So the person complaining about a comment knows the comment was actually ok
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Not to say it's a "better" way per se
since there’s no truly perfect system. But you could provide a forum for the community at the request of the flagee to discuss it and to (in a sense) police itself before the mods vote. Does anyone really need to know who the flaggers are? Personally, I don’t think that’s necessary. The major flaw in this particular system would be to find a way to provide the forum without disturbing the site as a whole. The benefit would be not only to provide a sense of community involvement, but give the flagee & flaggers to understand why it’s an offense and/or why it was said in the first place. It also has the potential to offer apologies that would/could negate a vote. Why give a CGV when it can be worked out, so to speak.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Come to think of it
This should definitely be the case for third strike, about to be banned, offenders. Allow the community to discuss all three strikes and whether individually or as a collective it’s worthy of actually being banned. I seriously doubt it has or would happen often, but clearly in this case you’re seeing a lot of people who, regardless of the strikes, don’t think he should be banned as a result of them. If this is truly about the community and it’s vocally against the move (and admittedly we could very well be the vocal minority), but if this really about the community, it seems like that voice should be heard.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
I don't really agree, but that's me
To me, if someone gets to two strikes in the first place and hasn’t changed by then to correct the reasons why he got the strikes before, there’s little defense when the third inevitably comes.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Fair enough
I guess my main point is that to have the community at large involved with every single strike would get tedious, very old and really go against the grain of the site, specifically causing the site itself to become about strikes and not in the baseball sense. So, being that community at large can’t really effectively be involved in the actual judgment of strikes, then we turn the strikes into the warnings they’re meant to be and the third strike becomes a check-swing with the community at large being the first/third base umpire passing judgment as to whether the flagee went around. The discussion would strictly be what this whole discussion has turned into, whether the person involved should be banned or not.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
I don't think the community at large should be involved with it either
Nothing would ever get done that way.
People have the choice to flag comments or posts if they want. Many never do. Some are more proactive about it.
Just because something gets flagged, even if it’s by two or three people, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically going to get a strike from what I’ve seen. People can’t just gang up on others in an attempt to get them banned by issuing strikes left and right, but there are bound to be cases where things are more cut-and-dried than others.
Any time someone is banned who’s been around a place for a long time, it’s probably going to draw a reaction like this. At the end of the day, Paul has been told about things he needs to work on and even agreed with it for the most part. He’s been given a “time out” to focus on doing that. If he can change that, it’ll be for the better. If he can’t, that’s on him. I’d miss a lot of the insights he brings to the team and the statistical side of things, but I wouldn’t miss the attitude. Someone can be right but still wrong in how the message is delivered.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I think that depends on what the guidelines are really for then
Is it policing for the sake of policing, in which case, yeah, you’re right. Or is it policing for the community as a whole and what’s in the best interest of what both brings people to the site and what, as “customers” we want. If the latter, I’d say banning a prominent voice most definitely should only be done actively by the community as a whole. Keep in mind, at least from my understanding, that a third strike is a very rare thing, in which case the “Nothing would ever get done that way” really wouldn’t be the case. Clearly we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this, but at least from mine (and others views) whether the strike is worthy or not, to ban PT is a disservice to the community.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
That's some insight I was missing (regarding the PaulThomas issue, I mean)
Baiting/harassing the user community was the specific community standard that was deemed violated by his comment regarding using the word “hero” to describe police officer?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
When you post an inflamatory comment...
…in a thread like that, and you get jumped all over by dozens and dozens of people, and refuse to acknowledge that you did anything out of line that may be disruptive to the community? And you do it almost every day?
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
That's contradictory to what was written to xbhaskarx.
The strike he received states very clearly that strikes aren’t issued as reflections on the user in general, but rather regarding specific comments that violate the guidelines. Nico’s email to PaulThomas says nothing of the sort. It just says “there’s clearly a problem with how you relate to the community.” I agree wholeheartedly with that notion, but it doesn’t make the comment a strike. Those aren’t the rules.
Whether he does it day after day is irrelevant—that’s why you collect three strikes.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Mar 24, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You're right. See my comment above.
It falls into the “baiting” CGV. That singular comment.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sure I agree
but that makes a lot more sense than Nico’s email to him did.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
No. It doesn't.
The mods got that call wrong.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
PT himself acknowledged that he wasn't surprised that he got the reaction he got
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Of course not. It's an opinion that the vast majority of people disagree with.
I still don’t think that it was CGV worthy.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
I don't really know what to think, since I don't really understand the rules.
But he surely was trying to be controversial.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Sure, but being controversial isn't a CGV.
Don’t get me wrong – I think PT is a fantastic baseball mind who probably needs some more “real life” experience, whatever the hell that means, and should probably work on the timing of when and where to say/post certain things.
Again, though, nothing he did was worthy of being banned (or, rather, a 3rd strike)
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Well
I can understand why people would be miffed at his banning. I hope he comes back. He’s a really smart guy, and outside of the occasional JediLeroy-DarthPaul moments, I often agree with his baseball-related opinions.
And in this case, I think his social awkwardness led to the strike, be it deserved or not. He easily could have said, “I don’t like throwing ‘hero’ around lightly, and I don’t know if I’d consider all law enforcement to be heroes. But these cops definitely did not deserve to die, and this is a real tragedy.” That way, he communicates his dissent while still showing remorse. By starting out with the “this is a tragedy” bit and then hammering the “I strongly disagree with the notion that cops are heroes” argument, he baited people. He wanted to encourage discussion, but he did so knowing that it was a touchy topic that people wouldn’t agree on. I don’t know if I would have voted “strike”, but I can definitely see why others did.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
remorse = respect for the officers and AN community
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
yeah except he did a number of times express remorse
Those men certainly did not deserve to die and should be mourned like all murder victims.
Any of these are human tragedies, as is this incident. It is, and I can’t emphasize this enough, a fucking catastrophe
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I understand that he did.
I’ve already addressed the first quote. I feel that had he toned his language down a bit, and reversed the order, it may not have seemed so offensive. The bottom line is that many people were hurt by what he said, and it could have been avoided if he just worded it differently.
The second quote is irrelevant, since it’s not the post that got him the CGV.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
many here have said it was the thread...
not the comment itself that was what got him banned, so I think it is relevant.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm sure PT has said enough to deserve far more than three strikes
Granted, if people don’t report them, they’re not strikes.
I can understand why people would be miffed at his banning. I hope he comes back. He’s a really smart guy, and outside of the occasional JediLeroy-DarthPaul moments, I often agree with his baseball-related opinions.
And in this case, I think his social awkwardness led to the strike, be it deserved or not. He easily could have said, “I don’t like throwing ‘hero’ around lightly, and I don’t know if I’d consider all law enforcement to be heroes. But these cops definitely did not deserve to die, and this is a real tragedy.” That way, he communicates his dissent while still showing remorse. By starting out with the “this is a tragedy” bit and then hammering the “I strongly disagree with the notion that cops are heroes” argument, he baited people. He wanted to encourage discussion, but he did so knowing that it was a touchy topic that people wouldn’t agree on. I don’t know if I would have voted “strike”, but I can definitely see why others did.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Understandable.
But then, I lean to the way, way “lenient” side of things, even when it comes to people pissing other people off.
I just inherently disagree with banning somebody for things like this, and I believe that letting him stay here and be attacked by “the mob” as he put it is enough to keep him (or others, as the case may be) in check.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Its unfortunate timing,
but I think what everyone is trying to say is that this is not one of the posts where PT violated the CGV. He pissed people off, yes, but he didn’t violate the rules and guidelines of this blog.
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
I think he did though...
Harassing/Baiting of users
When you post a comment like that in the tone of a thread like that, you have just baited users to response strongly to you. And they did.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions
So disagreeing with people (and very pointedly NOT insulting the specific officers)
Is baiting the community?
Should I start flagging every “Cust sucks” or “Beane hasn’t won any WS” or “stats are for nerds” comment anyone makes?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Mar 24, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There is a difference between disagreeing...
…and baiting. When you make a comment that is designed to elicit a strong reaction from people in a thread, you have baited them into “attacking” you, and then you claim that you didn’t do anything when they get mad? That is baiting.
And it happens on boards all over the internet. And there are ways to disagree without belittling.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, there are.
For examples, see PT’s responses. For counter-examples, see everyone else’s posts (including, as mentioned above, forum moderators).
I feel baited by all of the examples above. Would you as, presumably, a member of the CGV strike force, consider those sorts of comments strikes?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I just don't see the baiting
His comments seemed to me to be further explainations of his original post. They had all the hallmarks of a PT post, however and people reacted badly because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter.
One of the things that has always been impressive to me about PaulThomas is his complete openness and lack of agenda. He doesn’t ever hide himself (see user name).
PaulThomas? Lack of agenda?
Perhaps he lacks a hidden one, but that guy’s got an agenda.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
By the way, monkeyball left the site for completely different reasons. It’s disingenuous of you to suggest that these incidents are related.
Not that I’m an accomplished mind-reader or anything, but I bet he left at least partly because he wasn’t particularly enthused about the ongoing sanitization of the site, of which PT’s banning is part and parcel. Honestly, given that a) so many of the folks I enjoy reading have either left for good or hardly ever comment anymore, and b) every third thread seems to devolve into flirty junior high text-speak, I’m starting to wonder why I bother reading/skimming the site these days.
In any event, since I’ve been around, PT has done more to advance baseball-related conversation on AN than almost anyone else. Warts and all.
Whatever his flaws, he has always been willing to state his case thoroughly, clarify his arguments, engage dissent, even occasionally self-deprecate, which is more than many of us can say. Sure his tone is often self-satisfied, but a) it’s obvious much of that is just social clumsiness, and b) for crying out loud get over it already.
It’s so tiresome, this save-the-community furor that explodes every time someone bluntly tells someone else they’re wrong. Equally tiresome is the way everyone pretends PT is the only one who ever acts like a jerk around here, or that his sins of condescension are orders of magnitude more egregious than anyone else’s, or that his presence is some kind of evil anti-participation force-field that prevents wholesome fresh-faced fans from joining AN en masse.
I understand PT pisses people off sometimes. But these (and previous) denunciations reflect a discomfiting self-righteous zeal, wherein we all act as though protecting the community from PT’s corrupting influence constitutes some grand moral enterprise, when really it’s just an excuse to indirectly (but repeatedly) congratulate ourselves for being so gosh darn super duper mature and temperate and open-minded and awesome.
by 74mk on Mar 24, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 19 recs
This. 74mk does much better with words than I do.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
"every third thread seems to devolve into flirty junior high text-speak, I’m starting to wonder why I bother reading/skimming the site these days."
So true. Sometimes I read a thread and half way threw Im like WTF am I read. It has 0% to do with baseball.
"Their Triple-A rotation, led by Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson, could be better than some big-league rotations; Michael Ynoa is the best Latin American prospect of the decade; 2008 draftees Jemile Weeks and Rashun Dixon bring much-needed tools to an advanced group of hitters." - BaseballProspectus.com
I usually only
read the first couple of posts and there’s usually a dick/fart/poop joke from Nico so I leave and go get better dick/fart/poop jokes at places like Deadspin or KSK. This place is drowning. Maybe the season can revive it. Will anyone be left?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to flag this comment...
being so gosh darn super duper mature and temperate and open-minded and awesome.
as a direct comment about me.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 24, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
SO ON THE MONEY
I’ve seen the very people who accuse Paul of being too harsh on new posters being just as cruel.
In particular…I suppose this can only get me one strike at most =).
Nico, your parodies of uninformed posters (hint- the post usually will have some combination of !!1 in it) strike me as far worse than PT’s comments.
Moreover, even if they’re not worse, they are really damaging to your credibility as the “deliverer” of CGV notices.
Also, I’ve flagged 2-3 posts in my time here, and even tried to make the comments helpful. I suppose I don’t have a real fix, but it’s frustrating that I have no idea who reads my comment, whether it’s even considered, and whether the fact that I have flagged a mod (once) influences the process at all.
by ohmangoAs on Mar 24, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
The bottom line to all of this is if you are pals with the mods you have extra wiggle room and
if the mods have something against you, you get run out of town. All you have to do is agree with the mods and you’ll be OK. Seems to me that the banning of PT and others of like mind who have disagreed with the mods is akin to “cyber-bullying.”
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 25, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
This is clearly not the case
“All you have to do is agree with the mods and you’ll be OK”. Over the years I have gone at the mods with strong disagreements. A few examples: BBG (for saying Marco Scutaro is not a major league caliber player), Blez (for being too enthusiastic about the A’s leaving Oakland), and Nico (lots of stuff). I have never felt like I would be run out of town or threatened in any way by one of them for strongly disagreeing.
For what it's worth
I did flag that comment from Nico, as I said I would.
Of course, I’m sure he won’t get a strike and we’ll never hear about it again but he certainly deserves one.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Mar 24, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Why was saying PT should have his teeth knocked out CGV-worthy?
See guidelines 1 and 3.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
There are a couple of way you could interpret Nico's comment.
Yours is not one of them. Nico did not say Paul should have his teeth knocked out.
It shows the clear difference between the internet and a bar:
PaulThomas still has his teeth.
by Nico on Mar 22, 2009 6:00 PM PDT
So your interpretation is that it was just an idle observation?
I think that’s clearly wrong.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I'm interpreting it literally.
The plain meaning of that statement is that if Paul had made that statement in public, someone would have knocked his teeth out. Still, this might be inappropriate, but it’s not saying what you’re alleging it does: that Nico would directly attack him if he could or that he even wishes that someone else might.
The main point I want to make is that, at the very least, rational minds can interpret this statement differently, so don’t expect that only one result could come from your flagging of the comment. If the board doesn’t give Nico a strike, that doesn’t necessarily mean some great conspiracy is afoot and Nico was given special treatment.
by Rocktopus on Mar 24, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you, Rocktopus.
I meant the comment absolutely literally, with no humor, insult, or irony intended. I think had PT’s exact comment been made in a bar on that day, a person would likely have had the living daylights beaten out of them.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think if someone said that to me I'd interpret them as fighting words
Why else say it?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
any time he makes a comment like that, it's carefully worded enough that he can have an excuse ready
just like with the diary title: a joke, i was just trying to lighten the mood!
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
+1
i’m not trying to dump on nico, but i see this as well.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Balogne.
At a real bar inferring violence is somehow necessary or warranted frequently leads to real violence. I have never, however, seen anyone get in a scuffle for stating a simple opinion about law enforcement.
And because the bar analogy is overplayed (most sports bars won’t kick you out for discussing politics) I think its worth noting that this holds true in most other real life situations. If, at my job, I were to make some anti-cop statements that my coworkers were offended by, I could probably expect to be called into HR for a talking-to. If I were to publicly state that someone deserved to be beat up for his/her opinion, I would expect to be suspended without pay.
To me, bringing even the spectre of violence into the equation is clearly much more inflammatory than stating an unpopular opinion. In some health service jobs, if a patient shows a predilection towards violence, you are required to report them to the police.
I have read AN for a couple years but have largely refrained from commenting because I find the CGs to be more oppressive than what I would want from a community of which I am a member. On the blogs where I do post I do not bait people or call them names, and I honestly don’t think I’d be a problem here, but I do tend to argue my points forcefully and with evidence. I doubt I could engage in an argument here over whether or not, for instance, Jack Cust is a good “hitter” without ruffling some feathers, because to me this is a pretty black and white issue with enormous empirical evidence on one side and willfully ignorant assumptions on the other. Because I see things this way, I tend to do most of my blogging at stat-oriented sites where others are more in line with my way of thinking. And that’s fine. There’s no reason why this should be the right blog for everyone, and there’s no reason why the community shouldn’t be able to establish standards for itself.
It bothers me, however, to see hypocrisy. “Remember the Fallen Officers” seemed to me to be a politically charged fanpost, and were I a more vocal member of this community, I might have been tempted to make comments similar to Paul’s. This is a political blog because of its CGs and the way they are enforced. Suppose I were to write a fanpost that began:
This has nothing to do with baseball – but reading the news about Oscar Grant (and others harrassed by police officers) really makes me think about what’s important in the world. I’ve known quite a few people here in West Oakland who have suffered wrongfully at the hands of the police…
Allowing a political fanpost on a site that is not supposed to carry political content, issuing a strike against a user for stating an opinion (which does not break the letter of the law as far as I can tell) and then failing to admonish yourself for making a personal comment of a violent nature – to me both scenarios represent the height of hypocrisy, and I find it offensive.
by scromulus on Mar 25, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
In a literal sense? Yes, a comment like that would probably get your clock cleaned were it made in certain places.
In a figurative sense?
On the internet you can post something that will flat out piss people off, and basically have no repercussions.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
The whole system is neither Kafkaesque nor Stalinist
for the simple reason that if you don’t like it, you can easily go elsewhere.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
Candor and amity
Are not mutually exclusive.
I feel PT just simply does not play well w/ others sometimes.
IMHO I have both been intrigued and also turned off by his posts. I have also had the pleasure of being on the wrong side of his comments.
All and all he is definitely a part of AN and I personally hope he comes back.
Thanks for the Reply- I think its important for us all to hear your side of it.
Bobby Crosby = ground-out triple play...
by brian.only on Mar 24, 2009 9:46 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Hey
Not sure what was said, but this site is supposed to be about our love and passion for the A’s.
Let’s get back to focusing on our team. If you really go as far as breaking theis “3 strike policy” you don’t belong, period.
Again, let’s re-focus here people! Less than 13 days until Opening Day!
Lets Go Oakland!
Go A's!!!! :-)
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
this is silly
the whole point of the discussion is that a number of people believe that PT didn’t break the CG and earn a strike.
I personally would like to hear PTs thoughts on how to limit Brett Anderson’s service time and keep him in the rotation… but alas Im not going to be afforded that option
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 24, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
It's easy. Don't call him up until May 1st.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
oh ha
i thought you meant “don’t call PT up till May 1st”.
which amused me.
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions
That too. He'll have more value when I trade him to LL for Jeff if he's still got that last year before FA.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
doesn't keep him in the rotation until May 1
Im just saying the following things seem to dominated AN these days
TWSS
jokes that aren’t funny about beastiality
weird I want to marry you memes
Which use to mainly reside in the DLD but now everybody yells at people making fan posts to make them into dumps so i cant skip the non baseball junk.
All of which have significantly less value to me as an A’s fan than one of Paul Thomas’ acerbic rants on why Matt Sulanic (sp?) is not going to be a good baseball player.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Sulentic. :-D
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Thanks
Im a terrible speller. And honestly I think PT got his ass handed to him by Danny on that one.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
I get tired of the TWSS comments all the time.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
It's funny because people say the same thing about "+1"
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
so should I just rec the comment?
or just take out the “+1” and put “I get tired of the TWSS comments all the time also”
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
I dunno. I was going to post "TWSS" there, but I thought it might be a bit much.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
thanks for resisting :-)
I will note the irony of my post
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
recommend this totally awesome FaNpOSt, folks
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Doesn't the title of this fanpost count as a harassment CGV?
It seems to me like it’s mocking a guy who can’t even respond to it.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 24, 2009 10:18 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs
but it's couched as nico's patented "humor" so it's okay!
as if nico and paulthomas have an “existing rapport” beyond nico issuing him the occasional strike and making comments about knocking out his teeth…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 24, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Nico gave him the forum to address the community...
…and was transparent in what happened. I think that counts for something.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 24, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
So you don't think it matters how you introduce that address?
If you sent me an e-mail to post and I titled it “Baseballgirl has a silly opinion – see below” you’d be glad to have the “forum to address the community?”
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
If this wasn't
baiting a member of the community…
and honestly,
PT has dealt with this from several people.
FF here
And when he defended himself (for example, in this thread he pointed out that a number of comments directed towards him were inappropriate), others just shut him down, dismissing him. To quote myself from that thread:
I’m kind of sick of all the flak and calling out PT is getting.
He’s a good writer, and honestly, people should just learn to read past the superficial stuff and notice that at minimum, when he calls people out, he makes an argument too.what’s funny is that when PT points out the double standard, the only answers is "haha, you’re paul thomas, you can’t complain about being mistreated."
I think that’s really unfair.
This is still my position. I think a good percentage of my participation on this site came when I disagreed with his positions (for example, his position that Anthony Randolph can’t play basketball looks bad now that he has a top-ten PER among NBA rookies) LOL…I was just looking for a place to call PT out on that, and you guys banned him :)
by ohmangoAs on Mar 24, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Every time this happens...
I leave for like 6 months. Later skaters.
See the latest dumbass thing I've done -- camUra
by hunter on Mar 24, 2009 10:31 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
seriously, paulthomas, email someone.
multiple people would like to hear from you, and your email address is not listed in your sbnation profile.
i don’t think i can specify who, so maybe just start randomly emailing everyone…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I don't post all that much, I am more of a guy that reads and posts
on occasion. That said, I have to say that I find what happened with PT’s being banned distasteful. Nico has been hinting for weeks that with all the newbies coming in that being rude would not be tolerated and would have consequences. Now, lo and behold look what has happened, PT was rude, PT was given a third strike, PT was banned.
I am sure that along the way PT made at least three CGV worthy comments. So he could have earned a banning along the way somewhere I am sure. The part that I find frustrating is the lack of honesty. PT was going to get banned for his abrasiveness at some point, that seemed inevitable. However, taking the square peg of PT’s comments about policemen and putting it in the round hole of how the CGV’s are defined is just flat wrong. Either come out and say that PT’s body of work (rather then that specific comment) got him his banning, or remove what was an obviously erroneous call about it being a CGV. The fact it got flagged was fine. The fact that it was found to be a CGV (on it own merits) was wrong. This was not “baiting”. If it was, then anyone who has an opinion that is different than the majority is “baiting”. PT did not create a fanpost about how cops are not heroes. He gave his opinion (as wrong headed as it might have been) about that topic in a fanpost about that topic. How is that “baiting”? A person is allowed to be wrong on this site aren’t they? Hell, most of why PT is disliked is because of the fact that he was merciless to people who had (in his mind) a wrong opinion, and he could not let it go when someone was wrong. Guess he isn’t the only one.
by AsFanInLA on Mar 24, 2009 10:41 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
by iglew on Mar 25, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
favorite xkcd ever!!!!!!!!
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
One of my jobs at a company I used to work for
(I don’t hugely want to get in to who it was, etc) was as a site monitor / community guideline enforcer / moderator / call it what you will.
We had a set of guidelines that laid down how one could go about getting your comments flagged / removed / etc, and eventually yourself banned, but it really came down to one thing:
Money.
More specifically, page views. If someone was unpopular and contraversial, we tolerated this for as long as we thought that was increasing the number of comments / page views / ad revenues. If we considered that someone was actually putting people off coming to the site, well, we took action.
I’m not trying to justify this as a good way of running a community, or anything like that, or even am I suggesting that that is what happened here, but it is the reality of how these things do sometimes work.
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 10:43 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs
rec'd
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Ditto.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Where are you getting all of these gif's?
Just wondering.
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Mar 25, 2009 4:47 AM PDT up reply actions
If you right click on them and go to "Properties" you can see the URL of the image.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
He tinypics them
and he seems to post a lot of them quickly. I’m thinking he has them saved on his hard drive.
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Mar 25, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions
This is a BIG black eye for AN
First of all, that post about the policeman should NEVER have been allowed. It’s not about baseball.
Second of all, PT is an ass.
Third, he should not have been banned for writing a comment in a post that should’ve been taken down immediately (See “First of all”).
Fourth, who is “Nico” anyway? I don’t mean that in any other way than I really don’t know who he is. Whoever wondered about all of the secrecy here is spot on. We don’t know enough about any of the people enforcing the rules. Does Nico work for AN?
