A Potentially Farewell Note to AN
by oaktoon on Apr 19, 2006 8:39 AM PDT
Email
PrintListen I know I get under a lot of your skins. Sometimes deservedly, by the way.
And i know people don't like it that I'm out there-- on a limb, with some real opinions. And others simply won't let me forget the flip I made last spring on this team.
But I do care about this team.. and I love the sport. And AN has been a great place for all of us to express our love for this team and this sport.
because one (or maybe more) of you decided that when I called you "dense" or when, frustrated by a series of what I thought were nonsensical or unresponsive responses in a particular debate, I replied to one of grover's insults (I believe) by saying "don't try to read my mind-- you have enough problems with your own" or somesuch...
I am now facing expulsion from this site. I frankly don't know or care when I'm off the button and the strikes wash away. If you choose-- those of you with cold hearts and narrow vision-- you can probably complain about a comment I made in the 135th Zito will be traded thread today and get me expelled. I just found out this morning I have two Eric Gregg strikes against me.
But I want you to know-- all of you and those who have decided to try to get me removed-- that I have never complained about any of you. Not once. Nor will i ever if I'm here for 10 more minutes or 10 more years.
If I insult someone's religious background, or ethnic or racial heritage (and we had a debate where a few people thought I might have when i speculated about the Japanese and Koreans potentially colluding to keep the US out fo the next round-- It ended when I politely pointed out that I have an adopted daughter from Vietnam), or make a particularly vicious personal remark, well then punsih me accordingly. I don't believe I ever have.
But the garden variety insults judged here-- which were only an response to a series that were launched at me as is often the case in this space-- are no cause for such a response. I can only assume that someone-- or a few of you-- simply wants me, in Hawk's memorable terms, to "Be Gone".
It's a pity.
If that's the outcome, I wish you all well. I love this team. I respect a lot of you and come to enjoy our discourse-- even with the nicos and grovers of the world who generally don't fight fair. But ohad, monkeyball, bobbycrosby's girl, blez, of course, xsbarkkxs or whatever your name is (too many consanants to remember!), and many others are the lifeblood of AN, and if I'm headed for that great Coliseum in the sky, good luck to you.
And I still think they'll win 100 games and I'll be in the stands come playoff time.
357 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
hate to see you go
look at the poor bastard with the switch crosby for ellis diary. ouch
maybe if you can sort of pull a ron artest: playball with the same fury but when you see yourself about to take a swing at someone for roughing you up in the post.. hold your arms straight up in the air instead and crack a smile. you've got a rep and you have to come to terms with it. the ol wild wild west days are gone.
Ditto
It's much like politics today. It's so much easier(and perhaps even romantic) to take a hard core position, demonize anyone who feels otherwise, and disregard the fact that most issues have "grey areas."
But the Blogosphere is still in its infancy, and too easy for any of us to start our own board. Blez knows this and wants to keep as many of us as he can. While the community guidelines appear to arbitrary at times, it's proactive as well.
Ultimately, many of us will decide that it's no longer worth the headache and move on(or at least no longer post) No one forces us to be here, and any one of us can be banned for any reason.
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, that's not exactly true or fair
Second, it is not that hard to stay strike-free. Pretty much, don't attack people personally. You can say whatever you want about an idea, a management style, but to attack someone personally is a bad way to argue anyway.
Third, in oaktoon's case, maybe he doesn't mean to do it, but his first reaction is to strike out and attack when someone disagrees with him.
oaktoon, you did it to me in the Bobby Crosby diary. You think he should be batting third? Awesome; that is your point of view. I happen to disagree. That doesn't make me a bad person, or stupid, or out to get you, or anything, it just means I disagree. Tell me why I should agree with you. But don't tell me that I'm stupid.
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Cheers:
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
to be honest
- attack you first and
- are the type of people that will go running to Daddy
I'm sorry if you felt I went too far in the Crosby debate-- I'll go back and see if you have cause for complaint.
let it go
is that really necessary?
by rockit on Apr 19, 2006 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
And...look.
I'll save you the trouble:
So don't going to try to read my mind-- you've got enough problems with the one you're carrying.
<shrugs> I don't really care. I'm sure my mind is plenty twisted from the amount of baseball I've watched in my life, but I could see where someone might get pissed off when you write things like that. How is attacking people constructive? You started off our whole conversation in that thread by basically telling Blez, who wrote a nice series preview, that he was boring and wasted your time.
If you can't see why people may be upset with you, then I'm wasting MY time responding anymore.
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
And P.S.
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
wow---
I don't know if I'm wrong, becasue I don't know if I really called you "stupid" or something else. Which is why I'm going to look back.
Did you report me??
i'm sorry you were upset by that
I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
and if the people who are upset with me
New thing...
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I normally battle you, but I'm with you here.
Of course, the way things stand with the CG process I had no chance to point out the stupidity of that, or defend myself, or know who it was that thought me so annoying as to file a complaint, so I ate it. Even though people had called me a racist in the same thread, several times.
And as a result, I find myself with other things to do rather than sit here for an hour at a time contributing. If I can't defend my opinion (without anything close to cursing or insults) without some net nanny filing an anonymous complaint about my 'general vibe', it just isn't as fun anymore.
So I feel for you, 'Toon. I don't necessarily always like your general vibe personally, but I'd never file a complaint about it. That's just a pussy act, and it doesn't help this place any. It just acts as a means to keep opinions you don't like from being heard.