Fifth, no one person should ever have a post directed at him/her.
Sixth, I’m starting to view AN in a much different light.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Mar 24, 2009 10:46 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
"First of all, that post about the policeman should NEVER have been allowed. It’s not about baseball."
Plenty of other posts that aren’t about baseball are allowed, and they’re often great posts. Slap the “OT” label on it, avoid direct political commentary, and they often work. See 67MARQUEZ’s recent recommended post.
“Fourth, who is "Nico" anyway? I don’t mean that in any other way than I really don’t know who he is. Whoever wondered about all of the secrecy here is spot on. We don’t know enough about any of the people enforcing the rules. Does Nico work for AN?”
Really? He’s inherited the title of lead blogger, or whatever, from Blez. Probably has the most comments in the history of the site, though it’s probably close with monkeyball. You’ve been around long enough to know who the guy is. With the Chez Nico’s and upcoming comm. service stuff, not to mention AN days, it seems that plenty of people know the guy personally. I am an NRAF (and if IIRC you’re from ND and ergo an NRAF also), so I’ve never met him, but he’s a big name around here.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Question for you
If you create a post that’s off-topic (which I agree with you on the acceptability of that btw, particularly when it’s labeled as such) do you feel that because the person who creates the OT post itself is laxing on the CGs to some degree, that any posts within should be subject to the same laxing of the rules?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
sorry, I didn't see this question immediately
Yes, definitely. You are however asking a person who isn’t much for rules at all, as I prefer judgment, especially when you’ve assembled a little secret panel to make rulings anyway. OT threads can be invitations to violate the CGVs as they’re currently written…they’re bait. And in this particular case, I don’t think you could legitimately hand out a strike even on the basis of the current rules—PT posted an unpopular opinion, but it wasn’t an attack, it wasn’t “political” (though in my estimation too many things, including many deemed acceptable under AN’s system, have political undertones to even have a rule against "politics"), and I can’t recall any other CG’s that it would have violated. To reiterate my answer to your initial question, though, I think that if the thread is allowed (sometimes they’re deleted), then the authorities should have the sense to realize that relevant responses could violate the CG’s. Spirit of the law, not the letter….
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions
and when I say judgment in the first line I mean discretion
there, A’sFaninLA, the first reply to self, heh
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I pretty much agree with that
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
I agree with you by completely disagreeing
I think that everything, even being an A’s fan and this post, is a political act. Therefore especially in political posts which I view the post in question you cant help but making a political statement. PT’s crime was that he made an unpopular one and that that shouldn’t be a crime.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
we agree more than youy think
When I said it wasn’t political, I meant that it wasn’t political as political is defined by the law of this land, which iI see as something that expresses a partisan view in national politics.
“I think that everything, even being an A’s fan and this post, is a political act.”
I agree with that. I just was trying to deal with the issue on the level of AN as opposed to the level of…reality.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions
snap
I was toying around with posting a piece I wrote about why I chose to make the political act of being an A’s supporter. With this crap about something unpopular and minor that PT said in a political thread… I think i should probably just keep my mouth shut instead.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions
oh, and "Fifth, no one person should ever have a post directed at him/her."
It’s actually kind of ghostwritten by PaulThomas.
“Sixth, I’m starting to view AN in a much different light.”
explain?
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I like Nico and BBG as well as the next person.
I have met them and I admire them for everything they’ve contributed to this site, but this is wrong. Ban someone or don’t. This site has a protocol for that. Don’t compromise that for one person.
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
That's fine, leave it at that.
Opening up a forum to debate on that decision is unprecedented as far as I know, and makes no sense. Its done. Leave it!
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
I think the purpose was to allow PT to air his parting words here
Which seems fair given that it was a pretty respectable note
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
But this blog isn't about PT
This blog is about the Oakland Athletics. This is becoming a problem at AN.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
well
for at least the next 30 days it won’t be about PT, so that should help you get what you want to see
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions
if others don't make things about PT
its not about PT.
If PT says something that you find offensive, there really is no need to go on a diatribe about it just to show your indignation, just turn your attention elsewhere.
If people had done that with the comment in question things would have been fine rather than exiling a valuable part of the community because a bunch of people went after PT when he said something unpopular.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So it's everyone else's fault for taking offense at the originator?
No, I don’t think so. If someone is offended, they have ways of expressing it. That is what the CGVs are for.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Yeah
and they have plenty ways of expressing it without flagging someone for something that didn’t break a rule.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Does everyone have a right to go through life unoffended?
Cuz Nico’s bestiality jokes offend me… should he be banned.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok... I will
And i have asked him to stop it in comments in the past and he basically responded that I can lump it.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Had to search for DFA's comments, but...
…it seems pretty clear Nico’s trying to be humorous. I’d have stopped after being asked to, but I’m not Nico. If it’s enough of a problem I’d imagine the moderators can be e-mailed to discuss it further, but that example doesn’t indicate DFA being told to lump it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Actually the most interesting part was PT's interpretation
Are you going to start doing this to everyone? Because if not, I’m going to start flagging these for personal harassment. Get over yourself.
That was PT, in response to Nico trying to get him to be less harsh to a poster.
Nico’s message wasn’t wrong, but I remember, during that time-frame, Nico was reminding PT constantly, along with you FF.
I remember thinking that you guys were crossing the line, and I even might have said so at some point. When the correction is targeted, outside of the normal CGV system, and sometimes outright name calling, PT doesn’t seem crazy for calling it harrassment.
Um Nico is the moderator...
Also I was told to not have a “cow” and then he turned up the goat thing in the thread. Seems to me thats the same as being told to lump it.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Then I guess your main option is to contact Blez
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
My point below was not moot.
Nico’s position at AN from that point (June of ’08) to this is significantly different. He has changed his tone. A lot. The overwhelming goat references now are third party.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions
still talking about raping animals isn't cool
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree
And I’m going to simultaneously make the “it’s not rape if they consent” joke" and condemn it.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 25, 2009 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
that's why I love you.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Aww, stay quotation marks and all?
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
The strays need extra loving ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
some would say it's so
ludicrous, it is funny.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions
If he stopped it, then I think your complaint is no longer applicable
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
That's not really true ...
he still makes plenty of goat references …
Link
Over the last six months, there have been 241 references to goats, Nico has made 43 of them (granted, some of them may have come up in a non-sexual context, but I have to assume that is the small minority)
For all-time there have been 960 and Nico has made 169 of them.
In both cases, 18% of the references are Nico’s …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I preferred that Nico to the current one.
I’m not sure censorship is the way to go in the “meta” sense…
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions
You know what's funny (to me, only, obviously)?
Is that this post by Ice Cream appears in that thread as well (with 10 recommendations). Here is PaulThomas, 9 months ago being admonished by a community member, not a CGV committee member, not a moderator.
And this follows by PT himself. Which is the actual poignancy happening here.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
I agree
but if the position is that the CGV system is enough… then USE IT.
The outside-of-CGV let’s all play parents to Paul and teach him, while calling him a jerk and asshole, while doing the exact things he does elsewhere (you’re not guilty of this at all), is pretty much harrassment.
Seriously FLAG him if it bothers you (obviously, this is hypothetical), and even post to tell him. If he doesn’t fix himself (which maybe he didn’t), then Flag him, and get him banned. haha…seems moot now.
As I think I've pointed out elsewhere, I do use the flagging system.
I didn’t before, and I don’t like to, but I’ve learned to.
Some of us, like JediLeroy (who I admire for his efforts to engage users in a productive discussion) don’t – don’t like to use it. Unfortunately, I’m not as good at that as JL is.
I don’t flag a lot, I only flag what I think are Community Guideline violations. My flag alone never causes a strike because the committee has to vote on it for that to happen.
My point is that BESIDES being flagged AND issued two strikes (neither of which had had the chance to roll of by the time the third and final strike occured), he was many, many, many times counseled by well-respected (I consider mikeA and Ice Cream well-respected) members of the community and NOT JUST members of the committee OR moderators about how his actions were being perceived.
I for one don’t think for a minute that any of this is surprising.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
And not only that, PaulThomas himself recognized that to be true in the comment I linked to above.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
Again I agree
I don’t necessarily disagree that PT should be banned
it’s just that I dislike double standards, and found that people were REALLY cruel to him.
Isn’t it possible that he both deserved to be banned and was the victim of some inappropriate badgering?
Of course it's possible.
Not only that, it’s likely. But PT at any given time could make himself the perpetrator and the victim of an argument in any given thread.
This point has been made elsewhere in this thread as well, but most of the time it is the TONE of the comment and a user’s entire body of comments on AN that may be the fine line between warning or no warning, strike or no strike, ban or no ban.
I believe people were WAY more likely to flag PT for ANY offense they deemed worthy probably because of his overall tone, versus another user who maybe wrote similar comments or one-off insulting remarks but were ON THE WHOLE, to put it bluntly, nice.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
Fair enough
and I’m sorry the flagging system has become so necessary…I understand your point.
I agree with you (for the most part)
That PT’s body of work is what earned him his 3rd strike and ban — and probably deservedly so based on the CG. His overall tone of comments and just general offensiveness to certain users and the mods (and really it is their blog, and they have the final say).
The problem is the mods are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. They say that it is not PT’s body of work at all, but rather 3 specific comments — the last one being dubious at best as an actual CGV. Why can’t they just tell us the truth? That is my biggest beef and I have yet to hear a reason why we have to be told a fiction, when the truth is more appropriate.
Some of us, like JediLeroy (who I admire for his efforts to engage users in a productive discussion) don’t – don’t like to use it. Unfortunately, I’m not as good at that as JL is.
Seriously, I screw up all the time. Like in this post, when I was snarky with nevermoor. Or like any of my recent interactions with Oaktoon the WindyGoose. Oh, I long for real-life DVR.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Well you were good in that thread.
I know I’m not good at it. So I’ve learned not to engage. Which is why I rely on the flagging system, as imperfect as it is.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
And that's admirable
One thing that’s hard for me is the fact that although I’m constantly wanting to be more patient, more tactful, and more fun to be around, some people don’t even care about social harmony. And that stresses me out.
I wish I was better at letting things go. I’m so set on relieving tension that I stress myself out trying to resolve things. I wish I didn’t let them get to me in the first place.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
And yet I doubt that the same allowance
was made to other banned posters. Its a matter of consistency.
I’ve already posted my views about PT, and my feeling is that his was not a CGV offense. Yet having banned him, we now have to endlessly debate why he was banned. Its ridiculous.
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
perhaps they didn't write a note like that
and if they did, it probably wouldn’t have had the tone that PT’s did. It probably would’ve sounded/did sound more like jd’s post below. Which is something I’d like to read for entertainment value, mind you, but it probably wouldn’t be posted by a moderator.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
It's becoming about personalities...
and not the personalities of players… or people that have anything to do with the Oakland Athletics.
My gosh… this is becoming about the personalities of BLOGGERS!!! And a blogger who may or may not be names Paul Thomas.
I have nothing against Nico. I just wonder how all of these decisions are made. What’s his real name?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Why would I do the something as easy as that?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
and this site's been about personalities for a long time...
You could argue it’s been about personalities for its entire existence.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think so...
well at least not as bad as it is now.
I was drawn to this site for the analysis and constant updates and speculation about the TEAM… not whether PT responded to Nico’s emails about a comment that was posted on a non-baseball-related post.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
that stuff's still there
with all the front page writers, it might be there more than ever
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
But you get the same stuff in every thread...
It seems like most of them turn into a battle of personalities instead of a debate about baseball.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
that can be true
I guess it does depend on whether or not you like the personalities. I don’t necessarily even like PT’s personality, but I definitely like the writing that personality contributes/contributed.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly - I agree completely
Speaking of personalities, I have been reading this FanPost for awhile and you have not ONCE replied to yourself, in spite of NUMEROUS opportunities. Has everything been turned upside down?
haha
The action’s been too fast-paced, I’ll read other comments, then there will be new responses from you and other people…I don’t have time to talk to myself
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions
If he got a strike then I should have gotten a strike
Though to this point I have not received one…ask yourself, if someone else made the same comment he made, would that person have received a strike? I don’t know….
This guy shouldn’t be banned. I don’t know if AN can afford to lose monkeyball and PT in such a short period of time. He may be a more consistent cause of controversy than anyone else on the site, and I’ve argued with him on a few occasions, but ultimately I’ve come to appreciate his thoughts more than anyone else’s. Make it 30 days minus 29.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 10:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
PT will be back.
As a casual contributor to AN, I believe PT will be back in 30 days. He adds a distinctive flavor to AN. I have felt his wrath & I have also agreed with him on many points. He is smart & articulate & knows our team. IMO, he also has traits that many people can find disagreement with. He is transparent. I believe most people knows where he stands on a issue.
As a Sworn Peace Officer, I did not agree with his initial statements or later attempts to quantify & explain his beliefs. I believe he tried to backtrack, but the proverbial cat was out of the bag. What started as a tribute to the four City of Oakland Police officers has snowballed into objective negativity & AN contributors taking sides.
Paddle Faster! I hear banjo music.
It just never ends.
PaulThomas is one of the few users here with an honest opinion and the rare talent for being able to voice his thoughts clearly and succinctly. I understand why AN needs to pander to the family-friendly marketing schpeel, but it’s a drag for those of us who consider ourselves adult enough to read something, disagree, and not waste our time trying to fight every stupid internet battle because so-and-so said such-and-such.
A lot of people REALLY need to get over themselves. Frankly, everyone that piled on in response to his comments that resulted in his third strike need to take about five minutes and walk outdoors and breathe some clean air. Not in the euphemistic sense either. Gosh, if nothing else, you have respect a guy who posts under his own name and not some douchey internet handle.
I suppose I could go on and on, but most of those who’ve posted above in support of PT pretty much hit the nail on the head.
still Swish Fan #1.
by ChrisCEIT on Mar 24, 2009 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Rec'd for:
“A lot of people REALLY need to get over themselves”
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 25, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Does that include people who always tells others they need to get over themselves?
It’s really the same thing.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
I guess we could ask ourselves
where that’s a baiting comment or not.
Yes, I need to get over myself. Especially when I post more than once every three months.
still Swish Fan #1.
Welcome to sports blogs
All the other major sports blogs have equal or more aggressive posts than PT. Look at PFT, Deadspin or others. The AN staff knows they’re one of the biggest out there, and while they might try to make this blog “Clean”, sooner or later the harsh world of the Internet will catch up. Sadly that’s how it goes for sports blogs, the most aggressive ones are the ones that succeed.
Clear its radiance shine...
and those aggressive posts on those sites contribute way less
though deadspin has some great moments
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions
O yeah and please talk about sports guys
The Sports Media Challenge Buzz Manager isn’t interested in all this.
(For more information visit http://www.sportsmediachallenge.com/sportsblogindex/current_index.asp and purchase the product)
Yes, you are being followed AN
Clear its radiance shine...
I come here to avoid the comments on those other sites.
I hear what you’re saying, but god I hope AN doesn’t become like that.
Put me in PT's camp.
His comment was relevant to the subject (which wasn’t relevant to the Oakland A’s). When he was attacked, he wrote why he posted this comment, and stated that it was an opinion that you obviously don’t have to agree with.
Nevertheless, he was attacked by a mob. And, looking back on it, it looks to me like the majority of these attacks were used to bait/harass him, which is obviously against the rules. Just because his opinion isn’t popular does not mean that he should be taken out back and shot.
And personally, I don’t blame him for being uncertain as to whether he wants to come back or not. So many users on AN are so quick to jump him they actually sift through his comments to find ones they can bitch at him for. Somebody mentioned it earlier that he kind of has a legend about him and it seems like it’s absolutely blown out of proportion. He brings some of the most thought and effort tot his sight and I value the information he gives out, even it points out that I was an idiot for something I’ve said.
That strike was utter bullshit
Everybody who flagged that needs to really, really examine their own lives. How absolutely pathetic it is that you can’t handle a little truth.
Over the past few months, this place has turned into a really piss-poor shell of what it used to be (and I’ve only been posting here a bit more than a year). Last season, despite the A’s struggles, was a lot of fun. I can see now it’s filled with a bunch of over-sensitive, whiny little turds now. I hope PaulThomas doesn’t come back, but not because I don’t like the guy. I do like him. I hope he doesn’t come back because this place doesn’t deserve his insights anymore. This isn’t the AN that Blez worked so hard to build. This place just sucks now.
In short, to everybody who can’t handle the likes of PaulThomas: Go Fuck Yourselves.
I’ll be getting my A’s news and entertainment elsewhere for the time being.
by thejd44 on Mar 24, 2009 11:11 PM PDT reply actions 10 recs
that may be the last time
we read the words “A’s” and “entertainment” in the same sentence this year…
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
true enough...
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
you know...
in the offseason, a baseball site just might tend to be a shell of what it is during the season
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I remember this time last year
the “WTF happened to AN were all going to die….” meme. Well actually it was more in early febuary in that dead period but i remember the freak out well.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions
It's fun.
We’re bored.
We need the season to start.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes it was
But we were all able to put it into the context of “the new AN format is terrible and is driving away people!”.
I will say though, that having a number of people leave/post a LOT less/get banned/change their role on the site all at the same time feels very bad. I don’t want it to sound suspicious, but it is just bad timing.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
I mostly agree.
I dont think people should go fuck themselves but nothing Paul did was against the rules.
"Their Triple-A rotation, led by Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson, could be better than some big-league rotations; Michael Ynoa is the best Latin American prospect of the decade; 2008 draftees Jemile Weeks and Rashun Dixon bring much-needed tools to an advanced group of hitters." - BaseballProspectus.com
What's the bigger sin: being a whiny, over-sensitive turd; or being insensitive?
Seriously. I think that people, myself included, need to have thicker skin. But shouldn’t we at least try to be civil to each other? Rudeness is much more off-putting than whining, in my mind.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 24, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
really i find it the exact opposite
I would rather have someone offend me every day of the week and make me think, as PT does, than have someone that is so thin skinned that I cant assertively argue my points with them.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, yeah.
I’d rather have a mountain of gold coins and poop to swim through than a box full of garbage.
But I’d much rather have a mountain of gold and silver.
Are knowledge and human decency mutually exclusive?
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
JL, you need to go to analogy school or something.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions
lol
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I went to Scatanooga Tech School Of Analogies
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
now that's funny.
I, as the kids say nowadays, laughed out loud. How whimsical!
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes
What most people are taught is decency requires not questioning core values. To truly have knowledge you must question your core values.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions
decency and self-awareness/actualization are not mutually exclusive, dude.
C’mon.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Hahahaha
That was so direct and to-the-point. I love it. Strike me, ban me, whatever; this thread is absolutely ridiculous. A dude gets a 30 day ban and “OH MY GOD HOW COULD YOU DO THIS!?!?!?!?! THERE’S NO STRUCTURE HERE, IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!”
If you seriously have a problem with how an internet site is run, get up from your computer and walk away. Talk about the A’s and not each other. Good lord.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Mar 25, 2009 3:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Paul Thomas is one of AN's Greatest Assets
…and one of the few people here whose opinions I really trust. So yeah, I’ve gotten into a couple of arguments with him. Big deal. Hold your ground, accede when necessary, and then agree when you both agree, and you’ll be fine.
He’s a questioning soul. He questions standard thought processes, and he makes us question our own beliefs and preconceptions. He does it harshly and sometimes in a very immature way, but he adds a lot to the site.
As far as community standards go - when it comes to talent and intelligence, screw community standards.
by richwol1 on Mar 24, 2009 11:26 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
yeah, I'm going to rec this too, haha.
Seeing the Bills on SportsCenter, just to comment on whether or not the guy’s showing up to the very first OTA, is awesome. Like the A’s, the Bills of late have often been irrelevant on the national stage. If nothing else, TO and the moves the A’s made this offseason have brought some relevance to the teams I root for. I myself have always been a big TO fan though, so this is the most excitement I’ve felt about the Bills since Flutie Magic.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
So, whats better for the Bills (the franchise not the fans)?
An uncapped NFL, so that the team can start working like the Marlins
or to keep the cap and keep struggling to meet the minimum requirements, thus moving the team to Toronto or LA.
Clear its radiance shine...
now you've ruined it
by bringing up the long-term future (or even short-term future) of the Bills. It’s actually an interesting question, something I haven’t considered in my effort to get my popcorn ready for the upcoming season. The future is pretty bleak either way…Rogers Centre is negotiating to bring extra Bills regular season games to TO starting in 2010, and I’d be pretty surprised if that didn’t happen (the extra games in Toronto). For competitive purposes in the immediate future, I would prefer a cap, because when Ralph dies, I’m pretty sure the team will move regardless of the cap situation. So the cap might as well exist while the Bills still play 6 games in my town, and at least give the Bills the chance to get the occasional Derrick Dockery (not that that turned out all that well).
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know...
“arguments”… “hold your ground”… this is a blog about baseball. You make it sound like this is a boxing match.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Baseball fans argue
I’m 58 years old. When I was 10 years old, I was arguing with my friends about who was better, Mantle or Mays…That’s what a baseball blog is all about.
We all read this blogs
To find more detailed and aggressive discussions about sports. If we want to talk about simple stuff we talk to our neighbors. That’s what I think at least…
Clear its radiance shine...
I hate my neighbors.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
love your sig line?
did he really say that? If he did, he’s awesome! If he didn’t, you’re awesome!
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 24, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
He stole it from some random story
LOL, so none of your 2 outcomes applies
Clear its radiance shine...
too bad...
I’d like to see that kinda attitude from our closer. Would’ve reminded me of Eck, whose swagger said “i’m better than you and I’m gonna kick your a**.”
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 24, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions
It was from one of the Dugout things not too long ago
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
It was copied/pasted from the Dugout
But I’ll fully accept your insisting that I’m awesome. You’re the first one in a long time to do so.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
ah hem...
If ever a game should have been called on account of wind, that one was it. Good thing Jerry Blevins didn't have to pitch; he's tall, skinny, and I could practically see one of the 40-mph gusts...sweeping him off the bump and pinning him to the left-field fence. --Mychael Urban
Second one! Teh second one!
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
mikeV
check the AN march madness yahoo board, somebody is talkin trash about your picks…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I don't see the board anywhere, all I can see is my bracket.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
it's right above your bracket name
“AN >”
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Not a clickable link.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
it’s no longer important.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I wasn't that worried about it.
I pretty much threw darts at names to make my picks.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
when it comes to talent and intelligence, screw community standards.
that’s pretty much my position.
i think it’s becoming obvious that the priorities of AN admin and a large group of veteran ANers are in direct conflict with each other.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 24, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Please say more....
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 25, 2009 3:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I know you were not asking me to say more
And I am not a true veteran of the site, or a huge poster (can I qualify this some more???), but I can understand the thought process.
When I first came to the site, there was a definite tone, and certain posters who really stood out. As time goes on, some folks move on, some new ones come in, and gradually the tone shifts slightly in one direction or another.
In the past couple of months, it just seems that there have been a couple of changes at the site, but the “official position” is that nothing should really change. At the same time, I number of people who have been around for a very long time, and have really made the site unique, have decided to post less/ change their role/ leave the site.
Now, in almost all of the cases, it has been made clear that one has nothing to do with the other, but I know as each one happens, and the obligatory discussion happens in the aftermath, the same points keep being brought up-that the site is changing, certain things are not tolerated as much now, losing the “uniqueness” of AN, etc.
In the end, I will still be reading. But then again, I am not as funny as the smart people here, nor am I as smart as the funny people. And as the site has less of these folks (whether deserved or not), it will have an impact.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
I disagree with the quote
If PT had said something like “Nico, you’re a total asshole with no social skills, STFU” and it was his third strike my reaction would be disappointment in PT. Because things were dramatically different, however, my reaction is disappointment in AN.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I find it slightly ironic that someone on an A's site has been thrown out on three strikes
perhaps he should have taken a walk rather than swinging away?
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
but they were all called strikes, no?
and I would definitely describe this as a backwards K.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah but that doesn't fit my joke
so i chose to ignore that
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 24, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions
So Paul Thomas Gets Called Out on Strikes
He’s Jack Cust.
yeah, see
that was more what I was thinking
by Cutthemullet on Mar 24, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Somewhere PT is smiling...
He’s always made this blog about himself and now he’s taken up a good hour of my time.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
I miss econ exams
one of the best parts of college.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Flagged
And I think Nico’s title of this diary deserves the same.
I’m fucking sick of the standard view of PT that he’s some narcissist.
A lot of you have met him (at AN day)…Did he seem Narcissistic? Not to me… A big vocabulary and a lot of intelligence online might just be making a lot of people on AN insecure.
Finally, it says something about the flagging system that I feel the need to articulate my point publicly. Sorry to do this on your post Brenarlo, and in your defense, I see this a lot more from others.
by ohmangoAs on Mar 25, 2009 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Narcissistic or not, he definitely feels that his morals are the correct ones
And he takes every opportunity to mock or belittle hose who disagree.
Yeah, he’s smart, but that doesn’t mean that we need to adopt his philosophies.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Sorry, that should have read:
mock or belittle skanky hos who disagree
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
you should have flagged him for mocking
That’s probably what got him two strikes. Be careful though- he often mocks the argument, not the poster.
But flag others who mock too. And flag those who mocked him.
Seriously, if there aren’t at least 6-7 strikes on the police thread, there’s a problem.
As I said above, I don't like to flag
I actually tried to engage in a real discussion with Paul, rather than just report him. His replies were not complete satisfying, but they were enough so to feel like things had cooled.
And while I agree that those who mocked were also guilty of something, that doesn’t mean that I see the “crimes” as equal. In my mind, the person who throws the first punch is worse than the person who punches back.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Paul's punch
was one that can easily be responded to with an argument. Or at least, some moderation.
I liked XBox’s and MikeV’s first responses to PT’s inappropriate comment.
better than Fuck You , Moron, and Complete Dick
I agree, which is why I tried to talk to him
And those people deserve strikes just as much as Paul.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
by JediLeroy on Mar 25, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I liked your approach too
and seriously, we all know PT shouldn’t have brought the topic up.
+1
reading that thread you (JediLeroy) did perhaps the best job of engaging PT in a reasoned articulation of your points.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Damn. Those links look dramatic
but just link to the thread. Well use Ctrl-F if you need confirmation.
I don't believe in flagging
I’d rather he just wasn’t condescending in the first place. That’s why I try to engage in discussion. A strike probably won’t help, but a good discussion might at least help smooth things out.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
I have the temptation
To flag every single post in this thread. My own included if that were possible. This is just beyond stupid at this point.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Mar 25, 2009 4:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree that PT should NOT have been banned...
I made that point very clear earlier in this thread.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Banning him was silly and a little ironic
The irony is that he is banned through a “technicality” of sorts in the interpretation of the CGVs. Every reason he has used to justify making his arguments and/or not apologizing for violating the “social norms” of the community as a whole are sort of the same reasons the community, or those that represent the community, can decide to ban him.
That said I don’t feel he was any more guilty than anybody else (like myself) who chose to take the bait. And I really don’t think he makes those comments with the intention of baiting people, I really think he just can’t help himself and can’t really see or relate to the negative reactions it will create in large portions of the community (enough to generate a ban in this instance).
But banning him is just as bad as blackballing Barry for being a roids user. We are arguing on the Interwebs here, these are the sort of arguments that just naturally happen, and he (almost) never devolves to insults devoid of any argument. He should just learn to apologize when he pisses that many people off, but whatever. Of course 99% of the time I agree with him, and only occasionally get incited by him, but I just don’t support a ban of someone when I really don’t think they are doing it with the intent of baiting. Yes he’s an arrogant prick, and yes his actions end up baiting people, but I really don’t think he’s trying.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Mar 24, 2009 11:55 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I've heard this theme a couple times, but I'm going to pick on you 'cause you're at the bottom
Yes he’s an arrogant prick, and yes his actions end up baiting people, but I really don’t think he’s trying.
Let’s give you that he wasn’t intending to bait people, but he was indeed baiting people. Do you really think PT was unaware of his actions? I don’t, he’s much too smart not to have realized the result of his actions and I refuse to believe that he was incapable of moderating his tone as necessary. So if he’s knowingly baiting people (without really trying) isn’t he still guilty of baiting people?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Mar 25, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
dude, you've baited people since the inception of AN
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, but I've got character. Plus I'm warm and fuzzy.
That goes a long way towards placating folks.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
A lot of this is about tone and delivery.
If ever a game should have been called on account of wind, that one was it. Good thing Jerry Blevins didn't have to pitch; he's tall, skinny, and I could practically see one of the 40-mph gusts...sweeping him off the bump and pinning him to the left-field fence. --Mychael Urban
it is, but
You just can’t ban someone for having a disagreeable personality. You can’t ban someone for consistently pissing people off unless they’ve broken a rule in the process of pissing people off.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 9 recs
rec with authority.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I disagree
If I tell you to go screw yourself and I do it in a way that you laugh it off, then I haven’t offended you or disrespected you.
If I tell you to go screw yourself and I do it in a non-joking way, and you take offense, then I’ve said the same thing only my tone (my disagreeable personality) has made it offensive and disrespectful. That is a CGV.
The monster at the end of this blog.
you're right
Because “go screw yourself” would technically violate the rules. But it’s no problem if it’s lighthearted. This situation is the opposite. Rather than allowing something technically illegal based on how it’s received, here something legal has been ruled to be a strike because it wasn’t received well. Like I said in a post above, I’m all about the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. But this site has these rigid CG’s, so obviously here it’s more about the letter. Based on the letter of the law, he shouldn’t have gotten a strike. So maybe a PT rule should be added if you want to justify this sort of strike…“if a comment elicits a ridiculous nunber of flags, you will be subject to a strike regardless of the nature of the content”…something like that
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps my example wasn't the best
If it is possible for a person’s tone to turn an obvious technical violation of the CG rules into a non-harmful statement then it stands to reason that a non-technical violation phrase could be turned into a harmful statement via a person’s tone.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I disagree with that completely.
Well, I disagree with the second half of that sentence. I don’t believe it works both ways.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Exactly
Especially in a situation where whatever someone says there is an army of people ready and willing to take it the wrong way.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
And that is actually the one concern I would have.
Not just that there are a lot of people ready to flag, but that it is always the same people how are judge jury and executioner.
The issue I see with the whole system is that, any one of 6000+ people can start flagging comments, but it is a small board of people who in the end decide if it should be a strike or not. And I know that these people have been around a long time, are not flakes, and try to be objective. But they are human, and other interactions and opinions will color their decisions.
That being said, I don’t know if I can think of a truly better way, but it is my concern.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
Isn't a persons tone dependant on the atitude of the reciever?
Any similarity between my spelling and that deemed correct, is pureley accidental.
Words still have meaning, even when not literally spelled out.
It is quite possible to say “go screw yourself” without saying “go screw yourself”.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Mar 25, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
lol dude
It seems to me that in this entire thread, you are basically arguing for reasons why YOU should be banned.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 25, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I think I speak for grover here when I say...
oh. right.
nevermind.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Nah, you misunderstand
See, its easy for people to try and lump me in the same boat with someone like PT. I can be and have been just as confrontational as Paul. But if you’ve been paying attention, its a lot easier to list the differences between us than to find more commonalities.
The monster at the end of this blog.
He has knowledge?
(Just kidding! You’re great! I love not having strikes you! In a totally manly way!)
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Really?
You and PT come off in a very similar way from this monitor. You both are aggressive well reasoned and researched posters who aren’t afraid to forcefully get their point across, even if it takes a half million comments in the Furcal thread.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions
and I did come to believe that he was at least somewhat incapable of moderating his tone
And maybe he has an excuse; if you read his answer to mrrickyg’s incredibly ballsy question last thread, then…well, I don’t know how to be the judge there, at all. Like xbx said, “special brand of social cluelessness”—but he shouldn’t be punished for that if it doesn’t result in an explicit violation of the rules. Sometimes I would read things he wrote, and my initial response would be “fuck you.” But I resisted ever saying it, and the challenge then was to say “fuck you” without saying “fuck you”…that’s accomplished via argument.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions
And PT I've been called an arrogant prick too
I don’t really totally mean that as an insult. Take your 30 days to cool off, come back and post like you always do, and just apologize when you make people angry, even if you don’t feel sorry inside, lie to everybody and act sincerely sorry on the outside :-) Social control at its best baby!
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I think it's funny that people are addressing PT in this thread
Maybe someone can start exchanging e-mails and there can be a daily update diary. I know brenarlo would be in favor
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
+1 to cutthemullet
on the power of argument.
answer the arg, don’t go Ad-hom. Really, that’s all this community needs.
Well that sort of speaks to the irony of the situation
Just like in that thread, where he was right in fact, but wrong in social grace, it is factually/technically correct to ban him because he should be smart enough to recognize he is baiting people, but probably socially incorrect by the group to just ban him. Some people are very very very very smart when it comes to baseball and logic, and just plain retarded when it comes to social skills. I think he might be smart enough to know it will bait people when he says that stuff, but too socially “stupid” to really comprehend the reactions, and not really understand/empathize with the reactions either.
And absolutely no need to qualify picking on me, I always invite it ;-)
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
The "group" didn't ban him
On 3 separate occasions PT made comments that were deemed inappropriate to the community standards. I’ve seen several comments that he’s made that I felt were pushing the line and I am not surprised at all that his style finally caught up with him.
This was not the result of one action or comment, but the accumulation of multiple transgressions.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Maybe rule #1 of AN needs to be "Plays well with others."
To me that is one of the only things that matters.
My frustrations with PaulThomas on AN were maybe or maybe not public. Probably aside from a couple alcohol-induced snotty comments, I chose NOT to make it public. But there was a time when I replied to comments of his. After a period of time when it consistently ruined my own AN user experience, I simply stopped. Which was the wise thing to do. Which is also something PaulThomas never seemed to be able to. Which is also something a LOT of users don’t seem to be able to do. Myself included at some points.
I desperately wanted to respond to his comment in the FanPost about the fallen police officers. I had posted in that thread already and since then drafted several inflammatory replies. But I knew I was emotional about it (both the actual tragedy and the following comments) so I vented in private and ultimately walked away. I knew I wouldn’t be adding anything to the discussion that wasn’t already going to be covered (or fueling the fire) and I myself didn’t care to earn a CGV over it. I used the flagging and recommending functions to voice my opinions – which are available to all of us, for every user, every comment, every FanPost, every FanShot and every front page article.
Unfortunately, I think many of the people that were turned off by such callous behavior on his part are now long gone from AN. And certainly most of them will not put themselves out by commenting here. Some self-designated veterans might not care so much about that. And I might be one of those people that some deem to “contribute nothing” to the site but I am an A’s fan, and so are many people who don’t post much anymore – for whatever reasons we may all lead ourselves to believe. But NONE of our validity as AN users is predicated upon how valuable a FEW users think we are.
Aside from that, PaulThomas ASKED Nico to convey his message to the AN community. That’s why this thread exists. Had that right NOT been afforded to him, I’m sure many more conspiracy theories (more than the ones that will undoubtedly surface anyway) would have been thrown out there. He was (and is, maybe after 30 days) far too prolific a poster and commenter for his absence to have ever gone unnoticed. The moderators would have been absolutely blasted by some of the same people on this thread for keeping the private proceedings private. Each time something like this comes up (and I can imagine as the community grows larger there will be more incidents like this), the group of moderators and committee members have to decide how to deal with the situation. I am fine with abiding by that. If others are not, they don’t have to.
I am not a moderator or on the CGV committee, and I never will be. I know who some of them are but not all of them. But, I know that to get to BE one of them, you have to be a respected member of the community for quite some time. I probably don’t agree with everything they do (and they probably do more than I will ever know), but I am grateful to have people who look out for the well-being of this community that I have voluntarily joined…and can voluntarily leave at any time.
I haven’t yet received a warning or a strike. I know for sure it’s NOT because I haven’t done something that has pissed someone off. But what I do know for sure is that after my very first warning or strike, I would examine the behavior, language and emotion that made it happen — even if I stood by the content of the original comment.
So this is what I am trying to do: 1) grow as thick a skin as possible; 2) try not to let the opinions of people on the internet affect me; 3) ignore most of what pisses me off. And then, if you see something that you believe violates the Community Guidelines, flag it. Even if it is from a moderator or a friend of yours. Maybe especially if it is from moderator or a friend of yours. I’m not great at that but I have recognized it and am getting better. I think the main issue with the flagging system is that not ENOUGH people use it. They’re called Community Guidelines because we’re all supposed to enforce them – for everyone, not just the people we don’t like.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
by pam5981 on Mar 25, 2009 12:08 AM PDT reply actions 10 recs
I know that to get to BE one of them, you have to be a respected member of the community for quite some time.
how do you know they’re respected? who decides they are respected? who respects them? the community? nico?
what is considered “quite some time”? is that kind of like “self-designated veterans”?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
They are respected by the leadership of this blog.
A designation which I am fine with accepting. You are not and you’ve made that quite clear. Which is perfectly fine in my book. You are a self-designated veteran, which is ALSO perfectly fine in my book. I just don’t agree with your perception of some users.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
I don't know
Maybe if you have enough of a problem with all this, you should go talk to Blez. He’s the one who appointed Nico, after all.
I don’t expect you to respect people who issued you a strike. I probably wouldn’t have given one out for asking someone what they’re smoking, but I wasn’t involved with that one. I don’t have to be, as it only takes a majority on the part of the moderators to issue a strike as far as I understand it.
Have you sought to communicate with the moderators, or are you just going to go on the offensive here?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
"Have you sought to communicate with the moderators, or are you just going to go on the offensive here?"
1) i have no interest in interacting with the CGV commitee, for reasons that should be clear if you read this and this.
2) the last time i asked the committee for clarification, i was bullied and told that if i continued to pursue the matter, i would be issued multiple strikes instead of just one:
2/22/07 xbhaskarx wrote:
> Can the committee please let me know which comment or comments in the two
> diaries violated the community guidelines?
In response to this, your third email on the matter since being issued a
“strike,” I have to admit I¹m somewhat amazed that you continue to pursue
questions about this “strike”—mostly because the Sub-Committee definitely
considered issuing more than “strike” and most certainly never considered
issuing anything less.…
Would you like the Sub-Committee to review this
again and issue a new ruling as it sees fit? I have a feeling you wouldn¹t,
but let me know and I¹d be happy to bring this ruling up for a new review.-Nico.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 25, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd like to see a denial at minimum
if this stuff isn’t true…
anyone who thinks this isn't true can email me and i will send them copies
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
X's pasted emails are accurate, just absurdly out of context
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Probably something that shouldn't be discussed?
Even though Xbox began this by publicly posting emails that should have remained private multiple times, I’d be truly shocked if Nico did the same.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Oh I don't expect nico would post e-mails
But I’m also not persuaded by “this quote is out of context.” without any explanation of why.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I agree -- but it shouldn't have come up in the first place
So frankly I couldn’t care less about getting an explanation.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
really, emails to and from the commitee should remain private? why?
and once again, the first sentence in this diary is “If you have something to say about what follows, by all means have it at”
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
AN bosses have my permission
to post ALL correspondence between me and the committee in their entirety.
now if you make statements like “absurdly out of context” without providing any supporting evidence, people will know it’s bullshit.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
So basically, the answer is "Yes, I'm going to go on the offensive...
…and take advantage of the attention Paul’s getting now."
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
this stuff seems worth reading to me FF
it’s not like the CGV system is transparent, despite the fact that AN has had numerous meta-discussions about it since I started lurking 4 years ago.
There’s no other thread where XBox can bring this up.
right, that's exactly it. good luck in your quest to join the politburo dude, you performed admirably in your front page cup-of-coffee, hopefully your loyalty is rewarded.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 25, 2009 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, here's the thing
I can see the stuff you’ve been flagged for in the past and it’s pretty clear where you baited and insulted people, and you continue to do it. If you couldn’t figure it out from that, I’m not sure what to tell you.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
right, for example: “The A’s front office is not smoking whatever you are”… truly one of the most offensive comments ever posted on AN.
and what exactly is the lesson i’m supposed to learn from a political discussion with three other users, where all four of us get strikes and then one person gets his strike removed by nico? is the lesson “don’t insult people” or “kiss nico’s ass”?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I laughed
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Like I said above, I wouldn't knock someone just for asking what someone else was smoking
But this is not about “Whose insult is worse?”
It’s an insult. That is not up for debate. You could and did get a strike for it. Seems you have yourself to blame for that.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
and your response to the second paragraph?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I would say "don't insult people" is a good idea
And I’d also acknowledge I’ve been guilty of it in the past. I know that means I could get a strike here and there.
If I got a strike, I think I could own up to what I did to earn it. I don’t see you doing that.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
so even though my strike wasn't for insulting people, but for engaging in a political discussion
the lesson is still don’t insult people?
how exactly would that ensure everyone involved is treated the same, instead of three people getting strikes while the fourth gets off by emailing nico?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
you can get off by emailing Nico?
hadn’t thought of that.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 1:31 AM PDT up reply actions
And to be fair about something, I have to own up to a mistake I just made
I checked and noticed I DID flag the “what are you smoking?” comment before. Since I just told you I probably wouldn’t, I have unflagged it.
I’m also going to make a note of this to the other moderators via e-mail and recommend that if the strike was issued in part because of the flag I gave, that they consider removing it based on this comment.
I can’t promise anything, but at least I can be honest with you about talking to them about it because I think that’s the right thing to do.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I want to appeal all of my convictions, too
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions
is there consistency in the process?
you advised someone above to bypass the CGV system and go to Blez…
can we blame someone or at least object to that? You’re not internally consistent on this thread FF.
XBox earned it, but people who have a problem with some of Nico’s posts should go to Blez because the CGV system’s not for them. I’m sure that’s not what you meant?
Well, it appears Nico stopped posting about those things...
…so it seems DFA continuing to bring them up doesn’t really fit, does it?
I would assume that if Nico has been appointed by Blez, we’re not going to see a situation where the rest of the mods effectively force Nico out for some reason.
In fact, I really don’t have a problem with the guy.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
C'mon FF, that seems a bit misplaced
I mean, if xbx big agenda was to “be on the offensive” wouldn’t he have posted this as a seperate fanpost awhile ago? He is actually doing the mods a favor by posting it in this thread. He could just as easily waited a week, written a fanpost called “Now they are after me too” and started the whole meta-discussion all over again. So your claim of “taking advantage of the attention PT is getting” is dubious at best.
Seems like he is contributing his knowledge and opinions about PT’s situation by describing his own interactions with the CGV powers that be — which is exactly what Nico asked to be done in the OP.
right, but maybe “If you have something to say about what follows, by all means have it at” was supposed to mean other site admins, flashfire, pam, and other loyal party members… nico defense force ASSEMBLE!
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Y'know, I'm talking to the other mods about removing the flag on you for the "smoking" comment...
…but I’m really finding your resorting to lumping people together as Nico’s defense force along with posting images like this to be worse.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Y’know, I’m talking to the other mods about removing the flag on you for the “smoking” comment…
you’re talking to the other mods? so are you a mod? but pam said “member of the community for quite some time”… wait, is pam also a mod?
that image only or are there other “images like this”? are any of the other images offensive? wait don’t clarify that, or nico might send me an email threatening me with ONE STRIKE PER IMAGE.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
pam is not a mod and if you'd read my comment below you'd know that.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
hell, comment above. I have no idea where I am in this thread.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
how long have you been a mod? i bet i can guess...
but i’m genuinely interested in clarification from a mod regarding what makes an image CGV-worthy.
images relating to famous novels will result in CGVs, got it. what about history?
would a political cartoon on FDR packing the supreme court also be considered a CGV?
i’m being totally serious here, help me out.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
what the hell, let's test it out
someone please flag this.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Come on, man.
Everyone here understand your position on all of this. Don’t go getting yourself banned just to emphasize your points.
The artist formerly known as HigherPie.
i'm genuinely curious
i think both the animal farm and the FDR stacking the court comparisons are totally relevant here. hell, i wish i could say they were mine…
as a fellow vegan help me out and flag that as inappropriate.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Of course it's appropriate
based on the case you’re making. You think the CGV committee is stacked with Nico-sciples. That’s fine, and a fair enough argument. And you’ve made it.
All I know is that if you, as a valued AN member, want a more open CGV process and committee, then you are no longer making a constructive case. As a fellow vegan, I’m sure you’re keenly aware of how making an unpopular case for something that’s important to you has to be done with respect, humility, and caution (even if you’re just faking it), or you end up with people eating foie gras for dinner just to spite you.
The artist formerly known as HigherPie.
by vegAN ryAN on Mar 25, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Foie gras!
It’s what’s for dinner.
Foie gras!
The other, other white meat.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I meant
vegan fois gras, Ry.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
PS Foie isn't white
:-)
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
wait, so fdr was gay?
also, tsk tsk for stealing people’s jokes, and tsk tsk for stealing people’s jokes without affixing the amusing moniker applied in the original. 4 tsks.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
same time stamp, but my comment came first
“hell, i wish i could say they were mine…”
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I just am surprised that you rail on people when they use generalities that don't jibe with your arguments, but you have no problem using them against people when it's convenient for you.
You don’t know me. You don’t know what I agreed with or whom, or when. You have no right to call me a party loyalist (which I am assuming coming from you at this point is a derogatory term) because I happen to know and like some of the people I’ve met on this site. I know and like plenty of the people who have also disagreed with me in this thread, and many many others as well.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
By the way, this I AM flagging, because using my name and this picture with what you've insinuated is a personal attack.
Who was this sultan of sock, this hero of hosiery, this stalwart of shinwear? Ah, Wimberly — Corey Wimberly. - Uni Watch
go for it
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I have flagged it as well, for the same reason
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
i thought you were through talking to me?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
As of this writing, the image has 4 flags
The joy of being “the boss” is that when I have to send a “strike” email, it will be my fault!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
well why would you need to flag it yourself when you have toadies like flashfire around to do your dirty work for you?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
yup
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I just find it funny
Moments after I own up to a mistake and remove a flag I gave him, he goes and pulls this to get another fresh one.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I don't find it funny in any way, shape or form
How the Hell did we get here?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't really mean "ha ha" funny
More like “this is absurd” funny.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Funny HOW? I AMUSE you? Funny like a CLOWN?
Great movie.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Simple
There are flaws in the system. I don’t think anyone’s going to argue against that because no system is perfect. But the problem a lot of people have is that it lacks transparency. When a system like this lacks transparency, whether fair or accurate or not, it leads to people seeing conspiracies. Especially when a very visible member of the community gets the boot for ultimately saying something in a diary that probably shouldn’t have been created in the first place.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
OT
Will your signature search ever end?
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
You'd think so, but apparently not.
I almost had one recently, but it was about goats… and well… i guess that’s a bit up in the air now.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Ah, what the hell
I’ll give this one a shot.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
xbhaskarx
You know I’m a fan and occasional defender of yours—you must know that—and I know you’re clearly upset, but aren’t there better ways to deal with this than to ridicule another poster because they didn’t agree with you? Call out the members of the front page if you must, demand some answers in an email, or in this thread, but wow, that was pretty harsh.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 25, 2009 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions
you a defender of mine? hmm, i did not know that.
wait, did you just admit you were a member of the “xbhaskarx defense force”?
that kind of language will get you a CGV! around here when accompanied by a photo of some pigs… or is that only when it’s about a guy who regularly talks about having sex with farm animals?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Oh xbox, we hardly knew ye
Seriously, today sucks.