"Oh goody, this guy who I disagree with said something that I can complain about. That'll show him."
People need to start learning how to win by arguing their point, not taking your opponent out of the game. Until they do, and while the complaint process is a secretive, no chance to defend yourself, bend the rules to suit whatever we choose as an end result kind of affair, you won't see me come anywhere near an actual meaningful debate here. Just not worth it.
Since when is being true or fair...
Bloggers are not journalists(well, YOU are, I guess). There is no ethical standard, so if anyone wants to say that Macha's brain dead and that Wolff's a pathological liar, it's true!
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
WAY WAY too seriously...
indeed!
That said, I've been lurking on this site for a pretty long time (since the previous site design), and I do have some comments I'd like to make right now:
- The Dr. Phil fest is fun and all, but I think y'alls should just leave this stuff behind you and promise to try to be better people to each other in the future.
- Sometimes you just have to ignore people you don't like. It's the internet, folks. There are some screwed up kids out there!!
- Oaktoon mentioned that he was given a hard time for saying Blez's post was boring. I didn't see Oaktoon's post or Blez's response, so I can't really comment on that particular example. However, people should definitely have the right to criticize the site, so long as the criticism is constructive and is not personal.
- Your mommy's a big fatty!!! Oh, oops. I mean uh...
I like a lot of your comments, Oaktoon
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 9:02 AM PDT reply actions
well...
The actual phrase was "Is your last name dense"??
Hey, I'm human. Sometimes when I see people willfully ignore the facts of a situation and proceed to state an indefensible case-- and act as if they're the ones who are "Gods Gift"-- I respond.
Sorry if I've offended anyone.
Oaktoon
But you are hotheaded, and that's a problem. If someone disagrees with you, you can't attack their opinion. Leave all the fights with Grover and others out of this. Leave it in the past. Every time you make a snyde comment or remark, even if in good taste can bruise a persons ego and revive the old spites, especially when coming from you, the "bad" guy of the site. So lay off it, stay cool when stating your opinion. Things like typing in CAPS how thick peoples skulls are and how stupid we can be are insulting. You should refrain from that. After all, you are not God, so your say is not final. Remember that.
Other than that, i hope you keep doing what you are doing.
for the record
ZITO WILL NOT BE TRADED, ETC... was in caps.
Thanks for the rest of your comments. I'm listening.
Ohad,
Oh ya, snyde=snide. :-)
by bigelephant on Apr 19, 2006 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
you just ruined my day
Bad joking aside, i'll be the first to admit that i've come a long way. I think it's most evident in my AN fantasy team, where i'm a serious title contender, and (in my own biased mind) the favorite.
you have a pretty good team
Beltre
another 3b
khalil greene (whitest black man in mlb) seems expendable since you have rollins at SS already. greene can't play any other position, plus he hasn't been doing well (until today).
you want to make room and acquire one?
I think
Saying "You're crazy for not thinking so-and-so needs to get called up" sounds a lot worse than saying "Well I disagree with you, I think so-and-so..."
See what I mean?
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
although i don't really care for
the people who should have their posting privileges taken away are ones that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. example:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comments/2006/4/18/232929/508/31#31
i've never formally complained about any users and i probably never will.
although i'd like to point out that part of the problem may be that you think the fact that you have an adopted vietnamese daughter is in any way relevant to whether or not your statement that the japanese and koreans were (not may have been) colluding against team USA is insulting.
now wait a minute
I acknowledged in my original post that there was a history of warfare and rivalry between the Koreans and the Japanese. No Asian stereotyping there.
In spite of that I thought the two teams had a common interest which might guide the outcome of a baseball game. In fact, I was wrong.
In the course of the discussion people made me out to be insensitive to the history of the region-- and that's when I pointed out that my cousin served in Korea for several years and I had had extensive discussions with him; that my wife's cousins had a father from Korea; and that my own family had adopted a baby girl from Vietnam. And I could have added that i have studied East Asian history and politics at a prestigious university from some reknowned scholars, but I figure that was overkill.
I simply used the last as the shorthand in the above post. So please don't add undeserved insult to undeserved injury by claiming that somehow I'm to be criticized for not fully understanding the Korean-Japanese emnity simply because I have a daughter from hanoi and have spent extensive time in Vietnam. That wasn't really the case.
your understanding of korean-japanese
but i wasn't the one who complained about it in the first place, and i don't really see how pointing that out was adding "undeserved insult to undeserved injury."
a user who appears to be sympathetic to your situation, thinks some people take this site way too seriously. i think many do, but surely you're one of them.
gosh.. how does this happen??
you said "insulting" in the previous post.. Not me
The issue wasn't whether "all" teams would have pride and self-respect-- but somehow a few people felt that my assumption was since both teams were Asian, that would lead to such an outcome, when in fact I never believed that and strenuously argued all the reasons why the Koreans and japanese would not be expected to behave in this manner. The understanding of Korean-Japanese emnity was most certainly the issue.
yes, i used the word "insulting"
my point was that adopted daughters are not "relevant to whether or not your statement that the japanese and koreans were (not may have been) colluding against team USA is insulting."
vietnamese daughters
not relevant
to whether or not
the statement was insulting
OK, I don't want to be grammar police here
"the fact that you think" daughter/relevant/Japan-Korea collusion
"is insulting".
Essentially what you said is that it is "insulting" for me to think that my daughter's country of birth was relevant to the debate.