Hopefully they’ll give you a 30 day period, though you’re not the type to come back
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
don't get yourself banned
i really appreciate what you have to offer and hope that you’re still around after this thread is done
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
xbhaskarx...c'mon....
step away from the keyboard tonight. Reevaluate in the morning. I don’t want to lose ANYONE else from AN. I want us to have a great 2009 season.
We’re doing the best we can. You know this has the demands of a second job for all of us; I have been up all night stuffing tickets into envelopes for an AN event and monitoring this thread…this site means a lot to me, and I have to be at my job at 8 tomorrow. It’s a tough job to keep everyone happy—or at least content—and we get all of the grief and none of the credit a lot of the time. We do the best we can…I’m sorry if it’s not good enough sometimes.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 25, 2009 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Xbx, I don't know you, but I enjoy your posts
Just some friendly advice from a complete stranger. Now would be a good time to close the web browser. All of your points have been made (and many of them I agree with).
Tomorrow is another day
you're right
one more post after this one and then i’ll attempt to take your advice.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
xbhaskarx...
You wonder why blogging gets a bad wrap? It’s just a paradigm of what happens when nerds get power.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 25, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Suffice it to say, I agree with all of this
I KNOW I’ve said things and acted in ways that could have earned me a strike in the past, but I haven’t received any. That’s the way it goes sometimes and it’s something I’ve worked on. I slip at times, the same as others do.
Paul didn’t really change anything even after his second strike, which I believe was issued before I was asked to join the frontpage team. However, I believe that while what Paul said wasn’t wrong at the core (as I said somewhere above), the baiting behind it along with the way he handled himself after the predictable results was enough to show he was making things about him.
There will always be people who disagree with what site moderators do, whether that disagreement is justified or not. There will always be people who cry foul and decide to leave. There will be others who quietly wait for things to settle down so things can get back to normal, knowing that people are doing the best they can. This isn’t a job and people aren’t getting paid for it. At the same time, AN is not (and never has been, at least as long as I’ve been here) a place where people can just say and do whatever they want.
I don’t know why, all of a sudden, dealing with a problem IS such a problem. This is not a place where people are going to just be able to act however they want. Anyone who’s been here should understand this.
Nobody complains when a new poster trolls or posts inappropriately and is swiftly dealt with. Those people don’t get three strikes. It’s one and done. For someone who’s been around long enough to get three strikes, that person has to have done enough to show a repeated pattern. Whatever contributions Paul’s made here with his insights, the rest came back to bite him. If he can do the former without the latter, there won’t be a problem.
Seems simple to me.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Thoughtful post, Pam
I’d like to address a few of your points:
I might be one of those people that some deem to "contribute nothing" to the site but I am an A’s fan, and so are many people who don’t post much anymore – for whatever reasons we may all lead ourselves to believe. But NONE of our validity as AN users is predicated upon how valuable a FEW users think we are.
I think it’s useful to draw a distinction here. I find game threads boring, but I get why people like them. I also get that not everyone needs to be deconstructing WAR and contract value all the time, and that relationship cultivation, even (maybe especially) via shared silliness, contributes positively to the atmosphere of the site.
That said, I have always read AN for the spirited arguments between smart people in the comment threads. That’s where I learn stuff, and that has been handicapped by a steady site-wide shift towards what I guess you could call “pleasant tedium” (nice, sensible, inoffensive and totally dull commentary), and a corresponding exodus of those aforementioned smart people.
Possibly this doesn’t bother you at all (or you haven’t noticed), and that’s fine. But it would be a mistake to discount the fundamental contribution prolific, intelligent posters like monkeyball and PT (and salb918, and FSU, and mikeA, and so on) make to the “value” of AN, even if much of that discourse does not interest you specifically. I am not going to click over to AN just because everybody’s cheerful and accommodating and saying “go a’s”. That stuff is fine, it’s fun, but it’s ancillary to what makes/has made the site better than it’s competitors.
I know that to get to BE one of them [mods], you have to be a respected member of the community for quite some time.
I think it would be more accurate to say that you have to share certain sensibilities. “Respect” is a tricky term to define, especially in this context, and depends an awful lot on the person making the judgement. I don’t want to get into calling people out specifically, but I will say that serial defensiveness and unapologetic, strident ignorance (not qualities much deserving of "respect") don’t appear to disqualify people from contributing to the front page.
I haven’t yet received a warning or a strike. I know for sure it’s NOT because I haven’t done something that has pissed someone off. But what I do know for sure is that after my very first warning or strike, I would examine the behavior, language and emotion that made it happen — even if I stood by the content of the original comment.
But Pam, you’re leaving out a gigantic piece of the puzzle here, which is that you hardly ever argue about anything! If you never engage in debate, how difficult is it to avoid offending people?
Look, in the past I’ve tried to encourage PT to soften the edges, because, well, he needs to learn how to do that (I’m sympathetic because I struggle with this myself, a lot). But surely you recognize how frequently people mistake “smart and blunt” for “arrogant”, especially when they’ve just been shown to be wrong in front of a bunch of people. And just as surely, you must realize that as frequently as PT posts, and as confidently as he expresses his views, this is going to happen a lot, even if he took great care to be amicable.
In short, your experience is not analogous to his.
by 74mk on Mar 25, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 9 recs
I rarely ever post...
but I think that banning Paul Thomas is poor decision to say the least. He is one of the few names I actually look for when scrolling through a thread because he is smart, sometimes funny and, more often than not, has an opinion (that I can choose to agree or disagree with). I really do wish that we would all get a little thicker skins and not be so offended by what someone writes on a blog. It’s a forum, people… AN will be lacking during the time that he is gone.
The only decision involved was to set a time frame for PT to come back
3 strikes leads to an automatic ban unless the decision is made to modify the punishment.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Hence the irony - that the consequence, by the book, should have been
an outright banning yet the “powers that be” (admin/mods) have not chosen that route. The other irony being that PT (to his great credit, IMO) appears to understand and support the 30-day cool-off as maybe being best for everyone.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Wrong
There should have been no third strike.
Just because PT took it with a degree of class doesn’t make it wrong.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Seems to me that an abuse of power or the system
would have been to ignore the fact that – right or wrong – it was flagged by multiple user/mods. It’s like one person’s opinion or interpretation made it a “strike”.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Perhaps,
And in my professional life I’ve seen that you can quickly identify bad decisions by the fact that the decider doesn’t enact the requisite punishment.
I think the strike was awarded in anger and not related to any of the community guidelines. The fact that it went through “the system” doesn’t make it seem particularly legitimate to me.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Then maybe you need to change the CG to say that a strike can be issued
for anything that multiple users/mods don’t like regardless of content. Because by the letter of the CG’s I do not see how what PT wrote was a CGV.
I would be curious to know which of the specific rules were actually broken.
{sigh}
I miss Monkeyball.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
just wait 'til I'm gone...
haha
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions
(j/k… sorta)
(before or after you pay that $500 you owe?)
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
dude, and I thought you had me in your killfile...
I’m touched.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions
comments made while the page is open don’t get killed. they will be gone as soon as i hit refresh…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
ahhhh...
serendipity, then. ;-)
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions
did I borrow money from MB?
I gotta lay off the Grey Goose…
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Some AN history from an outsider
Random thoughts…
1) Blez has always maintained his own rules for this site and insisted they be followed, even before there were official “Community Standards” or a group of people who gave out strikes and all that. In one of my better decisions, I politely declined Blez’s offer to join the first one.
2) This site has always been driven by personalities. We all know who they are, or were. Some fall into the category of posters that people love to hate, because they’re smart but get on people’s nerves because they ruffle feathers or express unpopular views in a pointed way.
3) After reading the whole thing, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that PaulThomas was banned for a) expressing an unpopular opinion and then defending it and b) because the moderators were sick of dealing with him. The ostensible reason for the third strike seems pretty dubious.
4) I can’t stand the threads that end up being about one poster, and PaulThomas certainly had a tendency to make things about him. But he had help. You can just ignore people on the Internet, a fact people sometimes fail to realize.
5) As one of the few people who has been to every AN Day, I can say that I honestly believe the “leaders” of the site are doing the best they can on these sorts of things. While I don’t agree with the strike ruling, I also think deciding whether a smart, pain-in-the-ass poster should stay or go is a difficult call. That’s why I didn’t want to be involved in making such decisions.
6) pam5981’s point above about playing well with others is a very good one. Everyone on all sides of this latest flap should keep it in mind. It’s a lot more important than the technicalities of the rules.
by bear88 on Mar 25, 2009 12:25 AM PDT reply actions 8 recs
end of discussion.
thank you, bear88.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions
(but bear88 does really hit it right on, no?)
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions
killfile's revenge
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions
lol
I read everything you post… well, obviously, not everything… since, I mistakenly lumped you in with the other anti-Cahill clan.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Man this thread will have 500 posts in no time.
A little overblown this is.
"Their Triple-A rotation, led by Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson, could be better than some big-league rotations; Michael Ynoa is the best Latin American prospect of the decade; 2008 draftees Jemile Weeks and Rashun Dixon bring much-needed tools to an advanced group of hitters." - BaseballProspectus.com
yeah
its hard to follow as it keeps bouncing around my screen…
Bobby Crosby = ground-out triple play...
really?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I did.
Insulting, not baiting. And I think it was more of a warning, not an official strike, but it was so long ago that I forget exactly which it was now. And it was pointed out to me that it was NOT Paul who complained, but rather someone else. I have no reason to disbelieve that.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
This isn't really all about Paul Thomas
I got flagged and a strike for an innocuous comment a few months ago that was political - I trashed both Democrats AND Republicans for their complicity in the economic meltdown, something that right now isn’t much different from a straight reporting job in the New York Times - and yet I’ve seen far worse on AN on a daily basis.
It’s inconsistent, and while I know the folks doing the policing may have the best interests of AN in mind, I do think there are lines that can be drawn. Paul Thomas made an inappropriate comment in a discussion that should never have been on AN to begin with. That’s the bottom line here. His removal for this particular offense was inappropriate as well.
On the other hand, as Paul himself points out, internet posting tends to be addictive, and getting away from it for a few months is a very healthy idea.
But I think the powers-that-be here might consider being a bit less Stalinist in their approach.
i'll miss ya paul
and i hope you choose to come back
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
This all seems to be getting at a larger issue here...
AN has become a huge blog with many many users. It started as a small blog with a smaller community of users. The change from a small blog to a big blog is a very noticeable one indeed.
Communities are never moderated equally. On a site where 1000s of comments are posted A DAY, it would be impossible for the small leadership group of this blog to go comment by comment and provide an unbiased judgement on everything posted. That just isn’t reasonable. As the community grows, they have to rely on people to flag comments for them, which can then be reviewed. This is inherently inequal, as there are always going to be people, in any community (online or elsewhere) who are just plain more popular, or conversely, more unpopular, than everyone else. Someone who has a reputation for being “rude” or “incendiary” is going to get reported a lot quicker than someone who is seen as “funny” or “nice” most of the time. It’s life. This shit happens.
The bigger a blog gets, the harder it is for it to be governed completely equally. I’ve been a member of AN since back on AN 1.0. I posted a lot more back then, because it was a smaller community, and every voice seemed to get heard. As groups get bigger, not everyone can have the same “voice”. Some people post more than others, some post more intelligent posts than others, and some are just plain louder than others. As this community grew, I faded into the background and mostly just read the site these days. Not because I don’t think I have anything to offer, but because I didn’t have the time, nor care to put in the time, to make myself a voice on a growing website. Some people do, and they come to the forefront, and get more attention than other users. Thus, posters who post more and are more visible are probably more likely to get reported when they say something that may offend. It’s just the way it is.
In the end, big blogs tend to go one of two ways. Either they are a free for all, with bickering, infighting, and flat out name calling; or they become highly regulated and governed, with posts being deleted and content being censored to an extent, as to not offend anyone. One of the things that made AN so great back in the day was the sense of community there was here. People could voice their opinions, and have a discussion, and not worry about being told their ideas were worthless or idiotic. As blogs get bigger, its hard to maintain this, and I think AN has done a decent job of trying to keep this kind of atmosphere around.
Maybe it’s at a breaking point, maybe not. And I really don’t have any suggestions on how to help keep this kind of an atmosphere going. I wish I did. Maybe there needs to be more transparancy in the CGV system…like a section separate from the fanposts and front pages where CGV rulings are posted in a Supreme Court kind of way, with an opinion written as to why it was seen as a violation. No commenting, but just so people know what’s being flagged and what is being considered a strikable offense. Or maybe that would destroy the whole point of the CGV system not being about the user but the comment… I dunno.
I guess I just hope that AN doesn’t become a place where there’s the company line or the exit door…and at the same time hope it doesn’t become a free for all where childish bickering becomes commonplace (e.g. the ESPN comment threads).
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." ~Rogers Hornsby
by ZeroIndulgence on Mar 25, 2009 1:28 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Missed out here
I’ll associate myself with 74mk’s comment above. PT, CGV, blah, blah, blah. Used to be a great site. It’s been getting worse for awhile now. The site leadership manifests indifference or contempt for the things that I enjoyed about this site, and that’s a shame.
Be seeing you.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
monkeyball, salb918, freeseatupgrade(?), paulthomas... and now mikea?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Good place as any
for my two cents. Being that 1) I agree with 74mk’s comment (and I am surely as guilty as anyone when it comes to “junior high text-speak”), and 2) I stated in the farewell to monkeyball that some of the very reasons for me logging in each day were the contributions made by the people that xbhaskarx lists above. To see them disappear is troubling to me, and I believe the site suffers for it. Or are we really to believe that there is less (constructive) dialogue simply because the season has yet to start?
As a mod, I was fully aware of PT’s request. I secretly hoped that it would not have been posted. It seems it has only served to divide the “Nation” even further. I am not even so sure PT’s absence would have been as noticeable, as say, monkeyball’s. It may have been a nice break for everyone without anyone even realizing it. But do throw it out there like this; well it just seems ironic that so many of those who claimed to have disliked PT for one reason or another are the same ones who object to the CGV/ban.
I don’t know. I just fear that AN is losing its appeal. I want to say there is room for everyone here (even the flirts, though maybe restricted to game threads), but we’ve lost some real talent of late, and it seems it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
I'm here to talk about the past.
I agree with all of this, including the part about PT taking a break once in awhile (or maybe just posting 70% as frequently). Sometimes it’s useful to let a little oxygen into the room, so to speak.
I should also say that my text-speak derision above was probably meaner than it needed to be. It’s just that minor irritations I normally brush aside (by reminding myself that “annoying to me” doesn’t necessarily equal "bad") grate more when juxtaposed with the absence of contributors I like.
I certainly didn't take offense.
Not that you were apologizing. I happen to agree that it’s gotten a little out of hand, and in the “wrong” places. Unfortunately I have yet to meet a sexual innuendo I didn’t like (though I guess that’s on a different level than text-speak), and have often wondered if my some of my own comments aren’t flag-worthy.
I’m still hoping the start of the season will turn AN’s attention to where it belongs, but I can’t say that I am not disheartened by where it is now, when it should be all about the interview that Mr. Beane took from his own valuable time to give, and that Tyler spent so much of his time to sort out into three parts. Just unfortunate.
I'm here to talk about the past.
I feel bad about that too, probably more than about anything
Sorry, Blez – you deserve better.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
"and have often wondered if my some of my own comments aren’t flag-worthy"
I wish that you wouldn’t worry about that, but with the flagging system in place, I can see why people do. I see little purpose for the flagging system other than to incite paranoia and to empower lurkers who aren’t even really part of the vaunted “community”. I myself don’t really care about it, from either angle—I’m never flagged anyone and never will, because I see it as incredible cowardice to not even be able to bring yourself to confront someone…on the Internet (!), and I also don’t care about receiving a strike. But overall, I’m definitely with JediLeroy (as he’s said elsewhere) about the virtue of conversation over anonymous flagging. I certainly don’t think that the site will ever go back to its days before flagging, but I’d be happy if it did….
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions
wow... this thread has proven to be...
1. Addictive;
2. Entertaining;
3. Informative;
4. Controversial;
5. AN career ending (for some)
Can’t wait for the season to start and things get really heated.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 1:48 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
everything Nico hoped it would be when he posted it...
my apologies to Cutthemullet.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions
LEGENDary
This post took a tough situation and managed to stir it up even more. Xbhaskarx shot the sheriff, and now we’re seeing an exodus from the site. Hopefully AN will soon sing a redemption song. Somehow I think we’ll be waiting in vain.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Shoo! Get out of here!
(damn birds keep gathering on my door step…)
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Well played
I liked the transition from How I Met Your Mother to Bob Marley. Nicely done, sir.
I'm assuming I get banned again for comments made on this thread.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 25, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions
twice banned would be worthy of the AN HOF
which exists only in my mind, but still
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
emails (hopefully my final comment of the night)
in this comment on my recent experience with the CGV system, i wrote: “i forwarded the emails to a small group of veteran ANers… i would love to share their comments (anonymously) with "the community" if any of them give me permission to do so via email.”
well, four of the seven individuals have already given me permission, so here they are:
Looks like someone doesn’t like you. I’ve been thinking of calling it quits… There’s only about 5-10 people who I actually like at this point, and many of them don’t post often. On the other hand, I like talking about the A’s. If I leave maybe I should go out with another of these:
[censored]
yeah … the site is outgrowing the people that made it what it is
Son. Of. A. Bitch.
I don’t know what else to say…. I’m not on the Committee but I will say that yeah, technically you bumped the receiver beyond the 5 yard line but the contact was minimal and it would have made a better non-call. I don’t want to see you kicked out, but maybe you need to take a couple days off from commenting… just until the urge to snap back over that bullshit call subsides a bit.
I think the day of the “splinter blog” is rapidly approaching. I saw
[name] on [date], and [s/he] was also mourning the devolution of AN.
Doesn’t seem like it’s worth the effort to post anything of meaning on
there anyway.
goodnight, everyone.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
i didn't get your email
lol
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions
another email
[name]’s a walking parody of [location] [group], a Napolean-from-Animal-Farm come to life. He thinks he’s Cesar Chavez but he’s really Josef Stalin. I’m pretty much done with participating with AN.
Also, funny to see oaktoon active now that the A’s might be competitive…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Can the splinter site be called
www.ItsAllAboutPaulThomasAndSometimesAbouttheAsAndOtherFunShitWeLikeToo.net?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
i motion for a new, continuation thread
this one is taking forever to load
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
kinda sad and ironic no?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 3:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Good lord people
This is a baseball blog. Baseball. We do not need to be jumping down each other’s “throats” over all this. This isn’t like the moderators here at AN are some fascist regime, throwing people into prison never to be seen again. One guy, who continually insults others, gets banned for a month and it’s total rebellion here.
If that reality check isn’t enough, just imagine what the folks at Halo’s Heaven will be saying when they inevitable see this. I don’t think I could stand the humiliation.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Mar 25, 2009 3:45 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think AN's numbers will be cut in half by the end of the week
But I’ll still be here so howsabout the rest of us rally together and try to keep this site from falling any further. We need a new generation of posters to step up and perform, in order to replace those high-priced veterans that are sailing into the sunset. Let’s do our best to keep it intelligent and, if possible, civil because there seems to be enough people who can’t be joked with. The way I like to think about it is “Would I say this to this person’s face?” If I can honestly say yes then I’ll post it, if not I won’t. Simple.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
I try to abide by the wisdom of The Office
“Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing.”
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey PaulThomas,
I enjoyed having you here. Hope you come back in 30. And that I’m still here.
Save Rajai Davis
I also hope PT comes back after his 30 days are up.
His baseball stuff is always good and has helped introduce a lot of information about sabermetrics to me. He can be overbearing at times but letting stuff go or ignoring it all together can get you though/over it
Bad spellers of the world untie.
To many people get offended far to easily
I cannot remember the last time I was offended. It seems to me that it has become fashionable to become offended far to easily, if only we would all just smile at the originator of such obviously misguided views and move on. I am also a little irritated that almost anyone can be called a hero these days, it rather dilutes the awe and respect we have of true heros.
However, this is a baseball blog, the subject for discussion is baseball, reverence and irreverence for people or events outside of baseball should be expressed elsewhere.
I am thankful for all the people who over the years have contributed to this blog, it has provided me with views and observations about a team I follow but seldom see. I disagree with any banning or suspending of contributors for anything other than obvious sabotage, it is important to me that we hear all the voices rather than just those deemed acceptable. If someone says something you don’t like, either ignore it or fashion a reply that will convince them of a different point of view.
AN has given me a great deal of enjoyment over the years, significantly by providing me with information and insight, but mostly with its humour, so lets not get to precious lets just enjoy what we like and ignore that which we dont.
Any similarity between my spelling and that deemed correct, is pureley accidental.
by Dalesman on Mar 25, 2009 5:24 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
It's an F'n blog, how can you get offended? This isn't real life.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 25, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Because the thread and comment that started it all
Was in a time when people were going through REAL LIFE emotions.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Sorry to be pedantic but
we are all going through real life emotions (what other sort are there?) all our waking hours.
Fortunatley I don’t blog much at all, but it would be even less if I had to consider other bloggers ‘real life emotions’.
Any similarity between my spelling and that deemed correct, is pureley accidental.
You know what I meant
Otherwise you wouldn’t have apologized for being pedantic.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
no I'm sorry but I really dont know what you meant
Any similarity between my spelling and that deemed correct, is pureley accidental.
Then how were you being pedantic?
You can’t be pedantic without understanding what I meant. You might be confused, at a loss for understanding what I’m talking about, etc. But to be pedantic in that situation says that you understand what I was saying but was correcting my usage/pointing out that the literal interpretation of what I had said is flawed because everybody feels emotions.
But nice comeback.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Your being a bit too pedantic for me,
but I don’t think you understood what I was saying at all.
Any similarity between my spelling and that deemed correct, is pureley accidental.
Well I was just going by what you said, and you said pedantic.
Which would imply you understood what I meant. But to be more specific so you could understand by “REAL LIFE emotions” I meant highly-charged, highly-intensive current emotions intertwined specifically with the topic being discussed.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
this could have been mentioned
in another comment (i tried to at least skim all of them).
but what is the big deal? can’t paulthomas just get a new username and start commenting again? I guess they know his IP address? However I would think since he’s in school, he could also be commenting in computer labs…
If someone tries to get around a ban by creating a new username, it's pretty much an automatic ban forever
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
And I think it is important to note here that this is
something that we (including I assume Flashfire) do not think PT would ever do. Not his style at all.
ok
well you could always lie about who you are. how do you enforce your “automatic ban forever”
IP addresses are just one way
And let’s think about it for a minute. At least in Paul’s case, everyone would know it’s Paul. If it was someone else with a less obvious personality or posting style, it might be a different story.
People may alter something about themselves to try getting around a ban and not be obvious about it, but eventually clues slip in.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
so what about (i may be missing one or two) oaktoon --> madmongoose --> windyfelix?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Did he actually get banned
or did he just come back whenever he decide the A’s weren’t going to suck with a new name?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
My thoughts
I have no idea which, in any, response to even reply to, as this thread has become monstrous.
Maybe I’m sympathetic to his situation, being a lawyer myself and him apparently in training to become one — but more than that, I believe it’s because I can very much understand his attempts (this time in particular) at critical thinking.
At it’s core, Paul was stating that “Cop” does not automatically equal “Hero,” nor does the fact that one dies in the line of duty necessarily make one a hero. As mentioned (way) above, many people do agree with that. But it’s certainly not a popular statement. That said, it’s possibly a discussion worth having; though perhaps not on AN.
Sometimes, you have to say unpopular things to attempt to drive a conversation. I was the sole conservative-leaning student in a legal aid clinic during school. My professors absolutely encouraged me to say things that incensed half the class — sometimes even talking to them about it ahead of time. But you know what? The other students, myself, and the class in general were (in my opinion) all improved by having the sorts of discussions that sometimes upset people and forced them out of their comfort zones.
You may say, “But that’s a classroom or debate setting, not a board about baseball.” I would agree, though would also note the entire thread was technically not about baseball. Paul probably should have withheld his comment, as it probably wasn’t the appropriate time to be debating the use of the word “hero.” But I defend his right to do so.
Like myself, Paul likes to argue. And he’s very good at it. Sometimes it makes people mad or uncomfortable, but without question, AN is better because of it.
I disagree
Though it might well be worth having a conversation about, it definitely had no place in a community-based emotionally-driven thread meant for respect and mourning. A lot of people (myself included) were in the acute stages of shock and sadness over a tragedy that just occured. Sensitivity had to be shown, and when further provoked and alerted to the amount of people who were really saddened, angered, and hurt by his chosen time to “provoke conversation” he didn’t apologize or STFU.
I don’t think he should be banned, but its absurd to hide behind “truth-seeking”, “conversation-generating”, or “right to express opinions” in this case. The timing of his comments made them very hurtful to a large number of people.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I will have to disagree with you
The following comment from the OP was commentary:
“All too often we hear about the heroes in the military, but these guys are indeed heroes as well.”
Does hiding personal commentary in a post about something else entirely excuse the poster from having his/her opinion questioned?
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well put
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions
These guys referred to the four downed officers.
He never claimed the people in the military were heroes, he simply pointed out a lot of people assume the people in the military to be heroic. He was just pointing out that police officers who give their lives while protecting citizens are also heroic.
You can argue that they aren’t, but this community has sort of decided that they are, and this community doesn’t welcome that debate in the immediate hours following a brutal tragedy because it just serves to be inflammatory.
Bottom line: It’s not inflammatory to express that fallen officers are heroes in the aftermath of their death. It is inflammatory to question their heroism. The moderators job is to protect the civility and quality of experience of the board— It is not their job to protect free speech.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
"this community has sort of decided that they are"
one of the roots of the problem.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
says who?
I don’t find it offensive. I find it necessary to question things as PT did. Am I not apart of the community.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
It's just the way it is.
It’s sort of like when your dad says “Because I said so.”
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I hope you realize that making that argument is shorthand for "no logical reason"
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
There is a logical reason that has been explained and exhausted a million times already.
Just like there is always a logical reason that dad says so. The point is, you aren’t entitled to a logical explanation or reason simply because you don’t see it or understand it. The overwhelming majority of people on AN have seen it. The moderators have seen it. If you still don’t see it, its because the “community said so” at this point.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Wow, just, wow!
You can argue that they aren’t, but this community has sort of decided that they are, and this community doesn’t welcome that debate in the immediate hours following a brutal tragedy because it just serves to be inflammatory.
This majority rules attitude is disgusting! If the majority said it was OK to enslave X group of people, you’d be OK with that. This is precisely my problem with the operation of the “Community Guidelines”/Strikes/Ban system. It is based only on the popularity of a view point, and not on a reasoned analysis of a point of view.
I’m sorry but that’s just stupid.
by oaktownmario on Mar 25, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
This majority rules attitude is disgusting! If the majority said it was OK to
enslave X group of people, you’d be OK with that. This is precisely my problem with the operation of the "Community Guidelines"/Strikes/Ban system. It is based only on the popularity of a view point, and not on a reasoned analysis of a point of view.
I’m sorry but that’s just stupid.
Another blind attack on democracy/majority rules. Your reasoning is a logical fallacy that assumes that just because one example of majority rules/democracy is bad that it must be bad in all instances. This is a private forum where membership is required that has community guidelines in place. If you don’t like the rules, go somewhere else.
And most of the reasoned analysis agreed with Paul on fact, but found his TIMING specifically inflammatory, and those in charge of making the decision decided that it was the last straw of inflammatory mistimed comments.
I’m not a big fan of the ban because I feel like I can take care of myself while arguing/bickering etc., but it’s just funny that there are always the people who scream “The system is fascist!” or “Tyranny of the majority!” when it’s not a government we are talking about.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
When did I ever reference government?
My whole problem was with the system as applied to PT in this case. Based on the specific facts of his case, “majority rules” has managed to get someone banned (granted I don’t know what the other 2 strikes are about). Why? Because (a) people disagree with PT’s statement that cops aren’t necessarily heroes OR (b) think that his statements were ill timed. There is no “logical fallacy” there and I am making no assumptions, but just pointing out that the system is flawed b/c it permits a majority view point to dictate what is “acceptable” discussion on this blog. My argument is that as a “cyberbar,” if you will, if someone brings up a non-baseball topic, then they should be ready to accept different points of view without seeking to have someone banned b/c it’s offensive to their viewpoint. I’m not talking First Amendment here; I’m talking simply accepting someone else’s point of view even if it’s not your own. Look, I’ve disagreed with PT on lots of issues and sometimes he does come off as a dick, but still I wouldn’t seek to ban him just b/c his viewpoint is different.
And the whole “go somewhere else argument” is just tired and not worthy of response.
by oaktownmario on Mar 25, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions
"go somewhere else" argument
Isn’t an argument so much as it’s pointing out how you aren’t being abused by majority rules. You aren’t being enslaved, you have the freedom “to go somewhere else”. It wasn’t meant as a snide “If you don’t like it, get out!”, it was meant to refute your ludicrous comparison to slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I wasn't comparing anything to slavery
I was pointing out the fallacy of a majority rules system in general and specifically as it related to PT. Obviously I have the freedom to go somewhere else, but that argument is as dumb as “Love it or Leave It” and is basically the logical conclusion to saying “I don’t like your argument, but have no intelligent response to it, so leave.” I would think the goal of AN is to embrace different points of view and to be as all inclusive as possible. But if that isn’t the case, then fine. However, I doubt you are the one deciding what AN should be and that should for everyone, no?
by oaktownmario on Mar 25, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I have a major problem with this part:
“Bottom line: It’s not inflammatory to express that fallen officers are heroes in the aftermath of their death. It is inflammatory to question their heroism.”
Seriously? I have no problem with people considering these men heroes for what happened; however, it annoys me to be told that for me to think anything else is “inflammatory”.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously? I have no problem with people considering these men heroes for what happened; however, it annoys me to be told that for me to think anything else is "inflammatory".
That’s why this argument is ridiculous. Not a single person said it was inflammatory to think anything else. Almost everybody thought it was inflammatory to express it at that time. Do you see the difference?
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Would you have found it inflammatory to express it in an unrelated post?
That was the post where it was on point.
I certainly wouldn’t (and didn’t) express it there, but you really shouldn’t be shocked that someone did.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Yes I would have.
Just like if we had a thread talking about the signing of Michel Inoa out of the Dominican Republic, it would be “on point” for me to choose that thread to argue that we shouldn’t sign Dominican players, because Dominican players are lazy, dark-skinned, and don’t play hard. That is an inflammatory opinion that would be on point.
( Of course I don’t feel that way about Dominican players :-) )
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
And that would violate the "don't be racist" rule
There isn’t a “respect all police officers at all time” rule.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That's not really a good comparison
I’d say it’s more like if we were talking about Ynoa, and you made a point that Dominican players have a less-than-stellar track record in the major leagues. It’s relevant to the topic, but it’s not relevant to Ynoa specifically.
I was just about to type that PT’s comments didn’t inflame police officers; they merely state his opinion that police officers are not heroes simply because they happen to be police officers. That’s a completely different scenario. Nevermoor posted while I was typing this. :P
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Would you rather he create a separate FanPost entitled “I don’t think policemen are heroes!”?
And my personal argument is that I don’t know whether or not those SPECIFIC four men were heroes. You said “it is inflammatory to question their heroism”. THAT is what pissed me off. Unless we are forced to submit to GroupThink, I reserve the right to decide for myself whether or not certain people are “heroes”.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions
So the people who think a certain way get to express their opinions, and the people who disagree don’t? Righto, comrade.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm a huge commie
No, not always. Just when it’s going to be hugely inflammatory and inappropriate.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I'm not even arguing that it would be construed as "appropriate"
My point is that it really isn’t fair to give the guy a strike for a post that, even though it may have been ill-timed, was perfectly within the bounds of the discussion.
Personally, I didn’t take the news as badly as some others on this board because I don’t live in Oakland (I live in Sacramento). I don’t know if PT does or not, but if he doesn’t, perhaps that could have something to do with the reason he was in a different mindset at the time? All I’m saying is that I think many hit the “Flag” button with pure emotion rather than reason and rationability, and this fact was largely ignored when the decision to uphold PT’s ban was made.
My apologies for the comrade comment; I’m falling into exactly what this argument is about. No need for me to be “inflammatory”. LOL
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
You don't need to apologize to me.
I don’t get worked up over sarcasm, commie accusations, or anything really like that. They aren’t emotional hotbuttons for me, and they also don’t generally get flagged/striked because though possibly inflammatory, they are just sort of par for the course in the realm of arguing on the Internet.
I can even handle lack of appreciation for the police, blatant criticism of the police, all that without getting too worked up. I’ve even criticized the police on many occasions myself. But to invoke those arguments in a time of mourning just really set me off, as they apparently set off a lot of people in the community. It is specifically the fact that it set so many people off that moved it more from the realm of simple inflammatory commentary to “Should this be a strike?” material.
I basically agree with you, the strike is somewhat silly, and he shouldn’t be banned. But at the end of the day, all he had to do was say he was sorry and it would have all gone away. A simple apology “You guys are right; That comment should have been reserved for a better time and place and I’m sorry for upsetting you guys” and no one would have even remembered his original comment.
It was the defense of his comment that earned him the strike.
Some perspective on the issue on how it’s different than a lot of similar things (and you might disagree, or make a number of arguments as to why it SHOULDN’T be like the article says, but the bottom line is it just sorta is.)
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Mar 25, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great comment
"I basically agree with you, the strike is somewhat silly, and he shouldn’t be banned. But at the end of the day, all he had to do was say he was sorry and it would have all gone away. A simple apology "You guys are right; That comment should have been reserved for a better time and place and I’m sorry for upsetting you guys" and no one would have even remembered his original comment.
It was the defense of his comment that earned him the strike."
I completely agree with everything you just wrote there.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe if everyone didn't attack him and insult him
you would have gotten a response that was like what you wrote. However people backed him into a corner and he defended himself.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions
If you're suggesting Paul was an innocent victim...
…he was anything but that.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I think the suggestion is more
that there were no victims if those that felt insecure enough to let a single comment go decided to go on the offensive.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
I think it's also worth pointing out
That I don’t think people should be banned for being inflammatory, unless it is specific immature dribble meant as an obvious troll attempt. The people in charge chose a different route.
I think there is plenty of room for fertile debate as to whether he deserves to be banned, and I’m strongly in the camp that would argue that it’s not worth banning someone for being inflammatory sometimes (or even quite often), especially when the overall quality of contributions are at the level of Paul’s. I think everybody, for the most part, is grown up or mature enough to deal with it.
But to argue that his comments were not inflammatory because they were simply his opinion or the floor had been opened to debate is not something I think carries any merit.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
brief notes that no one will read
because this is the 678th post and people have said almost everything that needs saying.
- I have no opinion about PT because I haven’t been around and I’ve only seen his posts about baseball. Whether or not he got the equivalent of getting Capone on taxes, I don’t know.
- This is a lot of drama over something small. If someone is banned from AN, they aren’t sent to a gulag or snuffed from the Internet. They could start their own blog or post at another site and people can follow them there. If they want access to the AN community, then they need to play ball with Blez and his delegates’ preferences.
- In my younger work life, I tried very hard to get along/accommodate difficult people. I now have the opinion this is a waste of time. There is no one who is so insightful and brilliant that is worth all the personal stress to keep them around. I’ve been lucky enough to be around many world-class brilliant people that are not bastards, so I firmly believe you don’t need to coddle people to keep their brilliant insights around. Someday soon another PT will emerge who can respect people. (So it was written in the Book of Apricot.)
- In short, dissenting is not the same as being a bastard. Period.
- Now for my own taste. Every other sports site has hopped up boys yelling and strutting and “dissenting” i.e. ripping each other to prove their status and boost their egos. There are plenty of net places for stats writing, sports opining, etc. AN is unusual for its mix of respectful opinions, veteran, expert and enthusiastic novice, boy and girl. For my taste, if PT’s “brilliance” drives away 10 fun sweet posters, then that’s a bad deal.
- what the hell happened to monkeyball? Man, I’m out of the loop, I didn’t even hear about that. Now I have to search the archives…
by Apricot on Mar 25, 2009 7:13 AM PDT reply actions 12 recs
They stopped giving away free kraut.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions
ah well
I found the story in the archives… and salb is barely posting (I guess he’s buried under baby poo)… Sharon has been missing for years and Jennifer. Now with xbox commiting virtual suicide in this thread, a lot of old-timers are dropping off the active roster.
It’s easy for old-timers to be nostalgic, but you know, 99% of the AN readers do not give a crap about that old community we had, nor should they, because they’re making their own community right now. It will take time perhaps to evolve posters who will post song parodies or primitive cartoons about A’s kids, but maybe something as eccentric will emerge.
by Apricot on Mar 25, 2009 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
BFF, please don't go :(
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Dude.
Could you please email me? My email address is complaintsaboutjennifer@yahoo.com.
"Smells like summer camp!"
Email sent.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Jennifer, I'm with mikev
Do. Not. Go.
Please.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Not to my knowledge
But given recent developments, I’d rather tell people while they’re here, “You make AN better, and I want you to stick around,” rather than waiting for them to leave and say in some diary fanpost, “Wow, she really made AN better, I wish she’d stuck around.”
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I miss the adventures of Diego Chavez
I like important stuff just as much as the next guy, but please, for a little while, deliver us from meaning, baseball. That's your greatest glory, and we thank you for it very, very much. -- Craig Calcaterra
That would be OK
if they started giving away free beer.
For any german speakers out there, remember this one? “Stell dir mal vor, es gibt Freibier, und keiner weiss wo”
Do you know the way to San Jose?
by eastcoasta'sfan on Mar 25, 2009 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Seconded
And if there is any banning going on, I think doing it quietly is usually a better approach (based on my experience moderating another large froum). These things usually often turn into public hand-wringings/drama-fests.
With that said, I sure learned a lot from Paul and hope he comes back.
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Mar 25, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I agree completely, and from the same experience.
Threads like this quickly become train wrecks. Site moderation will forever be unpopular, no system that supports it is perfect and it is best done in the background.
Like others, I had early run-ins with Paul, and believe I learnt that a good approach is to only engage him when it’s really important and then only on really specific matters. And I found his relentlessly rationalist perspective interesting and often informative. Hope he returns soon.
I also agree with apricot’s big-picture view of site dynamics, about which I’m more hopeful than 74m. My two cents.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Mar 25, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
A few things:
1. PT isn’t a “bastard”. Not even close. I’m not sure why so many people fail to place his bouts with assholishness in the context of his (voluminous) positive contributions. He’s a good guy who is a jerk sometimes. This seems really, really obvious. And in any event, if you haven’t been paying attention to the site, this isn’t a judgment you’re particularly qualified to make.
2. “For my taste, if PT’s "brilliance" drives away 10 fun sweet posters, then that’s a bad deal.”
This is really the core of the meta-argument we’re having. I want both, but I’ll take the big brain every time, because frankly those are a lot harder to come by. And if the delicate psyches of “fun sweet posters” crowd out pointed debate, then that’s a bad deal, too.
3. “This is a lot of drama over something small.”
Yeah, I guess. But you can’t talk on and on about community, community, community, then expect everyone to adopt big picture indifference when prominent members of said community leave or are banned. And despite your “ah, such trifles” wave of the hand here, I don’t think it’s even an arguable point that stripping away dozens to hundreds of smart comments per day from the comment threads does, in fact, have an adverse impact on the discourse.
by 74mk on Mar 25, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
Stop being so much more eloquent than me dammit
I think you’re absolutely right that it all comes down to #2. And, as you might expect, I’m with you every step of the way. I’d much rather put my fan-hood in context of facts than have a fun sweet back and forth where we convince ourselves the A’s are the best team in the history of the sport because they just have such GREAT asses.
I do value AN’s community guidelines, and wouldn’t come here if it were a larger-scale version of the ESPN forums. I do not believe that valuable members should be above those guidelines. I do not, however, believe the guidelines were violated in this instance, and I think the reason for the third strike was that the moderators who approved it are on the other side of this “meta-debate.” That makes me sad.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I really don't think that last sentence is true but seriously, you are fully entitled to your opinion
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
that doesn't make him sad? well, you're the boss around here. nevermoor: not sad.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Still feeling it, huh...
You know what is coming, right?
"No offense, Nico, but starcitygames.com used to be the AN of Magic sites "
Honestly
I fall into the same logical reasoning. But that just goes back to the transparency and lack thereof. The very fact that we’re not really hearing any dissent from the ranks of the group at the very least leaves the suggestion that it was an unanimous decision. Now, this may very well not be true, but not seeing and not knowing is going to leave people to wonder without any reliable source to contradict.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
To create a binary between
smart and sweet/camp in this instance is not accurate. People on this site do not always/all fall into one camp or the other. At AN, there’s room for camp and intellectual pursuits and intellectual camp (thank effing god!).
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh I very much agree that there is room for both
But I can’t think of many posters (if any) that do both.
It’s hard to argue a position in a way that won’t anger people on the other side of that position. It’s exponentially harder when you actually demonstrate that they were wrong (as PT often did).
I find it sadly ironic that the comment that did him in was one that even his detractors admit was true (just, admittedly, not necessary).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Monkeyball was fluid between the two.
I could be if I wasn’t so freaked out about disagreements. Nico was before he became blogfather. Devo can, grover does. MikeV does. Marquez67 doesn’t argue, but he’s the Proust of A’s memories, which serves as entirely different branch. There’s a lot in “both camps,” which makes the theory of a binary kind of moot.
I have several opinions of PT’s comments and of his banning. FWIW, my opinion in the grand scheme of things means little. Still, I’m disappointed in myself for not taking up his defense in the “third strike” post.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you're right and wrong
How’s that for a waffle?
You’re correct to note that several ANers are fluid between the two (to steal your elegant descriptor). I wouldn’t say “a lot”, though. I agree lots of people make jokes on the one hand and argue about trades and such on the other. But I guess I’d say quite a small percentage of that group manages to be funny/interesting in both/either realm(s). Further, I’d say that small percentage has dwindled precipitously in recent weeks.
Anyway, that particular judgment is mostly a matter of personal idiosyncracy, so I’m not really disagreeing. Where I do think you’re wrong is in implying that just because “crossovers” exist, there is no tension between the poles we’re describing. By and large, the “fun sweet” group tends to be intolerant of the “pointed debate” group, and vice versa. It’s just that the fun sweeters rarely vocalize their displeasure publicly (they just dole out CGV flags, as it turns out), so it’s easier for them to abandon self-awareness in order to affect a posture of victimhood.
Maybe I’m alone in this experience, but endless chit-chat threads feel every bit as alienating to me as I imagine wonky debates about positional value or whatever might feel to many of the chit-chatters. The “rules of engagement” in those threads are every bit as stringent and insular as they are in an argument between, say, PT and rfloh (who by the way never posts anymore either).
Anyway, all that is just a long-winded way of pointing out that the crowding-out effect is real, and that it cuts both ways. There’s space for both, but we shouldn’t pretend that one doesn’t impact the other.
by 74mk on Mar 25, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with that,
and I also think the ones that we’re marginalizing/have marginalized are the ones who are/were capable of floating between the groups.
From a personal standpoint, I enjoy serious debate about baseball and even try to understand/comprehend the statistical analysis. I try to come up with ways to contribute to the more intellectually-pursuant conversations, but my two main inlets have both dried up, for various. most likely connected, reasons.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions
"wouldn’t come here if it were a larger-scale version of the ESPN forums."
but… isn’t that exactly what it’s becoming?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Couldn't agree less with #1
He’s a smart, well-informed, and eloquent guy who is constantly dickish to the user community. The former is no part of, nor an excuse for, the latter. “Positive contributions” don’t excuse poor conduct, period. There are plenty of other big brains on this site—in fact, ALL of them—who don’t behave that way. Some of them are gone now because of the way things are going here lately.
Also, Apricot absolutely hit this on the head—I’ve had the same experiences:
In my younger work life, I tried very hard to get along/accommodate difficult people. I now have the opinion this is a waste of time. There is no one who is so insightful and brilliant that is worth all the personal stress to keep them around. I’ve been lucky enough to be around many world-class brilliant people that are not bastards, so I firmly believe you don’t need to coddle people to keep their brilliant insights around. Someday soon another PT will emerge who can respect people. (So it was written in the Book of Apricot.)
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Mar 25, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
by the way
perhaps what I wrote was a bit too mathematical in style… I really did not mean that I assert that PT was definitely a bastard, I was just arguing the general point that people who are crappy to others are simply not as indispensible as everyone thinks. We as a society do not have to choose between accommodating jerks and having interesting conversations.
In fact, the few PT comments I’ve read have always seemed reasonable and on point either to baseball or to whatever horsing around was happening. But I have noticed that people were quick on the trigger to escalate what appeared to be trace amounts of sarcasm or sniping on his part. I just assumed that there was a long tender history I wasn’t privy to.
That's all accurate.
I think it was very clear you weren’t calling Paul a “bastard” (neither was I, for that matter, although I am clearly not fond of the way he behaves). Your general point is spot on, and extremely apropros. Brilliance is not a good reason to suffer insufferable behavior.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
We as a society do not have to choose between accommodating jerks and having interesting conversations.
Well, sure. I guess that works as a grand pronouncement you might find on a corporate motivational poster or something, but it also drains the debate of every last bit of nuance, and is basically a ridiculous either/or framing that is not operative in real life.
If what you’re really trying to say is that you don’t think it’s necessary to tolerate people who are sometimes jerks and sometimes interesting, then that’s completely different (and myopic, and naive, and self-satisfied).
by 74mk on Mar 25, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
74 is
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
you really are something else
In this short time I have known you you have declared my opinion corporate, grand, myopic, naive, self-satisfied, bromidish, self-conscious, immature, silly.
Amazing! Truly your replies to me have an astonishingly high ratio of eloquence/vocabulary to content.
Your opinion, stripped of all the personal insults, boils down to “I like PT and think he’s worth keeping,” which many others have said and “Difficult people are sometimes interesting and nice people often boring.” which is obvious. For all the pomp, you really haven’t added much to the conversation.
Any more personal attacks, or do you have something interesting to respectfully discuss?
Truly your replies to me have an astonishingly high ratio of eloquence/vocabulary to content.
Can’t argue with that.
Your opinion, stripped of all the personal insults, boils down to "I like PT and think he’s worth keeping," which many others have said and "Difficult people are sometimes interesting and nice people often boring." which is obvious.
That is certainly part of what I’ve said. As to whether it describes the entirety of my contributions to this thread, well, I don’t think so, but then I’m not really an unbiased observer. On the other hand, you don’t seem to be a particularly careful reader, so I guess everyone will just have to decide for themselves.