Am I missing something??
read it again
i didn't not say that it was insulting for you to think that your daughter's birthplace was relevant.
it's partially my fault as the sentence was a little complex and confusing, but perhaps you should have asked me to clarify instead of misinterpreting and overreacting.
This is such a perfect example:
"part of the problem may be that you think the fact that you have an adopted vietnamese daughter is in any way relevant to whether or not your statement that the japanese and koreans were (not may have been) colluding against team USA is insulting."
but you read:
"the fact that you think" daughter/relevant/J-K collusion "is insulting"
so you have (unintentionally, I presume)
(i) turned "may be that you think the fact ... " into the much stronger "fact that you think"
(ii) turned daughter's assumed relevance to whether or not statement is insulting into daughter's assumed relevance is insulting.
Sometimes it seems as though you are assuming people are out to insult you. I would suggest that the number & nature of many of the comments here indicate otherwise, and that the majority of us want you to stay while finding a way to come of less prickly.
by green star oakland on Apr 19, 2006 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry...
That's cool
I think its a question about a question about a question (like back-to-back-to-back homers, only less fun).
The innermost questions (which are not being asked, but only commented on) are
(i) is the statement about J-K collusion insulting ?
and
(ii) is your having a Vietnamese daughter relevant to (i) ?
And the question about these is
(iii) is part of the problem that you think the answer to (ii) is yes ?
by green star oakland on Apr 19, 2006 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
nicely done
since you replaced my name with an asterisk in the previous comment, and are now comparing the sentence to home runs:
i'd just like to assure the public that the sentence in question was written without the aid of any performance enhancing supplements.
OT: collusion has certainly happened elsewhere
"The first round of the 1982 World Cup produced some fine football and some real surprises. It's a pity, then, that the game which made most impact was one that caused so much outrage that FIFA changed the rules for future World Cups to ensure that nothing similar could ever happen again.
In the opening game in Group 2, Algeria pulled off one of the all-time great World Cup upsets by beating West Germany 2-1. West Germany redeemed themselves in their next match [beating] Chile 4-1. Austria also beat Chile, and then overcame Algeria. But Algeria [beat] Chile ... 3-2.
That left a complicated situation in advance of the final game in the group, between West Germany and Austria. A draw or a win for Austria would eliminate West Germany and send Austria and Algeria through to the second round. A win for the West Germans by a margin of three goals or more would knock out Austria, and send West Germany and Algeria through. Significantly, however, a West German win by one or two goals would suit both the teams taking part in the last group game, allowing both of them to progress and eliminating the giant-killers from Algeria.
The game began conventionally enough, with West Germany attacking strongly. They soon made a breakthrough when Horst Hrubesch gave them the lead in the tenth minute. And then both teams seemed to stop trying. For the remaining 80 minutes, they simply passed the ball around listlessly, often slowing to walking pace, with neither side making any serious attempt to score. The crowd, which included many Algerians, whistled and jeered furiously, but the farcical match was played out to achieve the result that suited both sides - a narrow West German win. Despite their two wins, Algeria were eliminated on goal difference."
by green star oakland on Apr 19, 2006 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions
no doubt it has
speculating after the fact based on what happened in a game would be different.
I bet you'd get along great with Johnny and Sally
Seriously
Millions.
The only difference the Japanese had between their German allies is that their killing was not in camps but indiscriminately in the aftermath of battles, which I think is worse.
Just because you have an adopted Vietnamese daughter does not make you immune to this. You made an insensitve comment ingoring my history. Do you know how many racist/racially insensitive comments I've endured from elderly white ladies who compare me to their Chinese son-in-laws or their half-Chinese grandchildren? Lots, because supposedly all us Asians look alike.
Just because you're liberal that doesn't mean your immune from chagres of racial insensitivity. Trust me, I've heard many a patronizing comment about the Asian race from so-called liberals.
I don't make sweeping generalizations about white people, black people, arabs or latins. So why is it OK for you to make a sweeping generalization about Asians based on supposed anti-American sentiment?
I believe that no matter what America does to China or Korea, the Chinese and the Koreans will still hate the Japanese more.
Do you think for one moment the Koreans would conviently forget that the Japanese tried to obliterate their culture so that the US would be eliminated from the WBC?
Puh-leeze.
I asked for an apology but I'm still waiting for one. Perhaps I'm the one who's overreacting, then I'm sorry. But can't you accept at elast some small share of the blame?
If you forgive me, I'll forgive you, it's that simple.
by secret ASian man on Apr 19, 2006 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I've never had a problem with you...
thank you.
I agree Poppy
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 19, 2006 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Great post
In Weighing You're Contributions on AN
The sharing of opinion about something in common is one of the factors that can constitute friendship. In that light, I have considered you a friend.
Be true to yourself first and foremost but if you decide to leave, you will be missed.
If I may 'toon
FWIW I personally look forward to your opinions and commentary. Let me ask you a question, feel free to ignore me: In your daily dealings in life, do you find people receive your opinions about things in a similar fashion as they are sometimes here? What I'm getting at is that you seem like the kind of person who has trouble being on a team, or allowing others, whom you may not agree with, have their say without you taking it as personal. Does that resonate with you?
Another question, again, if I may: Do you find that you can sometimes be perceived as blunt, or un-feeling? Let me elaborate with a personal experience. I currently work in a technical support environment for field technicians (not end-users), so our customers are generally well versed in their subject matter. One of my co-workers gets complaints about her a lot, not because she's incompetent, but because she can often be perceived as blunt or rude. In reality she's not that way at all, she just comes off that way on the phone. It seems like your often quick responses are often perceived this way, do you mean for them to be?