For all the pomp, you really haven’t added much to the conversation.
Maybe so.
Any more personal attacks, or do you have something interesting to respectfully discuss?
Well, not to go all PT on you, but I wasn’t attacking you personally, I was attacking your opinions, which I believe fully deserve all the adjectives you cited in your first sentence.
+1
I really believe
Well, not to go all PT on you, but I wasn’t attacking you personally, I was attacking your opinions, which I believe fully deserve all the adjectives you cited in your first sentence.
gets to the heart of the matter.
People here often believe that ridiculing ideas is the same as ridiculing people. All of the people here who wanted PT to be banned and are calling him an ass, being paternalistic, and saying he lacks social skills are the ones that are actually being far more dickish than PT who would say that your idea was dumb as fuck but I don’t seem to remember insulting people personally without provocation. To me this is at the heart of his banning. People that support it are saying that Paul was a dick… perhaps… but I think their doing a poor job of showing why his ideas or his post in question lack merit.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ridiculing ideas IS ridiculing people.
They are not separable, and neither is necessary to debate.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
This is wrong
Smart people have stupid ideas (I, for example, have stupid ideas all the time). What’s more, it would be impossible to have a substantive debate if you weren’t allowed to criticize the other person’s ideas.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
You can criticize an idea without ridiculing it ...
For example:
“That’s a stupid response, criticizing something isn’t the same as ridiculing it”
contrast with:
“I see what you’re saying, but we can discuss ideas respectfully, even while disagreeing.”
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Mar 25, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly.
The latter approach represents that there’s something about the opinion and the person that cannot be separated; the former doesn’t. Ridicule is something you’re supposed to get over in grade school.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Yeah, this is kinda "active listening 101"
I even think there’s a difference between, “That’s a really dumb argument,” and, “Only a really dumb person would make that argument.”
I try not to get too upset about people saying an argument of mine is dumb. It pisses me off when they do it, but I don’t think it ruins the possibility of conversation. Calling me names, however does.
One of the reasons is that if you call my idea dumb, I’ll be encouraged to try to defend it — which means, more often than not on AN, we’ll be debating baseball. If you call me dumb, I’m tempted to talk about myself (and, probably, in a retaliatory way, you), which really isn’t the point of AN.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I agree with this
The problem is when person A says “that’s a dumb argument” and person B replies with “you stat-geek pretentious dick”
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Good points, all
And I’d do well to heed your advice.
I’ll add the following observation, though (in addition to the dynamic nevermoor describes, which happens a lot):
If you have a real argument to make, you will usually just make that argument, and not worry so much about being offended. If you don’t, and you’re just interested in making claims and/or posturing, you’re much more likely to discover how outraged you are by your opponent’s criticisms.
Hell, I'd do well to heed my own advice!
Deep down, I really hate being wrong and hate losing arguments. And I love being right. I debated for 4 years in high school, and 4 years in college, but eventually I realized that I didn’t like being a person who set out to be right all the time. So I’ve actually deliberately tried to avoid situations in which that deep-seeded tendency would be encouraged. It’s one of the reasons I’ve never considered law school — I think lawyering and my personality would be a bad combination. I could be very, very good at it, but I think I’d become an insufferable asshole (note: I am NOT saying that all lawyers are insufferable assholes. I’m saying that Nick, Esq. would be one — although people who know me IRL might well think that the horse left the barn on that one a long time ago…).
Sometimes the fact of taking a position and arguing for it, especially in the heat of a game thread (or the thread yesterday) can lead to an overemotional involvement in the debate.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
There are few of us ...
who couldn’t stand to follow that advice a bit better …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
this has drifted into an interesting area
too bad it’s about ten posts deep in a 1000 post fanpost.
I think that it is of course very desirable to address an argument and not the person holding it. The problem is that one can do that superficially while still insulting the holder of opinions.
For instance, you might helpfully say
“Apricot, I strongly disagree with the rule of thumb you give. I think it drains the discussion of all nuance and sets up a false and/or dichotomy.”
and then I say, “hmm, you’re right, I said it too strongly”, and we’re off to an interesting discussion.
But if you say my opinion/idea is
myopic
naive
self-satisfied
self-conscious
immature
then you ARE attacking the person. Those adjectives cannot logically be applied to arguments, they can only be traits of the arguer. So it only has the formal appearance of “attacking the idea” when it is really “attacking the person”.
Worst of all, it’s just not germane. Those kinds of attacks don’t address the heart of the issue and they are just irritating distractions to wade through, and may torpedo an interesting discussion. A lot of us don’t have a lot of time to post/read and would rather not spend it trying to convince a random stranger on the internet to not insult them.
That's a good distinction
This stuff takes a fair amount of care and thoughtfulness in real life. On the internet, without any type of communication except typed words, a few pix or animations, an emoticon, or a [snark] tag, it’s much, much easier to mislead people about your intentions, or to infer something that wasn’t implied.
One advantage online, though, is that you can complete a thought in writing and then erase it. I do a fair amount of canceling comments on blogs where I post comments. I get it out of my system, look at it in preview, and think, “Nahh, I don’t think I should post that…”
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I need to do more previewing
Even if it’s just to do the proofreading that was unnecessary when I was younger…
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
good point
I read that Gmail was going to add a 5-minute grace period before sending e-mails so you could take back unwise letters. All e-mail should add such an Undo Send feature.
I’ve written many rants that were saved by the “send it in the morning” plan or “run this by the wife” plan.
I would support an AN 4.0 feature that removed the post button except on the preview screen
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That's how it used to work.
People used to complain about having to click twice. Grass is always greener, I guess.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I'm not saying you're wrong, because you are more or less correct
But I’d interject that in the heat of any argument, it’s entirely human to fail to heed your argument style. Now, if that’s all you’re doing and not putting forth anything relevant in argument to the conversation ever, then that’s a huge problem. IF you’re willing to back it up and continue on, no apologies should be necessary, nor should offensive be taken over what amounts to an emotional outburst in the excitement of a really good argument. I’d say most people in the course of a sports argument with a friend will respond in what you’re considering an “inappropriate manner” at some time or another. And yet it doesn’t generally result in a friendship being over nor does it break the chain of discussion. If this is really the internet sports bar, these things are going to happen and it’s best to turn the other cheek and let it go. If it’s persistent, give the guy a whack upside the head and move on.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
you are right
I think the rules are very different once you get to know someone. xBox is abrasive, but I give him some slack since I’ve known him for a while.
But if it’s the first time you engage with someone, you may want to cool your jets a little until they trust you aren’t some random insensitive clod.
And hey, no one is perfect. But it’s good to have an ideal of respectful conversation to strive for and to understand why you might be pissing off the average listener.
I think you have a point, Apricot, and upon reflection I agree those adjectives describe the arguer, not the argument.
I also, however, think they are apt, and germane. My argument against that either/or construction is precisely that it is myopic and naive. You are reducing the issues (and personalities) in question to meaningless generalities, then making judgments (about real people) based on those (irrelevant) generalities. That offends me. I think it is self-satisfied claptrap, and I think it’s okay to call it that.
You think we should be careful about how we talk, and that name-calling gets in the way of thoughtful debate. I agree. But I also think sanctimony is too often used to preserve the status of platitudes as considered opinion (or even wisdom), and I hate that. It drives me around the bend.
But you know, the fact that it aggravates me so much (and so often, anymore) probably means that what I want from AN is at odds with what AN has to offer. So, best to move on rather than continue to grind this axe.
okay
Let’s see if we can turn this into a civil conversation then.
- I don’t have an axe to grind about PT. I really have no opinion about him.
- I am sure I oversimplified my feelings about the situation, perhaps to meaninglessness for you. That’s what I get when I fire off some quick notes which, quite frankly, I was surprised that anyone read carefully, and which were meant to briefly complement 600 mostly thoughtful posts.
- Without knowing the details of PT, I don’t have an opinion about whether he should be ejected. And the fact remains that PT could start a blog tomorrow and everyone could follow him there, or follow him to the other sports sites with less restrictive guidelines, so I just can’t get that exercised about his banning for a month.
- But the guideline I put forward has served me well in cases I do know about, so it’s hardly a meaningless generality to me, and your calling it such is an indictment of the incompleteness of our discussion and your overeagerness to jump to conclusions about my opinion.
- Funny, I don’t feel “self-satisfied”. I do not easily say that we need to give up on people. If you had any idea of my past at AN, you would find a great deal of trying to engage with prickly personalities. I spend my life doing that. I am usually the one sent in to deal with the difficult person or situation.
You seem to think that I walk around like some corporate Mary Poppins chirping “Get along or get out!” To the contrary, I say without any pleasure that most of the time it is not worth the trouble for everyone to keep a difficult person in a team/group/web site. I was usually the one who went the extra miles to try to make things work and in retrospect, these kinds of mismatched situations tend to make everyone unhappy.
The real corporate culture is much closer to what you advocate here. And in my experience, the vast majority of work relations (and probably play relations) involve people trying to cope with each other, getting along. It is not by any means the assumption that difficult people should be ejected. It is very hard to be the person ejecting the difficult person. I would say to the contrary, that what usually happens is people wring their hands and try to cope and stress out and do anything to avoid the conclusion that someone has to do the dirty work and kick out the difficult person.
I will gladly hear out reasonable disagreement with me, but spare me the “oh you’re the meaningless platitude man” crap.
I am irritated by your blithe dismissal of my opinion, carefully built from experience, as trite based on… your opinion that it’s trite.. based on… your vast experience I guess. If you’re going to condescend like that, you’d better be ready to back it up with relevant superiority, and in this case that means either experience working well with teams with difficult people or outstanding people skills. So far I see no evidence of either.
Here, let me simplify this:
Memo to 74mk: Apricot is cool. If you thought otherwise, you just got off on the wrong foot.
You trust me, 74mk, and you know I wouldn’t say it if it weren’t so.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
I like both Apricot and 74mk...
well, their posts, at least. I know neither of ‘em in real life. But, the true tragedy of this thread is turning cool A’s fan against cool A’s fan. Is that too fun and sweet a sentiment? Perhaps.
Notice I didn’t chime in on the cop thread. Nor, did I show my true feelings about this “PT issue.” I don’t want a third strike, after all.
Is that a chill, I feel?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 25, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions
this thread
perhaps has brought out the best and worst in people all at once. I will take your endorsements to heart, post no more on this subthread — letting him have any final word he wants, and start anew with him another day.
The irony here is
PT has always said that he accepts no difference between attacking the idea vs attacking the person, to him its all one and the same. He understands the rule that says going after the idea is acceptable but he doesn’t think its a viable act.
I disagree, btw. I think you can shred an idea without causing bodily harm.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I guess you remember it too
see my post below
by Cutthemullet on Mar 26, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions
actually
You’re not going all PT on him, because I remember that PT held that those two things (personal attacks and attacks on a person’s ideas) were one in the same. I remember him saying that during the a particularly long exchange with grover. Funny that PT wouldn’t agree with an idea central to the argument in his defense, heh. That he did in fact have that philosophy is precisely why I have some real problems with the guy. Because if he equated the two, then given his love to tear apart arguments, he clearly had no problem berating people on a personal level. That’s a funny way of showing his “deep respect for this group of people.” What is being lost in all the PT glorification occurring in this thread is that his arguments actually were often quite flawed. All that being said, I eventually came to think that the merit of his contributions outweighed my personal dislike for him.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 26, 2009 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions
*one and the same
JediLeroy needs analogy lessons, I need idiom-recall lessons.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 26, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions
or maybe just lessons in how to use the preview function
by Cutthemullet on Mar 26, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Preview buttons are like a bucket of poop.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
No,
really, analogy school. I understand funding is available if you can’t afford it.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 26, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions
There are two ways to achieve an
“astonishingly high ratio of eloquence/vocabulary to content”. One way is to be utterly devoid of content. The other way is what 74mk does.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
(but I was disappointed by his use of "misconstrual"
when he could have said “misconstruction”.)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
now looking past the dickish exterior to the content
I assert that to have interesting conversations about baseball, you do not need assholes. There are lots of smart people who aren’t jerks.
It is a different issue about how to cultivate a community. My history is to err on the side of accommodating difficult people in hopes that they will eventually not be so tiring to deal with.
But I’ve come to believe this is more wrong than right. In live situations, you can’t necessarily easily “cast out” people, nor would you necessarily want to. But fer god’s sake, this is a baseball web site, not society at large. And practically EVERY OTHER baseball web site encourages this dickish bantering. So in this case, I welcome erring on the side of casting out incorrigible jerks.
And unlike you, I will not call you a corporate naive self-satisfied dingbat for disagreeing with me on what is clearly an issue of personal taste, as I asserted way at the top.
I assert that to have interesting conversations about baseball, you do not need assholes. There are lots of smart people who aren’t jerks.
If I pointed out (again) that this is exactly the same straw man formulation you just used, would you again complain that I’m personally attacking you?
So in this case, I welcome erring on the side of casting out incorrigible jerks.
Which incorrigible jerks are you talking about? PaulThomas? I thought you said you didn’t really know much about him? And if you’re not talking about him, why is this a relevant example? Why why why why WHY do you keep bringing up this mythical incorrigible jerk/bastard/asshole who doesn’t exist and isn’t PaulThomas and doesn’t at all relate to my point? Very confusing.
Sorry. I guess that was another attack. You should probably flag this comment.
And unlike you, I will not call you a corporate naive self-satisfied dingbat for disagreeing with me on what is clearly an issue of personal taste, as I asserted way at the top.
You’re right. You really are above all this pettiness. Look, you did your best, and at this point I think (per your stated modus operandi) you should just heave a resigned sigh and move on, leaving me to stew in my own mean-spirited difficultness.
1. “Put in context” (what I said) is not the same as “excuse” (what you said I said).
2. I do not agree that PT is “constantly dickish”.
3. As to the waste of time accommodating difficult people part: A bromide is a bromide is a bromide, no matter how self-consciously you couch it in terms of wisdom and experience. Difficult people are often also interesting and caring and fun and lots of other things, at least as often as agreeable people are dull and callous and vapid. Which is to say: I think that is a silly, immature, needlessly strident position to take, and furthermore has precious little relevance to PT, who is really not nearly as “difficult” as his detractors make him out to be.
4. I guess it boils down to this: If you believe PT has been a net negative for AN, we have a fundamental, unresolvable disagreement about what constitutes content value. This is too bad (for me), because I’m fairly sure Blez, Nico, and baseballgirl fall closer to your side of that dispute than mine.
by 74mk on Mar 25, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
on fire!
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Combination-reply-to--different-posts division.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
My head hurts.
and I think I just peed a little.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Mine does too
and i know you just peed a little.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
It isn't a net analysis question
What you bring to the table doesn’t matter if the manner in which you do so is intolerable. If you want to quibble about the use of an absolute, that’s fine. It’s just that, though—a quibble.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
It is not a quibble.
Say I make 100 comments, and 8 of them are dickish. Then you say “74mk is a dick all the time.” Is it quibbling to point out the exaggeration?
I’m not saying: PT acts like a jerk, but he’s really smart so I don’t care.
I am saying: PT acts like a jerk sometimes. Most times, he does not. Also, he is smart.
It is my opinion that people who think PT acts like a jerk all the time (or even most of the time) are either overreacting or not paying attention.
I disagree with your opinion.
He acts like a jerk whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Also, what you said is:
I’m not sure why so many people fail to place his bouts with assholishness in the context of his (voluminous) positive contributions.
That doesn’t resemble either of the things you just offered. It says that his bouts with assholishness should be qualified or mitigated in some way by his “positive contributions.” I am saying that being an asshole isn’t acceptable behavior, period.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
That's more strike worthy that the joke that banned PT
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I don't think it warrants one
I think it’s closer than PT’s.
And you’ll note from the response below that the comment was both intended and received constructively.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Really?
Are we going to some kind of scale that rates even non-strike worthy comments for their inherent nastiness? I hope not ‘cause I’d have to walk away from AN for good.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Shakes head.
points to jeepers’ comment.
lets it go.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Pick it back up
Who was it that said:
That’s more strike worthy that the joke that banned PT
I don’t think it warrants one
I think it’s closer than PT’s
Don’t blame jeepers for those comments. Do you want to be one of the people who reviews CGV complaints? Are you volunteering? Because if you aren’t offering to help and you don’t feel the comment was flag worthy then there is no reason for you to be weighing the merits of two non-offensive comments. Who the Hell would want to waste their time doing that? There have got to be less pointless and maybe even baseball related things we could talk about instead.
The monster at the end of this blog.
http://www.cikava.com/gallery/albums/Emoticons/missed_the_point.jpg
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I should have said "behaving like an asshole."
“Being an asshole” was a poor choice of words, and not what I intended.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
For my taste, if PT’s "brilliance" drives away 10 fun sweet posters, then that’s a bad deal.
okay, but what if HE’s not the one driving them away?
hypothetically speaking, what if it’s… say, NICO, who is driving them away?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
that's bad too
But in the end, someone has to have the keys to the asylum, and in this world it’s easy to set up a parallel asylum.
But in the end, someone has to have the keys to the asylum, and in this world it’s easy to set up a parallel asylum.
yes it is.
if i was blez i would be wondering “why did i hand over my keys to an insane person? and will he do one too many crazy things and drive the other inmates to another asylum?”
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
but his "asshole" posts
can just be ignored. I do it. I like reading the guy’s posts but sometimes they turn out juvenile so I just keep on reading, or read something else. I don’t get in a huff about it. Why would I? It seems completely ridiculous to have a blog comment ruin your day or a minute of your day. It’s just a blog. He says things to make people think, if you don’t agree then move on.
And just to point out, I completely agree with his flagged post.
I miss PT already
Sure, he’s flamed me a couple times, and I won’t invite him to my kids’ wedding. But I have never found anything he said to be really offensive while I HAVE found his baseball knowledge both interesting and entertaining.
I don’t object to him being banned; heck, if Nico wants to ban me despite my having no strikes at all, then IMO he should do so and I’ll be a big boy about it.
I just want PT back sooner rather than later.
Do you know the way to San Jose?
by eastcoasta'sfan on Mar 25, 2009 7:52 AM PDT reply actions
CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG
Bad spellers of the world untie.
by A'sfaninNC on Mar 25, 2009 8:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
No.
That’s boring. We’ve tried that. It sucks.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
I hate you. /slap
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
You uh... fight by slapping people?
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Mar 25, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I tried to use a metal gauntlet with grover but he nixed it.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
And I'm much more apt to play.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I point my nipples in your general direction.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
(....I tolled him wie already hade one...)
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
It's probably only 30 days.
And the season will begin soon. This drama is just a temporary spec among a ginger kid’s worth of freckles.
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Mar 25, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
My only comment on this thread
(Man, I can’t wait for the season to start, so we can get back to arguing about if Cust has too many STRICKOUTS.)
"Warm Springs Infernal" - FSU, 2/6/09 DLD
We are DEFINITELY ready for some baseball, Dr.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
2ed
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Mar 25, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
One of those trains kinda looks like a penis
I’m offended! [/sarcasm]
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
This thread has immortalized PT -
After reading this thread, I’m confiused as to whether he should be burned at the stake or be granted saint hood. If he does come back, all this thread does is encourage more narcissistic behaivior
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Mar 25, 2009 8:59 AM PDT reply actions
Why not both?
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd just like to take a moment to say I am frustrated by the fact that Nico never edited the title
And by the fact that it seems clear PT isn’t the only value AN is losing here.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Yeah, how are the people reading on Yahoo! going to know WTF this means???
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Zing!
We need to make the title more of a talking title, especially one that’s baseball oriented. I recommend, “PaulThomas called out on strikes, DFA’d for at least 30 days.”
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Mar 25, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Blez
What’s happening to AN after your departure… Lord of the Flies?
I’m running out of fingers to count the great AN posters from back in the day that are still around, but more importantly ‘active’.
The Stockton Ports pitching staff is better than the Orioles.
by gdub171 on Mar 25, 2009 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Just read most of the comments
I’ve rarely posted here, though I do read a lot of the content.
PT is likely the most interesting poster on AN.
While it is true that his statements can be imflammitory at times, I do think we need to look at this from his point of view, as well.
I’m probably twice PT’s age (I’m 52), but when I was younger I could easily see myself making a lot of the same remarks he does. I probably still think a lot like him, but am way past the point of trying to argue every point.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I would call PT a realist. I know that I am. Some people might even call me a freethinker, but realist is just more “realistic”.
Anyway, I have occasional problems with words like “restroom” instead of toilet or “sleeping together” instead of sex.
Why can’t we just call stuff what it is.
That’s what I think PT does. But because everyone is so conditioned to avoid reality when it doesn’t perfectly align with their own thinking, they become offended.
Isn’t that the kind of thinking we at AN fight every day when some mainstream baseball pundit rejects stats because they don’t fit his or her preconceived notions.
I’m not saying that PT is always right, but he does attempt to back his statements up with facts most of the time, and that’s a whole lot better than most.
by runnerJ on Mar 25, 2009 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Add another one to the "HE GONE!" list
I come to this site looking for original, though provoking content. Few here, if anyone, did that better than PT. With almost nothing coming from the salb/devo/nsj camp anymore, there’s honestly little reason for me to come to the site. Especially now with my gig with BtB and other work I barely have time for my own A’s blog anymore. So I’m going to consider this an adios to AN for now.
This is going to leave a huge gap in A’s statistical analysis. Not saying that plenty here aren’t capable, but when people like PT or I make a Fanpost, that shit takes time baby. I think there are definitely people here who could do an outstanding job if they want to (alea iacta est, 74mk off the top of my head just remembering comments I’ve read), but again there’s a lot of effort that goes into quality work and many don’t have the time/desire to do it.
I mean really, yes, PT probably should tone things down some. And it is possible, I’m probably a shining example. Hell, I used to get emails/strikes from the higher ups all the time pre SBN days and with past screen names like awesomer and Dusty Baker. But as I grew in years and acquired sagely wisdom to the grand old age of 22 I am now, I’ve learned that treating people nicer and being more amicable is a better way to go.
That being said, fuck that shit people should still be able to say whatever they damn well please as long as it adheres to the rules, which I think PT’s stuff did. And again, what he provided in commentary and insight way outweighed the petty attacks he may have launched at people sometimes. Looking at the other names that are departing too as a result all y’all gonnna be much worse off without it.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's. For further statistical analysis, Beyond the Box Score.
by iamawesomer on Mar 25, 2009 9:48 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
So I’m going to consider this an adios to AN for now
:(
guess I’ll have to leave this comfy space and trek over to BtB more often.
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Mar 25, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
This is going to leave a huge gap in A’s statistical analysis.
statistical analysis is something the AN bosses do not care about now, and maybe something they have never cared about, beyond a bit of lip service.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Signed, STATurday.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
that's the "lip service"
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Yup ...
that shit takes time baby.
That Staturday column really made it clear why most main stream journalist write CW based drivel … it’s a hell of a lot quicker and easier. I could whip out something witty and mildly thoughtful about the A’s in 20 minutes … or I could write a Staturday piece, which typically takes at least 6 hours … my historical pieces typically take about 2 …
I don’t think most realize it … but it’s a lot of work …
I’ve just gotten way too busy with my professional life — I rarely have those six hours to devote anymore …
Oh well …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
those of us that have tried (and failed)...
know it’s a lot of work. I’ve got a lot of respect for the stat guys. They make AN a more informative, if less entertaining place. ;-)
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions
From a longtime lurker/seldom poster
Major reason I constantly read this site: posters like PT.
Major reason I rarely post: posters like PT.
The reason for this paradoxical effect is not because I’m massochistic and like watching PT blast other users, but because I like learning more about A’s baseball. PT is one of the major contributors to that goal. I live in Austin, TX, where baseball (and especially West Coast baseball) is talked about as much as cricket. I don’t post, however, because I know my knowledge of baseball is not incredibly high, and I’d rather not have to defend whatever it is that I post. I can get what I want out of this site with others having debates.
I’m afraid that by banning users like PT, you may end up with a site like GoldenStateofMind. A year or so ago they had a guy, I believe his name was OptionZero, who was very similar to PT. An amazing basketball mind, but had absolutely no tact. After his fuse blew for the umpteenth time, the moderators kicked him out. Without him policing comments, the site is now almost unreadable to anybody over the age of 16. One can go there for “Ra ra ra! Go Warriors!”, but if I actually want insight into the team, I have to go elsewhere. Granted, the management here is obviously much more organized and provide insightful comments themselves (unlike most of the mods over there) and would never allow this site to get to that level, but if all the people in this thread that are threatening to leave actually do so, this blog could be in some trouble.
by Henduland in Texas on Mar 25, 2009 10:14 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
x10000
You’ve actually just hit on the dilemma, and why it’s so hard to make decisions like this. No one wants Paul Thomas to be gone, because his baseball skill is unmatched. Yet…at some point, you have to take into account the community as a whole. My dream would be for PT to be a part of this community (and everyone else in this thread). I’m not asking him to dumb things down; I’m just asking if there is a way he can play well with others just a bit. I hope can and that he comes back. But as many have pointed out, what good are rules, if you bend them for just the interesting posters? That’s not exactly fair either, and by nature, a human-run system will never be “fair”, but we do the best we can.
"I know they're the defending World Champs, but they are the whiniest team in baseball" -Rays announcers
by baseballgirl on Mar 25, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
No one is arguing the rules should be bent FOR PT
People are arguing that the rules shouldn’t have been bent AGAINST PT.
If PT had said something like "Nico, you’re a total asshole with no social skills, STFU" and it was his third strike my reaction would be disappointment in PT. Because things were dramatically different, however, my reaction is disappointment in AN.
I request that, if this is the standard, we add a 6th bullet point to the Community Guidelines requiring everyone to “play well with others.” If that was a rule, PT would have clearly violated it.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
We'll have to disagree on that
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Point well taken - the guidelines are due for editing,
and a good goal in the next version would be to emphasize that the categories and examples represent a “spirit,” not a series of technicalities.
The idea is basically, “don’t insult others, don’t bring up non-baseball topics likely to inflame, don’t be prejudiced, etc.” not “You can’t say ’You’re an idiot’ but technically you can say, ‘Some people, not me, would probably call you an idiot.’”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I couldn't agree more that we aren't dealing with technicalities.
Certainly, your example at the end is a good one. I just think this strike represents an expansion and a departure (rather than a technicality not already covered) and if that’s the rule going forward it should be out there.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I agree.
We’ll work on it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yeah, that's a good idea
I don’t think people are going to be expected to sit on their thumbs and agree with everything everybody else says, because that would quickly lead to a boring site. There will be arguments and debates. Those often drive the best, most interesting topics here.
But what people will be asked and expected to do is do it with civility. It’s really not that hard. Some sites take a real hands-off approach to dealing with things like that. It’s that way on Warriorsworld (as opposed to GSOM here) and I find it fun at times, annoying at others. Here, I think it helps make AN better when there’s a bit of a higher standard that tries to rise above the typical flamefests on places like the ESPN boards. Sometimes I slip but I work on remembering to act a little differently here than I might on a more open place.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
We agree completely that AN needs to be careful to avoid flamefests
And other equally silly sports blog affairs.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
the categories and examples represent a "spirit," not a series of technicalities.
make the guidelines much easier for the committee to abuse and selectively apply, awesome!!
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I do agree with you about adding something like that to the CGs, though
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
your intentions may be good, but that is the worst comment made in this entire thread
because these mods are definitely going to take that idea and run with it. look at the responses from nico and flashfire, they’re practically salivating…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
AN can set whatever rules it wants (a right which is actually explicit in the guidelines)
It only owes us notice of those rules.
If the rules have changed, the guidelines should be updated. It also follows that PT shouldn’t have gotten this strike, but he did. I think that point has been covered.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
i'm not saying AN *can't* do that
your’e right, for example AN can also just start banning anyone who uses a “secret word of the day”
and that’s pretty much what “spirit, not a series of technicalities” means.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Right
So you’d agree with me that if they were doing that it would be helpful to have a community guideline saying “thou shalt be banned for using the following words: strickout, goat, etc.” wouldn’t you?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
surely you can see that is the exact opposite of nico's interpretation ("spirit"), above?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
As I wrote above
I just think this strike represents an expansion and a departure (rather than a technicality not already covered) and if that’s the rule going forward it should be out there.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Sadistic, you are not sadistic and like watching PT blast others
Not being masochistic is why you don’t post ;-)
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
congratulations ^^^^^^^^
you just accomplished your ten millionth thread fail at the bottom of a page
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Heh
And the other reason I don’t post is because of my crappy vocabulary.
by Henduland in Texas on Mar 25, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Some probably disjointed ramblings after having read this entire thread...
Paul has always lacked a certain social awareness, and this is yet another piece of evidence to that. To be honest, what he said regarding police officers I agree with in a general context. Not as a blanket statement, of course. No, they are not all automatically heroes, but some are. And no, they are not all honest and above reproach, but again, some are. Police officers are people and the percentage of bad police officers probably is pretty close to the percentage of bad people in general. However… and this is where social skills and awareness needs to kick in… there is a time and place for everything, and that thread was neither the time nor the place.
His comments “I maintain that my comments and opinions on this thread were legitimate, but ultimately that does not matter.” and “I do feel an apology is in order, though it might not be the one many of you are hoping for.”, are evidence of this. I picture him shrugging his shoulders as he typed that because I sense that deep down it is just not registering. It comes off more as the usual “if I offended anyone I am sorry” meaningless crap that politicians and entertainers use when they get called on something and feel the need to apologize to appease others, not because they honestly see the light and agree that what they said or did was wrong.
Paul is a very intelligent person, and quite obviously knows this and takes great pride in it. Nothing wrong with that. I like statistical analysis more than I probably let on, but when discussing something with Paul he will hear none of it. Basically, if Paul has researched it and found that ‘X’ is right, then by God ‘X’ is right and there’s no room whatsoever for ‘Y’ or ‘Z’ and you’re an idiot (by clear implication, usually not in so many words) for even considering ‘Y’ and ‘Z’. For all the talk by some of speaking the truth and how much that should be valued (and it should, no doubt), it’s not coincidence that most others are quite capable of speaking said truth without causing near as much division and controversy on a continuous basis. It’s the thinly disguised ridicule that puts others off, not usually so much what he says.
Am I happy that he’s been (temporarily?) banned? No. He has a knowledge and insight that is inddeed worthy, and the site will most definitely lose something with his absence. Do I understand why? Yes. It’s as much a cumulative response as it is a response for this one incident, and I do not feel that the two can be separated. Most people who have raised kids knows that by the time you get to the point of a third strike your patience has worn thin and you are prone to being less forgiving and charitible. It may not be wholly noble and correct, but it is a natural human reaction.
Bottom line: The fact that this thread is one of the most “popular” threads in quite some time, and has elicited such varied and passionate responses from both sides, is proof that there is an issue that has become bigger than the site, and even bigger than the A’s themselves.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Mar 25, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Or that spring training can't hold fans' interest forever.
Or that people like drama. Or something else.
Great post, IMO.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
What I think it also underscores is...
…how much people still care about AN as a whole.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Mar 25, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Everyone's wrong.
- PaulThomas was wrong to have made that comment in that thread.
- The original poster of that FanPost was wrong to have posted it on this blog.
- The admins were wrong to let that FanPost stay. Even if it’s a touching and popular sentiment, it does not belong here, according to the CGs, and this outcome is exactly why.
- The mods were wrong to consider PaulThomas’s statement a strike. A strike isn’t “you shouldn’t have posted that.”
- People who think that intelligence and skill matter to the exclusion of interpersonal skills are wrong. Your argument is worthless unless you manage to convey it to people who wouldn’t have thought of it on their own. Believe me, it’s not easy.
- People who think that interpersonal skills alone will create a compelling site are wrong.
- People are wrong to consider being irritated the same as being offended.
- People who think this is just about that one specific comment in the police thread are wrong. This has been brewing far longer than that.
My ideas for making AN better:
- Reduce the number of managers/admins. Sorry, but when it was just Blez as Blogfather, we all had to play by his rules. End of story. Once more people get involved, people start seeing hierarchies, unfairness, conspiracies, and the like, some of which have basis in fact. And make sure anyone with administrative privileges is bound by the same rules as everyone else. Yes, it is possible (admin can’t delete his/her own comments, for example).
- Assign potential strikes randomly to 10 users (with some activity threshold), and let them discuss and vote. You want to be part of a community? Take ownership. It’s how our jury system works; just think what it would look like if one jury heard every court case in America, how skewed the results would be.
I have more, but I have to work now.
by oblique on Mar 25, 2009 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 11 recs
Who exactly are the "mods" who are involved in determining CGVs?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 25, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
aren't mods like
hippie lite?
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Even I'm not old enough to remember.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 25, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Isn't that the "lite" part?
I vaguely recall “mods” wearing long hair and flowery clothes — sort of “hippie chic”.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 25, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
all the young kids had long hair back then, but mods dressed nothing like hippies.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Now that you mention it, I do recall the "Mods" in 1960's Britain not looking anything
like hippies
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 25, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Back when I was a boy,
we all wore an onion on our belt!
…of course, that was the style then…
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
When I was a boy
I had a pony! What is wrong with having a pony!
(And for those who do not know, it has nothing to do with Nico, goats, etc)
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
I thought mods were former hippies.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
like reformed hippies
or just hippies that gave up or…?
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Could be both, I suppose.
Dennis Hopper comes to mind. His Easy Rider character compared to his present clean-cut somewhat relatively conformist image.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
it's a secret!
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
The mods are the five people listed on the left at the bottom of the page ...
The CGV committee is, presumably, a different, though unidentified group.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
The moderators, in recent months, have been:
Blez, Nico, baseballgirl, Taj Adib, notsellingjeans, louismg, 67MARQUEZ (as of when he joined the front page), Monkeyball (until he left), and Flashfire as of last month, plus gigglingone and McFood (from the early days when the committee was first formed).
When we switched from the old system (email cgv@athleticsnation.com) to the current one (flag a comment), the moderators were announced publicly.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I missed that ...
my bad …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Well I think it was only published once, so I'm sure many missed it
If you look at that bunch, it’s a pretty varied group of veteran members of the community, and not one that exactly screams “corruption!” That’s why I’m always amazed at how many people assume bad will instead of assuming goodwill, when these folks, who have an awfully good reputation on the site as a whole, volunteer their time to do the best job they can of being fair.
I appreciate your comments on this thread, btw.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I, for one, don't think there was "corruption"
And am having a hard time imagining what corruption would look like.
I do think three of that group basically decided “damn the rules, I’m mad and I’m tired of PT.”
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That would be a "No" on the "Damn the rules" part
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
If it's "officially" public ...
you should probably have it officially listed somewhere …
I have nothing but good things to say about anyone in that group — but, before seeing the earlier post, I did have some relatively minor feelings of 1984ism regarding what I understood to be a completely secretive system and can understand how others would have less minor feelings in that vein.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I know who the mods are...
I want to know who is on the CGV committee. LOL
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe it needs to go back to the email system
It’s a lot easier to say f-it, it’s not worth the trouble of looking up the email address and actually linking to the comment and writing something about it than to simply click on the “flag” thing. Someone who flags should care enough about it to go to that much trouble.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
I like the idea of users having to weigh in
It actually speaks to my concern that the board is always the same group of people who are voting on strike 1, 2, and 3. My concern is always that you are then going to end up with people who never respond back, or don’t look at ti because, while they like posting their jokes, stats, whatever, they don’t care enough to look at the overall community.
But you are right, if want to have a great place to read this info, you should be willing to take a little bit of responsibility in helping it along. If not, well you get the community you deserve.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
I'd be willing to participate in this if asked.
And not just because I’d feel like an untouchable insider.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 25, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd be willing to be touched if asked.
And not just because I’d feel like an unparticipating insider.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Touche
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 25, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
d
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I try to keep those pesky slegna off me
Sprinkling them with salt usually does the trick
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with all of your points in the top list
But I don’t think they quite capture what I, at least, am saying. Specifically:
People who think that intelligence and skill matter to the exclusion of interpersonal skills are wrong.
What I’ve said, and say, is that for my purposes in this context the former is more important than the latter.
People who think this is just about that one specific comment in the police thread are wrong.
The decision to issue this strike should have been about that specific comment. I strongly suspect that it was not, which is wrong.
My ideas:
First, as discussed above, add a category to the CGV list to expand the definition
Second, tell users who flag comments what the end result of the flag is
Third, make a rule that third strikes require a higher threshold than the other strikes (or, to achieve the same goal, require unanimity/super-majority from the entire mod group).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Please put that to music. 'KThxBai.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Mar 25, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Question.
This doesn’t really apply to his third strike, but why can’t PT make his valuable contributions without destroying other posters for no apparent reason? Is it really that hard to bite your tongue and not blast a new poster who may be just trying to have some fun trying out this whole sports blog thing?
Thing is, this isn’t his first offense. I don’t know what all he has been given a strike for, but apparently the reasons they were assessed weren’t as debatable as this offense was. I enjoy PT’s INFORMATIVE posts just as much as the next person, and it’s also entertaining reading his contrarian opinions most of the time. It keeps things interesting. Heck, I’ve been guilty of just saying things to stir the pot every once in a while, but PT takes it way overboard.
His trip to the bench or whatever is probably warranted, like I said, he obviously has made more than one questionable comment to get the first two strikes. He won’t be gone forever, hopefully he’ll learn something from it and come back as a better overall member of the site. It shouldn’t be too hard to not berate people while still being informative and presenting excellent arguments for a position.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
by KMoAsFan on Mar 25, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I would love it if Paul kept to the informative stuff and cut out the berating of others
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I think everyone would
I just think it’s ok to accept him as he actually is. If he’s “blasting” an imagined new poster, maybe it’s because the new poster was wrong and will learn something. I don’t know that I ever saw PT say “That was stupid. Period.” Instead, it would be something like “that is a stupid stat to use because X. If you look at Y, you’ll see that you’re wrong.”
Could he be less abrasive? Of course. But I’d also rather read the comment than not.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
"that's so stupid that it's not even worth a reply"
I remember replies like that
by Cutthemullet on Mar 26, 2009 2:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t know what all he has been given a strike for, but apparently the reasons they were assessed weren’t as debatable as this offense was.
how so? no one besides the mods know what the other strikes were for.
obviously two comments that are unknown are not as debatable as one comment that is known.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Everyone blasts n00b posters...
even (especially?) the mods. Its only a “problem” when PT does it, for others who say the same things… not so much.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Please come back Paul
Free PT Now!
by OptimistPrime on Mar 25, 2009 11:12 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Here's
my question, since Im still a little new here. What were the first 2 offenses? (im sure they’re in this thread somewhere, but there’s 700 comments to read through!)
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
I'm pretty sure they are not
and that’s one of the concerns people have. Usually all of this is a black box. At best you know that you flagged a comment, or you know if you had something flagged and received a strike. But there is typically not a general knowledge of who has strikes, why, etc.
It’s somewhat safe to assume though that it was for other aggressive and “rude” comments.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
Be on the look out for "Cliff Notes: A Thread That's Actually SUPPOSED To Be About PT"
I am Ray Fosse's infatuations with Clay Wood and high-definition television.
by franks a lot on Mar 25, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
the first two offenses are not in this thread
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
PT
Never met the guy, but I’ve come to a couple conclusions:
1. PT could kick my ass in a Debate
2. I could kick PT’s ass in a whiffle ball game
I enjoy watching you take down posters at MinorLeagueBall.com, so I’ll continue watching over there. Good Luck.
I initially read #2 as "with a whiffle ball bat"
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
This "banning" of PT is quite disappointing
and amounts to the will of the majority deciding what politics gets discussed on AN.
The whole strike system is based on the will of the majority and is seriously flawed. Get enough people to take a negative action against you, and you get a strike, or worse banned.
PT never said “I’m glad those cops are dead!” yet all of you who criticized him are ACTING like he did say that. Maybe his timing was insensitive but unpopular opinions should be respected at times that are emotionally difficult. Instead of claiming he was a horrible person, why not just be reasonable and understand his point. Not all cops are heroes and shouldn’t be treated as such. Is it a tragedy they died? Of course. Were they after an apparent scum bag? Yes. Should they be elevated to hero status b/c of their death? I don’t think so but that’s just my opinion. There are plenty of cops that do plenty of horrible crap – reported or not – and we just don’t know what type of people they are. Did they beat the crap out of a motorist who was sleeping in his car? Shoot someone unjustifiably? Lie on a police report regarding a shooting? Steal confiscated drugs and make money off them? All of this stuff happens and we shouldn’t assume that all cops are great heroes.
What’s next, getting banned b/c someone says a soldier in Iraq isn’t a hero but a mindless dupe being used in an imperialist war? Gimme a break AN! The blatantly political response people made to his comments should also be strikes don’t you think? I mean politics are banned on AN right? Or is it just certain politics and points of view?
Not to speak for anyone else here
but I think the official (and procedurally correct) answer to your last question is, “If someone flags that fanpost or any other comments in that diary, the committee will consider whether to hand out any strikes; if no one raises the issue, the committee won’t act.”
As to the larger point…look, I think that whole thread got out of hand on everyone’s part, from what I saw from reading it. It was an unusually emotional thread for obvious reasons. As it turns out, I think you and I would tend to see eye to eye to a large extent on the substance of the politics. But here’s the thing: there were clearly a bunch of community members who wanted to have a thread for just expressing condolences/sadness/appreciation, and doing so on AN doesn’t seem completely out of the blue to me because (a) these were Oakland cops (b) the A’s were responding to it individually and as an organization, and © two of the guys who got killed worked games at the Coliseum. If people want to have that forum amongst themselves, and you really disagree with the premise of the fanpost, there’s a pretty strong argument there for just walking away. If Nico posted a story or fanpost saying, “I think AN should officially release a declaration about the murdered cops, and it should say this…” well, then I think that’s inviting everyone’s input — there’s a statement being prepared on behalf of the community, and community members should weigh in. But that’s not what was going on on that fanpost.
People are definitely allowed to believe what they want to believe about law enforcement. Even if I disagree with them, I can make a decision to not interfere with their space. Now, I don’t think that PT meant to invade anyone’s space or anything. I think he genuinely didn’t feel that his comment would set anyone off. But those folks did feel like their space was being messed with there. Maybe another, less emotional example would be this: we had gamethreads up for the WBC games. A number of ANers have argued that the WBC is stupid and pretty worthless. No one, AFAIK, has any problem with engaging that debate. But if I got on a WBC game thread and said, “I just wanna say that I think the WBC is really stupid, and I just really don’t understand why someone would bother watching these games,” people would definitely think I was being an asshole.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Mar 25, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great comment. Thank you.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not sure I agree, at least not totally
My issues:
A) If you make an off-topic diary, whether most people are accepting of the breaking of decorum, it’s still a public space and by breaking this rule, you’re opening yourself up to topics that are equally breaking of decorum. I avoided that diary like the plague, but based on what I’m hearing, I don’t see anything wrong what PT did or with taking a diary on AN and holding a discussion. That’s what they’re here for. A lot of people think it was inappropriate, to a degree it was, but at the same time, within the community, within the idea that all diaries “should” in some way, shape or form provoke discussion, it was still perfectly acceptable.
B) WBC is about baseball, meaningless or not. And you’re “provoking” comment isn’t in any way analogous to the other diary.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
and doesn't thejd44 say exactly that every time someone mentions the WBC?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Yeah, but AFAIK he didn't go into the WBC game threads to say that
I assume he just ignored the WBC game threads the same as he ignored the WBC itself. He probably just let them do their thing, even if he personally found it pointless or whatever.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
A both strange and morbid desire of mine
has always been to hear what people would have to say at my funeral. I guess getting banned from a site and getting to read some 700 comments on my legacy and departure should rank close second. If nothing else, enjoy this unique experience, PT.
To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being crushed under the wheels of the imperial carriage
by elcroata on Mar 25, 2009 12:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
You know, I don't give a shit!
Verging on 800 posts in this thread—even though we’re all changing as a blog, the site still rocks! Seriously, we’re all a bunch of contentious, obstinate, contrarian, opinionated pricks. And quite frankly, I love it.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
Bobby Crosby plans on joining AN
That way no one can defame him on this site anymore
I am Ray Fosse's infatuations with Clay Wood and high-definition television.
by franks a lot on Mar 25, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
ACK!
(don’t give him any ideas)
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 25, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
No problem
Just put all Crosby-defamation links on the low, outside part of the page.
"Warm Springs Infernal" - FSU, 2/6/09 DLD
by doctorK on Mar 25, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
And they'll slide right by?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
[Using "I words"...]
“Bobby, when you come to bat in a big situation, I start to feel nauseous.”
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Well, all this seems wonderful and all
We are a group of several thousand fans. Frankly about the only thing we DO have in common and share is our enjoyment and love for the A’s. Otherwise we are very different people from all areas and backgrounds. Are we going to disagree? Sure, vehemently at times. Are we going to post comments and opinions that provoke instant agreement and outright antagonism? Yep guilty as charged.
I have a personal opinion about all this but I think enough has been said about whether it’s right or wrong. I came to this site several years ago now and have always liked and trusted in the names that run this site.
I trust in our Admin to make the best decisions that they can. If I knew them all, would I agree with them? No probably not, however I do believe that they have the SITES best interests at heart when they consider their actions. I am sorry for all the pro comments and the anti comments and the animosity it has created between us. But you know what? its another reason I love AN and all you guys and girls, because we CAN disagree and yet tomorrow it wont matter as we discuss the MAC getting their shot or how bad will Bobby be this year.
So I say to you all my friends, what’s done is done, its less than two weeks till opening day, so can we all just talk about baseball again?
Swisher on Ellis - "every day he does something that makes me say, 'Well, I'll be damned, look at that!'"
by Mantecan As Fan on Mar 25, 2009 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Mantecan As Fan, I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart
for saying this: “I trust in our Admin to make the best decisions that they can. If I knew them all, would I agree with them? No probably not, however I do believe that they have the SITES best interests at heart when they consider their actions.” Nothing could be truer, and I’m grateful that you said it on this thread. Thank you.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I am not comfortable calling PT a good baseball mind...
and this coming for a pretty statminded person myself.
In my estimation it also seemed like he had never played baseball, and really didn’t have a feel for player development in terms of having ever developed any baseball skills himself (even at levels lower than HS). So when someone would come to him with analysis that merged both stats and experience, it never seemed like he could completely comprehend the response. And that is when it didn’t help that he lacked good people skills. On top of the fact there are some people here that responded with comments made to incite a bad type of reaction from him.
Don’t get me wrong when it came to crunching stats and making logical assertions based on them, he was one of the best on this site. But I just feel like that’s half the battle.
With that said, the post about the Oakland officers should have never been allowed to exist on this site. Or at the very least, stopped before it got out of hand. And it seems pretty silly to admonish him for the mod’s failure.
If you are going to ban him, it should be for the right reasons (which evidently are more like strikes 1 and 2, although I wasn’t there to witness them).
hmm
Interesting take at the beginning of your post.
by Cutthemullet on Mar 25, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions
very
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Interesting take...
…and one that has crossed my mind.