Actually, when people bring up something you did or said in the past, no matter how 'ribbingly, they are actually just showing you love. I hate to break it to you, but you are a popular personality in this community, again, it seems to me that you often take things personally.
I'll keep going if any of this makes any sense to you.
-eamb
I know that's true
But not with some... and they're obviously the ones who went to Daddy.
As to the rest of my life, you'd be surprised. Obviously AN is an outlet of some sorts-- but believe me-- if I am this way in real life, it's in a very constructive fashion and I work extremely well in a "team"-- and in fact must do so all the time.
Some people know what i do and will understand this comment-- for those who don't I'll simply say that I am nowhere near as much of a jerk there as I can sometimes be here.
Again, if I may ask
- You state an opinion.
- Someone else on the team states their opinion, which directly contradicts yours.
not what happens
If it is the way you describe, no biggie.
But many, many times it's not. And then it does get personal, unfortunately.
OK
I'd like to add, re: perception
"impassively?"
PASSIVELY. Or unempassionedly? How's that? Jebus.
and because she likes talking to herself
If I start drooling, just hit the side of my head a few times.
With no lack of irregardlessness to passion
That hurts.
Of course, webcams could help
I take issue with almost everything you write
That said, whether you intend it or not, a LOT of your comments can be interpreted as super-arrogant. I have the same problem when I communicate electronically. Just be more cognizant of that when addressing others online, and your AN life will be a long one.
Banned? On a Sports Board?
No, it's not Draconian
It's clear that vast majority of the AN community wants this to be a place that's BETTER than most sports fan sites. Where clever passionate dialogues can take place without obnoxious and insulting sniping.
This is a community, and the community gets to decide what we want this place to be. And we want some reasonable controls.
For those who want to say whatever they want without consequence, there are other places to go.
by SportySpice @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Just to be clear
by SportySpice @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I see your point.....
Sir! I am offended!
i think you may have offend more then you know
by bigelephant on Apr 19, 2006 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Sirs or Madams:
As for Monkeyball, seems to me this whole incident proves that stercus accidit.
now THAT's some overeducated profanity!
i stand corrected,
too much education
While I don't know the whole story
either way, it would be a shame to see oaktoon banned...
I tend to agree here
<runs amuk>
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions
it's AMOK!
(that was a joke)
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I've decided to temporarily...
Dammit. "well-meaning-but-sarcastic" is a disclaimer. This is really hard.
DAMMIT! "This is really hard" is a disclaimer, too!
I've never run amok
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 19, 2006 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
but how many times has amok struck you out?
It's like this
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 19, 2006 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
You should not get banned:
To ban someone who is a regular contributor to the "Originating" of diaries that actually take thought would be a mistake.
If you are banned. You might have some fun here:
http://forums.espn.go.com/espn/forum?room=mlb_oak
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 9:59 AM PDT reply actions
This is a main reason I find it hard to post a lot
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 10:00 AM PDT reply actions
SAVE Oaktoon!
Oaktoon
From my viewpoint, it does seem like certain members come at you with a "raised nose". I would definitely steer clear from AN Elitists, and continue to create your own path. F-the-Naysayers.
Just my opinion, of course.
I speak only for myself..
If people have taken the time to complain about things you have said or the way you've acted, maybe you can try to see if there's a way that you can still express yourself without being abrasive. I don't think people take issue at all with your opinions. It's mainly the negativity that they don't want to deal with. We can disagree without slighting each other.
problem is...
The whole thing is anathema to everything I've ever learned about how a democratic system works. I would think that the internet would advance such ideals, but I guess not.
pros and cons of the anonymous reporting
Myself, I decided that if I was going to report anyone, that I would announce myself as doing so in a response to the post in question. That didn't go so smoothly, and I rethought the issue; but I came to the same conclusion, that I'd be willing to show a little blood on my hands if I felt strongly enough to report someone.
It's a shame really...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, maybe..
I do agree, however, that you should be able to know who complained, so that you can smooth it over. It would not be productive, on the other hand, if you used that knowledge to defend yourself.
In my opinion, the best way to resolve a problem is to see the other side.
That's exactly why
As I said, the system isn't perfect, but it's been good to help keep the personal attacks to a bare minimum which is one of my main goals.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
blez
<self-censors smart-ass comment ...>
Whoops! ;)
And, 'toon, I don't say this often enough, but I love you, man (if, indeed you are -- or even if you're not -- a man)! I hope you know that my ribbing is of the friendly variety. I also hope you don't get kicked out or leave of your own accord.
I'd give a big thumbs up to the first-level posts by ohad, poppy, and eamb above. Good stuff, sensible advice, and caringly given.
I'd also add (and this is something that I myself often have trouble following) that it's often wise to wait before posting something -- even something as inocuous as a one-line response -- and especially if it's a heated disagreement, to wait up to a day or more. Or sometimes to not even post a response at all, and let the other guy "win" with the last word.
As I say, something that I myself often have trouble following.
yeah, you do have trouble...
If you received the highest praise
by green star oakland on Apr 19, 2006 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
you're the grammar dude
"between oaktoon and ME"
To be totally honest, whenever I see an exchange between oaktoon and you, or oaktoon and grover, I skip the whole thing and go to my "safe place." Watching the three of you go at it is fated to be as disastrous as me making a fantasy baseball trade.
<flips red cape aside, waits for toro to circle back around>
I buy popcorn!
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Let me just chime in here
My goal in setting this site up was to make it a place where everyone would feel welcome to post their thoughts on the A's and the Athletics community could come together in one central place.
As the site grew, I was repeatedly dealing with people who were emailing me daily complaining about certain behavior on the site, but mostly the name calling and childish behavior you'll find on message boards. And that was one of my main goals in setting up the site was to avoid the message board garbage. I was routinely spending two or three hours a day answering these complaints (yes, it was that much). Since the community guidelines were put in place, we have rarely received complaints. It's been a huge weight lifted off my shoulders because the subcommittee has done an excellent job in handling complaints.
Is it a perfect system? Probably not. But a perfect system doesn't exist. I've always been told that part of the reason people love AN is because they don't have to deal with nearly as many infantile behavior problems as they do elsewhere. To me, that says it's working.
And oaktoon, just don't call anyone a name. It's that simple. I'll also instruct the subcommittee to look out for anyone baiting you as many have claimed. If that transpires, they will also get a warning. But seriously, just ignore, my friend. Ignore.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 10:30 AM PDT reply actions
IRONY:
With all due respect to every memeber of AN, it's CGV Comittee, the author of the diary I am to speak of, and anyone else who may be remotely offended I was wondering if anyone else thought it was downright ironic that we have this here diary, and 2 clicks away we can read about Loaiza's decent start and it's correlation to a Taco Truck. This is where perceptions can be a tricky thing. I realize some folks are consistently negative, and some do it without realizing it, and some do it and totally get away with it. Sometimes something you type is misunderstood. Sometimes people are just plain jerks. A CGV is a CGV is a CGV. Should I go run out and report it? Perhaps I am sensitive about Mexican-American relations right now. Perhaps we can put the whole damn thing into perspective. This kind of stuff is only harmful to the community as a whole. Can there not be a middle ground? Can there not be a resolution that is suitable for all parties involved? (Am I sticking my nose where I shouldn't and should just go away now? lol)
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 10:37 AM PDT reply actions
Oops...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
You have such a cool signature, you can stay
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
jeez
I enjoy reading you Oaktoon even though I disagree with a lot of what you write. You do come off as a little arrogant at times to drive your point home, but thats part of what I have come to expect and enjoy from your posts. I dont think theres anything wrong with a little ribbing here and there. AN regulars dont seem to take anything personal. It seems that some people who get into an argument with you, are LOOKING for an insult or potential CGV
(I'm pissed off at this guy because he doesnt agree with me, 'whats that did he just call me stupid????....GRRR')
I hope you dont get banned, or leave whatever, because its the mix of personalities and opinions that make this site interesting and fun.
Up until the oaktoon situation
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah
I definetly agree that its working much better with the sub committee. 40 days without a complaint is awesome considering the size of this place.
by pickinmachine on Apr 19, 2006 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
we need one of those workplace-safety signs!
Style and substance
The problem, as others have said, is largely one of style. Your posts exude arrogance, and differences of opinion quickly become personal. Yes, it takes two for this to happen, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the extent to which you are responsible.
I also think you're missing the point when people give you crap about your famous flip-flop. It's not just that you changed your mind. We've all changed our mind, or been proven wrong, numerous times about various players. The real issue is that the negative posts and the positive posts were both filled with that same implicit (and sometimes explicit) attitude that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
And finally, your references here to "snitches," "thought police," and "running to Daddy" really don't help your case. For the record, I've never "snitched" on anyone either, but I'm glad there are some standards here, and I don't think even "garden-variety insults" should be encouraged. It's admittedly a fine line: some say they are driven away by too many rules, but others are driven away by insults, profanity, and what can seem like a generally unfriendly atmosphere. There is no perfect solution, but I think Blez has done a pretty good job in striking a balance.
In the final analysis, maybe you need to ask yourself why you want to post on AN. If you're here just to spout your own opinions, prove how smart you are, and never really listen to anyone else, then good riddance. But if you think that among the many idiots here there are actually some other smart people with worthwhile opinions and ideas that you might not have thought of, let your posts reflect that a little more. It's really not that hard.
Very well said
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm going to stop posting on AN
thanks, andeux!
Oh no
(And thanks sal, but don't sell your own contributions short (Pun originally not intended))
I confess!
no kidding, well said.
Agreed on the flip flop issue
When the A's would never LOSE another game, we were all idiots for daring to suggest otherwise.
The condescension killed me. As if he had no idea what he had been saying for months.
My honest opinion ...
Here is one example of something that I absolutely believe is worthy of a strike. I also take very serious issue with your continued unwillingness to realize that your racial sensitivity isn't measured in your own feelings about it. I think it's awesome that you adopted a Vietnamese daughter, but that certainly does not give you the right to decide whether or not Asian folks should be offended by your comments.
That said, you also contribute quite a bit to the site. You may be the most frequent diarist there is. Somtimes it seems that you write more often than Blez. Not only that, but most of your contributions are very worthwhile. Ultimately, I think you contribute more positive to this site than negative.
The rules are the rules, though, and I really hope that you take this opportunity to think about why you got to this point and that you focus on the good things that you contribute to this site, while, hopefully cutting back on the bad things. I would be disappointed to see you go but I can't say that it would be unfair if it happened.
To both you and andeux
I like the team.. a lot.
I like the sport.. a lot.