There was a thread after Bill King died where PT said he wasn’t all that broken up about King’s passing (I am paraphrasing, but that’s the gist of it) as he never listened to games on the radio and I so wanted to post and ask if he ever watched the games, because, well… sometimes I have wondered.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
I don't watch games
Ive been a NRAF for years I can’t afford and MLB.tv doesn’t support my opperating system and its not like they nationally televise A’s games a lot. Does that make me a lesser fan because I get my A’s fix here and from newspapers?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 26, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions
yes
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Speaking CGV's
I’d like to report those scary freaking teeth on the front page – YIKES!!!1
Enjoy the game
A couple of thoughts ...
The policy that CGVs are always only about a specific comment is unrealistic. Certainly in terms of others’ reaction to it and, it is hard to imagine in terms of the CGV Committee’s decision, PT’s full body of work played into it. Hell, Nico essentially admitted as much
I actually sent a proactive email out saying that. I saw the comment had been flagged and if was ruled a ‘strike’ it would be ‘strike three,’ so as you weigh in please just make sure you are being mindful, and intentional, about the implications.
How can you say that someone who is a pure troll shouldn’t be considered differently than someone who has written dozens of great articles and contributed more thoughtful posts in a shorter period of time than anybody. Effectively, that is what the rules are saying. All of the great work that PT has done is completely irrelevant and he should be treated exactly the same as a troll. That’s just ridiculous.
At the same time — the strike clearly should have been about far more than any specific comment he made. If he had stopped after the initial comment, I doubt anyone would have been too offended, he would still be on the site and this (likely inevitable) day would have been delayed. I’m not saying that he did or did not deserve it — though I am definitely not defending him, he was completely out of line — just discussing the process as it relates to this instance.
Not that I really want to weigh in on it — but I do wonder if XbX might have a point about the secrecy of the CGV process. I appreciate the need for anonymity — as XbX’s treatment of Flashfire in this diary very clearly shows. As an aside, X, are you trying to get kicked off? I’m not flagging you, but I find it hard to imagine that you’ll be around much longer after this performance. I’m sympathetic, as you know (for the record — one of the comments he posted above was mine), but you were more than a little over the top here.
Perhaps a better alternative, following a suspension/ban would be to make the discussions and correspondences over the strike(s) anonymous but public — provided the offender is okay with it and it is requested by a member in good standing.
I think the original diary was clearly fine. The A’s felt that the incident was sufficiently related to the team to wear a patch, I don’t see how we can argue with that. There is also a very firmly established precedent in practice that anything related to Oakland, not being overtly political (eg elections) is related to the A’s. This is a firmly established precedent over the history of this blog.
Finally, my treatment of PT in the previous diary has been criticized here and elsewhere. While I may have been a bit excessive — I have a preexisting rapport with PT and, on numerous previous occasions, we have discussed this sort of behavior and, often made some progress. I would also like to point out, the offending comment came 9 hours after I took the time to rationally respond to him, explaining the problem, as he complained that others hadn’t. He ignored my response and continued to berate others, so I did what I thought was appropriate at the time, c’est la vie.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Mar 25, 2009 2:09 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Sorry if I have repeated something
already asked in this long article but if someone gets a strike does it last forever or does it go away after a period of time?
It takes several months
See the community guidelines for exact details.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
what timing. yesterday's
Denver Post had Ward Churchill on the front page.
alaska A residing in colorado. (for now)
A few Points
1) I don’t really care for PT and agree that he has behaved like a complete asshole on many occasions. Having said that, I don’t think he should have been banned for it
2) People are too trigger happy on the Flag button. As stated above by others, some are too sensitive. I myself received a few CGV violations. One was valid the other I thought was laughable but of course I had to accept them and try to be a little more careful. It’s almost at times like we are in school and being reprimanded by the teacher.
3) This goes against the the guidelines but we should have a special area where we can vent freely and tell each other to **** off or whatever and have at it with no fear of repercussion.
4) I have respect for the moderators as it is not an easy job. Nico for example, you cannot be all bad as you love animals, The A’s, Goats and have a sense of humor. I am sure you tolerate a little more than most anyway.
Like I said, too many people jump on the flag button. Just ignore that person or say your piece and move on.
PT’s comments had bad timing more than anything when people’s emotions were raw.
The End
Thank you, Trainman, for point #4
May I just add that the moderators who work so hard, and so diligently, to try to do right by AN do so for free? It’s not their “day job” by any means. It’s a labor of love, and I want to go on record saying – no matter who may refuse to believe me – that I have never worked with a group so committed to trying to be fair. They are my heroes. Oops, there’s that word again.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
When I hit the “Actions” button on a post, the Actions button goes away, but nothing happens. Is that abnormal? I was trying to figure out if we have the ability to edit or delete posts. If we do, mine don’t work.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 5:57 PM PDT reply actions
You can't edit comments
It should show “flag” and “rec” options and go away.
You can however edit posts (incidentally something I’m fairly surprised Nico is refusing to do).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
The actions button is supposed to turn into a "Recommend" button (I think that's what it's called) and a "flag" button. No editing or deleting, AFAIK
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Okay, then mine is broken.
Actions just disappears and is replaced by nothing. Is AN not very compatible with Firefox 3.0?
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Bah
Whatever. LOL
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions
OH GOT IT
LOL I was clicking Actions on my OWN posts, and it wasn’t doing anything. But how do you edit a post?
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I find a sharpie works pretty well
But then it all gets messed up when I scroll through the comments again. And I have to clean off my screen.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Now my screen is all covered in white-out tape :(
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions
In the top right
There is a “manage fanposts” link
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That's just for fanposts and fanshots, not for comments, though.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
See my post above
To which I assumed GW was responding given his comment was nested.
Specifically: “You can’t edit comments.” “You can however edit posts.”
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I don't know about editing
but there is a weird thing about the Actions button. It displays for your own comments, but you can’t do anything with it – when you click it, it just disappears, because you’re not allowed to rec/flag your own comments.
I’m on FF3 as well. If there’s an edit function that would activate with the actions button on my own comments, I’m not getting it, either.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I've been reluctant to add my 2 cents
because it’s no secret that PT and I have had more than our fair share of run-ins — I’m certainly not objective … that being said, I have a few comments.
PT goes out of his way — IOW, he deliberately attempts to criticize and berate posters whenever he gets the chance. That is a fact. Now, whether or not that makes him a “bad guy”, I have no idea. I think it makes him a jerk, but again, I’m not objective.
I think PT’s baseball observations are excellent, but I don’t think this gives him the right to be a jerk to people — and again, I think he goes out of his way to do this. I think it makes him feel superior when he does.
Does his Oakland PD commentary deserve a strike? I don’t know … I do hope he comes back after his 30 days are up. I like to hear what he has to say about the A’s.
Here’s my major beef with PT … and, if I may add, with nevermoor as well (I’ll be eager to hear your reponse …) The biggest and loudest defenders of PT here are the ones quickest on the trigger finger. IOW, you’re most likely to be flagged by the guys who cause the most dissent, but then will cry about it when someone calls them out.
If PT is going to be a jerk, then he needs to keep his mouth shut when someone calls him a jerk. I got flagged by PT when I said he “needed to come home to mom’s when the street lights came on.” Seriously.
So my point is this … be as big a jerk as you want … but when someone suggests you’d get your “teeth kicked in” if you were brave enough to SAY it and not just TYPE it, then just nod your head because you know it’s true, and accept the criticism.
Nothing more disgusting than someone who bullies people, and then cries about it when they get called on it. So again, be an asshole — but when someone then says “you’re an asshole,” just keep your mouth shut.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
by Vacafan on Mar 25, 2009 6:26 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm confused
IOW, you’re most likely to be flagged by the guys who cause the most dissent, but then will cry about it when someone calls them out.
If you’re saying I get a lot of strikes, you’re wrong. I’ve never had one. If you’re saying I flag a lot of people you’re wrong. I’m about 99% sure that nico’s comment was the first I ever flagged.
And you’re seriously defending someone saying PT deserves to have his teeth kicked in?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
but when someone suggests you’d get your "teeth kicked in" if you were brave enough to SAY it and not just TYPE it, then just nod your head because you know it’s true, and accept the criticism.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Not sure if you're objecting to Nico's comment or Vacafan's
I went back and looked at the original exchange, because I was also going to flag Nico’s comment if he said PT deserved to have his teeth kicked in. It went as follows:
Yep, nothing at all heroic about going after a criminal who has already shot and killed two of your fellow officers.
Nothing at all heroic about putting on a uniform every day and risking your life. You think these guys are just doing it for a fucking paycheck?
This is one of the worst things you’ve ever posted. Probably the worst.
by mikev on Mar 22, 2009 8:51 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions 0 recs
______
It shows the clear difference between the internet and a bar:
PaulThomas still has his teeth.
by Nico on Mar 22, 2009 9:00 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions 0 recs
______
Indeed. The epitomy of hiding behind a screen and a keyboard.
Frankly, I would love to see PT walk up to a cop – ANY cop – and tell them that.
by mikev on Mar 22, 2009 9:55 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions 0 recs
I just don’t see anything in that comment that says such an outcome would be deserved, only that such an outcome would be likely to occur. Mikev’s subsequent comment actually seems to be more of an endorsement of that outcome.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Now that you mention it, you're right.
Kinda shitty for me to say, and not completely what I meant.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Mikev's first response is fine in my book
The last two are seriously not cool
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions
You know, looking at it again, you're right.
That’s certainly not the message I meant to convey. I certainly don’t think PT should have his teeth kicked in.
To clarify, what I meant was going up to a LEO and questioning their motive for doing their job will generally get you a pretty damn good lecture and you will definitely be put in your place.
Verbally – not physically.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
I think the first post shows good judgement
If PT truly offended me by a statement (which is pretty hard to do) I would have taken the first approach. This comment is really fucked up and wrong. If everybody had just said this comment isn’t appreciated or I find this comment offensive, we are trying to express condolences, rather than going after PT he wouldn’t have been backed into a corner where he had to defend himself.
As for your second point, in high school I was forced to sit next to a kid who after graduation moved to Israel for the express purpose of joining the army so he could shoot Palestinians. Im sure those same type people join the US military, police departments, and other types of law enforcement for similar power. He would have given you a different lecture… which is what PT was saying.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 26, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions
No, I didn't think you had a lot of strikes
Yes, I figured you’d of flagged a bunch of people … I guess I’ll take your word for it.
What I’m saying is that if PT were in front of many of the people he criticizes, instead of firing shots from behind a computer, he would/could be in big trouble — physically, yes.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong to give someone a poke in the eye if they are intentionally offensive … I’m just saying that I think it’s wrong to cry about it if it happens. And I think PT is a crybaby. He’ll go out of his way to be a jerk, and then act offended when someone calls him an asshole. Just like the little kid on the block who’d be the first to soak someone with the hose, and then get mad and run to mom when they got wet, too.
I’ve seen PT — let’s just say he’s not a real big guy — there’s no doubt in my mind, that, unfortunately, he probably got picked on more that once when he was young. Now, he figures its ok to pick on people over the internet in order to get even. Just my opinion … but I think it’s dead-on.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
by Vacafan on Mar 25, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This could be flagged
And I think PT is a crybaby. He’ll go out of his way to be a jerk, and then act offended when someone calls him an asshole. Just like the little kid on the block who’d be the first to soak someone with the hose, and then get mad and run to mom when they got wet, too.
That’s totally ad hominem. There’s a difference between challenging or even putting down someone’s opinion and just making fun of them. You’ve crossed that line, and you really ought to act your age.
Perhaps ...
just callin’ ‘em like I see ’em. I think that’s exactly how he acts. I’m not trying to make fun of him, I really think that’s how he responds. Like a little kid. If that’s offensive, oh well, I’ll take the strike.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
You don't get it
Saying PT’s reaction lacked maturity is fine, but you’re crossing a line when you start calling someone a cry baby. It’s the difference between attacking someone’s specific behavior and going after them personally.
by MrIncognito on Mar 25, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Point taken. Seriously, good point.
I’ll accept the consequences for that.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
sorry
didn’t see the mea culpa before posting below about your comments above… this thread is getting unwieldy.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions
This post seems really dickish to me
I also believe this
but when someone suggests you’d get your "teeth kicked in" if you were brave enough to SAY it and not just TYPE it, then just nod your head because you know it’s true, and accept the criticism.
is way out of line
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions
One less reason to read AN
Not that this matters at post #800 or so, but I’ve found my visits to AN have become farther and farther apart. Losing PT is going to just make them less frequent.
You can go ahead and just get rid of every difficult personality or person willing to challenge others to defend themselves, but then you end up with a boring piece of crap blog consisting entirely of one giant clique. There’s been a steady attempt to turn AN into the Smurf Village, and this seems to be the last step in the sterilization process.
I keep reading that it’s all about community. Community includes people who don’t get along. Community means you are willing to work through or past your disagreements. This isn’t making a community, but a commune. I liked this blog when it was a sounding board for differing opinions. Now it’s just a forum for game summaries and the occasional (still awesome) interviews. The rest is meaningless fanblather.
We just took one giant step towards becoming a much larger Halos Haven.
by MrIncognito on Mar 25, 2009 6:45 PM PDT reply actions 7 recs
rec'd
My brother and I have a great relationship now partly BECAUSE of the fact that we fought with each other constantly in the past. I’d have to say that’s a great analogy for this place.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but you actually know your brother IRL
This is only a metaphorical bar. In a real bar, you can tell how someone’s feeling by the expression on their face; you can see that those 3 people over there are having a private talk and it would be rude of you to just barge in and insert yourself into their conversation. You can tell that the big table of 7 people over on the other side is more relaxed and a few people have sat down with them already, so you’ll be welcome if you go over there and join them. And if you bump into that person you had a big argument with a couple days ago, you can get a feel for whether you’ve gotten to “forgive and forget” before you’ve even said hello.
Community online is just weird. At the biggest, meta-level, I think we all need to acknowledge that it’s difficult and we’ll all screw something up from time to time.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I completely agree with the last mini-paragraph
And that is exactly why I don’t think he should have been banned.
Not to imply that I don’t agree with the rest of it…I just wanted to highlight the last part. :D
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I would also submit that the fact that it’s so much more difficult to gauge the way things are/should be done in an online community is why three strikes isn’t enough. If we’re going to give people strikes for comments like PT’s, there should be at LEAST five strikes before being banned. I got a strike for some political comment I don’t even recall, and I wasn’t even aware there was anything wrong with it until I received the warning e-mail.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Mar 25, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I can definitely understand your position on PT's 30-day ban
I feel wishy-washy for not having a strong opinion about this (kick him out!/what an injustice!), but honestly, I think that there was a series of close-call, grey-area situations yesterday and the discussion ended up getting out of hand. On like a half dozen levels it was not a cut-and-dried situation, and then it ended up with the CG committee folks, who in the end are tasked with making a decision. Which I suppose they sort of hedged by calling it a strike, but then doing a 30-day sentence.
And I definitely think we might be due for some improvements to the CGV system. 5 strikes could be a good place to start, though it looks like other people here really want to tear the concept down and do something else entirely.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I don't know about five strikes
You have to be pretty set in your ways to even get to three, let alone five.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
30 days, MrIncognito, not forever
AN becoming more sanitized…Have ya read this thread? :-)
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yeah Paul Thomas threads are always interesting
That’s the point.
He says insightful things and isn’t afraid to challenge people. You really need that on this blog.
Sure, but without the insults and berating Paul often attaches to it
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Funny how PT got banned without insulting anyone.
You cling to this PT is always insulting people meme but in this case he wasn’t banned for it, which I think is why a lot of people are upset about it.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 25, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, this has turned out like most AN meta-threads.
Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance…I’m not sure this many people have ever been banned because of a single thread, though. What’s the body count?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
there's a body count aside from PT? who else was banned?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
dude, you're still here?
that’s gotta be preferential treatment!!! I was too drunk to realize what I was posting is not a defense. At least, that’s what I was told.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Meh, I think the mods realize that if they ban xbox now, it's just going to increase the furor
Which of course, continues to undermine whole CGV process – being banned whenever the mods feel like it, and not for any actual CG offense committed in comments. Cause xbox certainly has violated a lot of CGs in his comments in this very thread (and IMO, much more offensive and ban-able than anything PT ever brought up in the police thread), and yet he’s still here.
I’m not arguing for him to be banned though. That would further lead to my alienation from this site. I’m just observing that the mods could definitely come up with a good reason to ban him…based on this thread alone.
But hey, what’s to keep them from waiting until the furor over this dies down, waiting until xbox posts something controversial (but not necessarily a violation of the CGs) like what PT did, and use that as an excuse to ban him?
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 26, 2009 1:31 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I've always respected you for your wisdom, lens...
and, you haven’t let me down in this response.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 1:48 AM PDT up reply actions
surprisingly not you
which makes me very happy
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
Criminy! This thread needs one of these:
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
I love that graphic.
Best thing about this thread. :)
More than just ANtics: http://www.louisgray.com/live/
Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 26, 2009 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions
You're not wrong, Walter.
You’re just an asshole.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 26, 2009 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions
What about them?
Now you are shouting down ska music?! This is a conspiracy!
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
the bar/internet reference needs to die.
There’s simply not that many people getting smashed in the face for what they they say in public (“the bar”), even in front of the very people who very much disagree (even 180d) with them. If I took my own life’s experience as gospel, then it NEVER happens. People reading this who know me probably would have expected that at some point I’d get my “teeth knocked in” for saying the things I say. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t post here that often – I know the reaction and consequence here will be far worse than what happens in person. AN and most other places on the internet are FAR more restrictive in terms of speech and thought than real life.
Face it – most of us never have to deal with any real physical confrontation in our adult lives, and I believe that most of us are willing to say what we really think when pressed. Sure, there’s people out there who don’t speak their mind because they’re afraid of what might happen, but what actually happens is usually nothing more than a few slacked jaws and in my relatively limited case, laughter and even handshakes and hugs.
still Swish Fan #1.
I'm not sure where you go, but I have definitely seen people get their faces punched, knocked
down and ribs broken in bars for things they said. It’s not happened to me because I know what not to say.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 25, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I wish there was a PM option I could easily find
Because I could tell at least one story that NOBODY here would believe.
That said, I freaking LOVE the McCarver quote. Gosh, I hate that guy.
still Swish Fan #1.
Paul is not dead.
(obligatory Beatles reference for Leroy and Bhaskar)
I’m coming to this thread about 24 hours too late, which by the weird time compression of new-AN makes me about 900 comments too late.
I really liked Paul’s letter in the main post. I think it shows a perspective and (yes) wisdom that most of this comment thread lacks.
I see here the same thing I saw in the goodbye-to-Monkeyball thread: a pervading sense that AN is the entire universe. One person even compared this thread to hearing comments at one’s own funeral. Being banned is not a death sentence. I don’t even see it as a punishment at all. It’s simply a decision that someone belongs elsewhere for a while. I suppose if you think that being on AN is the meaning of one’s existence, that seems like an awful fate, but it’s really not.
As an aside, I do think it’s a lot like being ostracized — not in the modern sense of the word, but in the classical sense. That is, Paul has been ostracized from AN like Themistocles or Thucydides (the other one) was ostracized from Athens — an analogy I trust Paul would appreciate if he were reading this.
I’m glad that Paul isn’t sure if he’ll even want to come back after 10 years 30 days. That’s not because I don’t enjoy his presence here. I like most of Paul’s posts, and in my personal opinion his presence on AN adds more than it detracts. So yes, I do think that AN is diminished, but honestly, I’m less concerned about AN’s future than I am about Paul’s, and from his letter above I think he’ll do just fine whether he comes back or not. I think it’ll probably be good for him to be away for a while, and I don’t mean that in the “go to your room and think about what you’ve done” sort of way. I mean it in the way that I feel even more sure that being away is good for Monkeyball (whom I miss very much). Life is so much more than AN. It’s fun to throw ourselves into this place for a while, but it’s not fun to be stuck in a rut.
As for those who worry about the dumbing down of AN, lamenting the departure of so many favorite posters and fretting about the possibility of losing so many more, I don’t agree with that either. No community remains constant. It’s part of a community’s life to change and evolve. Inevitably those of us who have been around for a long time will remember the “golden years” and think that they the best times, now lost. But that’s just an illusion. My golden years were the same years when someone else was lamenting the loss of the smaller AN 1.0 community; and the Monkeyball-less, PT-less, SalB-less, Xbox-less, FSU-less era of today and tomorrow will no doubt become the “golden years” that some newer members will lament years from now.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
by iglew on Mar 25, 2009 9:46 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
100% agree
Except for the part about Paul not being dead. Have you LISTENED to the lyrics of “Glass Onion?”
My all-time favorite Paul McCartney song,
even better than “Yesterday”, which I do like, is the hopelessly obscure “This world you’re coming into”, from his justly maligned Liverpool Oratorio. That’s the lullaby Mary Dee sings to the unborn baby in her womb, after she quarrels with her husband.
Most of the Oratorio is total dreck, but that one little bit is exquisitely beautiful.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
I cant remember if I cried
when I read he broke the Community Guide’
but something touched me deep inside
the day
PaulThomas
died.
Save Rajai Davis
Monkeyball left?
I missed it. Seriously. Had no idea until this thread.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
No Monkey, no more.
He does not hear, see or speak evil. Not on AN, at least.
The strange thing is, I fully believe he would have defused the whole police-hero thread controversy, were he still around.
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 26, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I finally got through all (what must now be close to 1000 comments)...
and, UncleLeo puts the capper on it. LOL
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions
for comment 1000...
1) alot of people have too much emotional investment in a site, vs. the team the site’s about… I used to get banned from BBS’s in the ’80’s all the time (though for much worse than anything anyone “said” here today). No biggie.
2) this PT character, unless he’s related to Frank, is of no import to me.
3) 30 days? that’s perfect. it’s near the end of the semester anyways, so we should all step back from the internet (and world of warcraft, and Resident Evil 5, and Left for Dead, and…) and hit the books.
by rollierollieOxenfree on Mar 26, 2009 12:19 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
L4D?
Recommend?
In this proverbial bar, the goat lover ended up with the deed to the place. -grover
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 26, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
rec'd...
for this alone:
2) this PT character, unless he’s related to Frank, is of no import to me.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
My last thoughts on all of this
— I usually avoid the meta threads like the plague, but actually found many of the posts here interesting and informative (re monkeyball’s departure). It’s been a train wreck, yes, but not without thought-provoking debate. It’s hard to argue that the site is too homogenous after reading this thread.
— I like people on both sides of this argument, both online and at AN Days, and so it’s been unpleasant in that respect. I also don’t like the realization that several people have left recently.
— People like to have rules, if only so they can understand what they’re not supposed to do. This becomes an almost hopelessly tricky point, because rules and their enforcement are arbitrary, and nobody likes that either. That’s been one of my problems with PaulThomas’ third strike, as I mentioned in my other post on this thread.
— My own suggestion to the Community Standards folks is to just grant amnesty for anything said on this thread. I actually think it would be a helpful gesture.
by bear88 on Mar 26, 2009 12:43 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
the voice of reason...
as always, bear88. I nominate you for the CGV committee.
Second?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions
bear88 was actually offered the gig for the CGV's very first day and declined
Wise man! But you would have been a great mod, bear88.
As to the amnesty suggestion, Blez, baseballgirl, and I already decided we would do just that. This thread is basically, we hope, a cathartic outpouring of emotions and ideas, contained in this thread and then we move on.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
dammit!!!
You mean, I could’ve said anything and received amnesty? Oh wait, the thread is still open. So, I still can say anything. ;-)
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 26, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