I am passionate about both-- and this site gives me a chance to express my passion-- which is hard living 1500 miles away.
Why are any of us fans-- a word that derives from "fanatic"??
Now the way i exhibit my passion is to take sides-- to have opinions-- and to defend them fierecely. I think you'll find that when i cross the line-- and again i wish that line didn't exist except in much more serious instances of written abuse or insensitivity--it is generally because someone else has been insulting first and/or, in fact, "dense"-- meaning, in this case, that they simply disregarded the facts put in front of them.
And when it's both then I probably really ramp up.
So maybe I shouldn't so easily. It's a fair criticism. And sometimes I like to be the provocatuer-- it spices things up around here.
But I ain't really gonna change because two people-- and I'm sorry, I think "snitch" is the most accurate way to describe it-- or perhaps more, decided they didn't like it. I'll skirt as closely as I can around the edges trying not to get banned. I will continue to try to never fire an unfair first shot. But I ain't gonna go all Kumbaya on you, that's for sure. Nico himself has the been person that has chosen to insult me a few times rather than debate an issue-- did I report him?
Of course not. never have and never will.
I wouldn't say "snitch" ...
Anywho ... back to the psyciatrist's couch ....
there's a big difference between saying, 'you're missing the point, what I said was ....' and saying, "no, stupid point...I did it that way precisely because the injuries won't be staggered. Please use some intelligence, people."
The difference, my friend, is a cgv. No one minds others being passionate about defending their beliefs. Grover and I don't actually agree on much except that the A's are about the most wonderful thing in the world short of the women in our lives, but we still manage to be not only civil ... but friends. Neither one of us has ever called the other a name ... well, except me calling him Canadian, which, admittedly is pretty mean ... and we play in fantasy leagues together - and we can still argue endlessly over the Hudson trade and the excistance of a sophmore slump.
CANADIAN!
You just wish you could be Canadian too!
by bigelephant on Apr 19, 2006 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
all ten of them, they need to go 1st.
by bigelephant on Apr 19, 2006 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
All Canadian-American citizens ...
Whatever.
retaliation and other lame excuses
The CGs also don't say "don't attack anyone personally unless you are a knowledgeable person who often write interesting diaries." They say don't attack people personally. It's so very, very, very simple.
If someone insults you, you have two legitimate choices: ignore it, or report the insult as a CGV. Retaliating by insulting the person back is not one of the allowed options under the CGs. And I personally completely agree with that policy.
It's a pity if someone who has a lot of real worthwhile insights to share is unable to restrain himself from retaliation. But the CGs apply equally to everybody. That's as it should be.
by matthias on Apr 19, 2006 11:16 AM PDT reply actions
Well, i don't
it's a horrible system.
Let people argue back and forth some-- it never gets out of hand... it always ends at some point. And the insults are mild.
There's a lot of complaining
I will NOT have AN turn into the MLB message boards. Sorry, but I refuse to let it happen. I created this place to get away from that juvenile behavior. To me, it's simple, stay away from personal insults and racist and homophobic remarks and you're fine.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
and your definition
That's where you lose me-- Blez...
And essentially I'm being told to a) either be different than who you are. because if I keep offering up opinions I'll keep getting insulted. and then I have to continually turn the other cheek. maybe the Puritans could do it, but I can't; b) turn into a snitch myself. That's a non-starter; or c) Don't post so much since I get no credit for praise, humor, thought-provoking commentary, or simply information but only risk censorship or being banned when I say something that pisses someone off.
And if those are my choices.... you have a poor system, Blez. And I said so at the beginning, I believe.
Still waiting for a suggestion
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
maybe there can be a daily thread:
It can be called, "In Memory of Rez's Love of Oakland"
This is nearly like a family and sometimes family memebers need to take one another out back and clear the air.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Cold Comfort Farm-Team
by green star oakland on Apr 19, 2006 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
LOL
He may not feel that way because he chooses not to report violations, but to me, that's on him. If someone is personally insulting him, he needs to bring it to the subcommittee's attention. The system is in place to try and make this a welcoming environment for everyone. Yes, it's like an online bar, but you can also get kicked out of a bar for repeatedly insulting people.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually like the idea
by rubin sierra on Apr 19, 2006 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't recall if this was covered
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 19, 2006 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Excuse me, my friend
Here's what i believe.
I don't give a hoot about some secret Star Vhamber of four people who thought I offered "personal insults". I wasn't given a chance to defend myself-- to offer up a context-- to know who my accuser was.
Unless and until you add those features, what you have here is not democratic in any way, but in fact an autocracy bordering on totalitarianism (Of course in a ridiculously trivial context, so don't go jumping on me, fellow ANers for likening Blez and Nico to Hitler and Stalin!! I did no such thing!!! Merely pointing out that it is those type of societies where people can be sent "away" without ever knowing who reported them or having a chance to defend themselves)
And again to get more serious about it-- what exactly is a "personal insult"?? I think most of us can tell if someone's being racist, homophobic or otherwise insensitive in a mean or discriminatory fashion.
But when-- out of total context-- person A can say "he insulted me" and has the power to eliminate person B's expression, that's wrong.
If you review all the discourse between grover and me, you'll find in almost every situation that he offered the initial insult, and often the next, and that I only fired back in response to his intransigence. Someone can say "I'm full of crap".. a bs artist.. and worse-- and if I retort with a pretty mild comeback, I'm the one that goes to the penalty box.
Bad system, again... give people chance to defend themselves and it might be better.
"context"
This isn't about "eliminating your expression" or trying to fundamentally change who you are -- unless, of course, a key part of your persona is, in fact, tied to insulting people.
I'm the insultee
so what?
Tossing an insult at someone is a CG violation, regardless. If you choose not to report someone when they insult you, that's your choice, and one that I respect.
You can't have it both ways, though: by choosing to not report, you lay down your only licit "weapon" to respond. Responding to insults with insults just ain't an option.
"Unfair" or not, that's the system that's in place (until such time as someone makes a different suggestion to Blez and he adopts it).
Can Someone Please pass the...
you're just rubbing sult in the wound
Better That, than...
Yeah, but at least you know
Monkey see, monkey doo
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 19, 2006 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I heard that
And by the way
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
So it wasn't "my"
And why is it that you've repeated multiple times that AN isn't "my" site, it belongs to the community, but when it comes to this system, it's "my" system? The majority of the community contributed to this system and felt that it was good thing to keep this blog from turning into one of the thousands of juvenile ones out there.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you're hiding behind your robes here.
How does it give no confidence?
If you can, please enlighten me. I'm open to suggestions as this place is not totalitarian. I'm more than willing to hear what it is that you have to say.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
My fundamental gripe
If your subcommitee had come to me and said: "there's been a complaint. By two ANers. Here's what they said"
What's your response? I could have defended myself and if then you still want to give me a strike, at least I had a hearing... and I might understand a little better how the system works.
I can't speak for the "dense" comment-- which I think was unbelievably trivial-- but if as I recall the "don't read my mind" comment was a retort aftera long discourse with grover, I can't believe that my "strike" would hold up when people really reviewed the evidence of what went on.
The other thing, Blez... is that you and i can certainly agree that i am a somewhat controversial figure in this space. Some people do, in fact, cold cock me, as others have noted in this discussion. They lie in wait just loving to nail me when they think I've been wrong, or inconsistent... Again I don't happen to think that having the "right" to report them to the authorities is any great shakes-- i find it silly.
But for all I know one or two of them serve on your committee-- so how am I assured at getting a fair hearing?? All of this acts to censor me-- and I simply ask you, since you are the creator of this space- is that what you want? because if it is I'll take my mouse and go home.
How can you defend yourself
And AN collectively made these people part of the subcommittee. So the majority rules here. That's not me being totalitarian. That's the community will.
If you feel you are being unfairly attacked, REPORT THEM. I know you apparently think like a mobster and don't want to be a rat, but you have the same protection that anyone else who visits this site has. You should be free from personal attacks and insults and THAT'S what I'm striving for. You can find it silly or goofy, but that's the system we have. I find much about capitalism silly, goofy and terribly unfair, but that's the system I live in, so I deal with it. You can always choose to leave if you don't like it. There are hundreds of other message boards and blogs that will gladly accept personal attacks as a part of their community just to get you there. I choose not to. If that makes AN's traffic suffer and people not want to come here, so be it. I want this place to be better than that.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
OK. I understand
You're obviously not prepared to listen.
You're obviously not prepared to offer any "due process"-- "either it's a personal attack or it isn't" are your exact words, Blez. Black and white. Your words, not mine.
I think you've just proved my point. I'm sorry to say it, but this makes me think the system is even more worse and unfair than i originally believed.
I don't think the word "dense"-- particularly in a context where people are either ignoring or refuting basic facts-- is a particularly strong "personal attack". if I was allowed to review "the tapes"-- as it were, I think I could make a pretty good case of it. But you don't want a judicial process.
I won't report because I think that is a far greater sin in this community of expression than the sin of an occasional slur or insult-- so long as it doesn't cross the line and become really mean-spirited. The last thing I would want to do to grover or anyone else who gets their jollies from attacking me is to go complain.
so again I simply say give people a chance to a) know their accuser and b) defend themself. For you to make a very snide assumption about how I would do that-- which you just did with your "come from another country where dense actually means "possessing great knowledge?-- and by the way that piece of sarcasm was worse than my original "dense" comment, but I ain't reporting you now, am I, blez??-- speaks volumes about your true sense of fairness.
I'm disappointed in you, Blez. You're defensive. You're unfair. You're simply humoring me when you ask for my advice of a better system and then dismiss it so cavalierly.
I can better justice from the Sopranos, to be honest.
Dude...
- Did you even read what he posted before you responded?
- If you have a problem with someone goading you into an insult, REPORT THEM before it escalates!
- Why are you blaming grover?
- How on earth is BLEZ unfair? You called people names, you got two strikes, and for the seventh hundred time, he didn't issue them. You want due process? Four separate people vote on whether or not the comment you made that someone brought to their attention violated the community guidelines. Which, in two cases, it obviously did.
- I've seen you insult a lot more than two people on this site. You're probably lucky that two strikes is all you have.
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
not my place...
I have to agree with oaktoon here. I respect Blez very, very much and what he does to keep this place rolling. However, it is rather dissapointing to read things from Blez along the lines of "you apparently think like a mobster" (is that NOT a personal attack? Can anyone clarify for me?), something earlier along the lines of still waiting for that suggestion "big guy". From my perspective, that is baiting. That is also a personal attack. I expect the leader and founder of this communtiy to adhere to his own policies and rise above the situation and refrain from dropping down to the level which is obviously tolerable for some more so than others. Oaktoon raises a legitimite concern over provacation, and the ability to defend his actions. Honestly, keeping the current system in place with the addition of at least being able to speak your half is not only fair, but in my opinion mandatory. There is no black and white, sorry. There are always going to be gray areas. If one side has the platform to communicate the complaints, should the other side not have that same right and platform with which to defend themself? Adding this would not turn this into a run-of-the-mill message board. THis is a beautiful site, and this very diary and some of the postings within are a huge blemish.This has left an extremely sour taste in my mouth, especially following some of the interaction. Blez, I have always been a huge supporter, and love and respect what you do so much. This is all very dissappointing to me, for whatever that is worth to anyone.
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Mobster ...
While Blez' statement may have been a bit overly general, possibly indicating that he thinks Oaktoon might be involved in murder, bootlegging and other nefarious deeds, I think it's a pretty accurate and fair characterization of Oaktoon in that regard.
While I agree that the CGV system has some theoretical problems - the fact that it has come into play so infrequently and that Oaktoon only has two strikes to this point reassures me that it is being operated fairly and with a strong preference for giving folks the benefit of the doubt.
attention fantasy drafters!
I'm sure I've checked my swing a couple times
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
this is exactly my point Devo...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not on the committee ...
I might be peaved if the government operated that way (ignoring instances when it does .... la la la ... I can't year you) or if my employer did - but this is a blog that Blez has kindly made available to us through his own hard work and dedication, so the fact that the system seems to be effective and fair, even if it has theoretical flaws, is good enough for me.
I can dig it, but you are missing my point....
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure ... it can be construed as a personal attack
Where is the line drawn? Well, that's largely up to the community. The line is drawn where we see fit to report violations. With the number of times that Oaktoon has flat out called people stupid I am, frankly, pretty shocked that the community has drawn as lenient a line as we have.
But, yes, the rules are the rules for everyone and the line is drawn where we choose to draw it.
I don't feel as confident...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree ...
But, regardless, personal attacks are not OK, period and it's up to the CGV panel to determine what actually constitutes a personal attack. It's not their (or Blez') fault if Oaktoon isn't willing to play within the rules of the system.
Ok, but for the 1,000th time...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I think ...
While I agree that all personal attacks should be discouraged, I think as mature, reasonable people, we can tell the difference between something that would be better left unsaid but isn't a big deal and something that should be punished.
I understand your argument for a hard line. I disagree ... it's cool, we can still be friends ... right?
Absolutely...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
get on in here, big guy* ...
Oaktoon...
* Big Guy wasn't an insult ever, merely a baiting tactic. I recall something outlined in the guideline about sarcasm and baiting and whatnot, but who cares at this point, right. Blez said it, not Oaktoon. (Again, j/k.)
<Reluctantly participates in group hug with other males, in a very paranoid manner>
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Come on Oaktoon ...
big guy
That is exactly the way the process
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Please...
by LD on Apr 19, 2006 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll just skip to the end ...
"I think ... (none / 0)
we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
While I agree that all personal attacks should be discouraged, I think as mature, reasonable people, we can tell the difference between something that would be better left unsaid but isn't a big deal and something that should be punished.
I understand your argument for a hard line. I disagree ... it's cool, we can still be friends ... right?"
Fair 'Nuff...
At least we can all usually agree on one thing:
FIRE MACHA NOW!!!
by LD on Apr 19, 2006 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Devo...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I understand ...
I just get to spout off endless drivle, without any consequences .... god bless the internet ; )
PNB
My whole point is that I've removed myself largely from the equation. I felt that looking after the site was better if it was in the hands of the community. For me, this system has worked well. And the fact that only 10 or so people have been banned in a nearly three-year history of the site tells me that it's working and working well.
I don't see logistically how we would set up a system for someone making a counter argument to a reported violation. But perhaps it is something to consider. I just don't know how it would logistically and I'm not convinced that it would make any difference. But as always, I'm more than willing to listen to the community if that's what it wants.
I still don't think that revealing who made the complaint is good for anyone and I don't think anyone could convince me otherwise. There would hostility and a lot of other stuff there, making it less likely that people would feel comfortable lodging a complaint.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Blez...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
You can't give them the chance to respond
The thing is, PNB...
I occasionally think that about other posters' comments, but not NEARLY as frequently as with him.
It's a testament to this site, and the leniency people show that there haven't been more things reported, which seems to me like things that were reported were so blatently, obviously insults that they were no-brainers.
But again, just my opinion. Your mileage may vary. ;)
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I know...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks baseball girl
I think you and people who feel like you are dead wrong- of course-- if you want a "nicey-nice" site, you can have it. But at least you've been honest and open about it.
Why-- instead of further besmirching me knowing no harm will come to you-- don't you list the 40 times I've praised Blez... or tried to get people to laugh... or said something nobody else had thought about... or raised an issue worth debating??
see-- that's the problem with people like you who are looking to stamp out dissent. You are quick to find the negative and not willing to consider the entire picture. it's a narrow-minded and ultimately destructive way to live.
What the hell?
Congratulations, you got your wish.
Trust me, if I was out to report you, you would have had three strikes WELL before now.
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
re
You get 5 points for "praising Blez", 10 points for "original thought" and -10 for "insulting people".
Oaktoon, its great that you bring up interesting topics ---even if people don't always agree with you--, but why do you have to insult people along with it?
Furthermore, there is a difference between wanting a site where nobody disagrees with anyone (your so-called "nicey-nicey" site that you seem to think bbgirl wants), and a site where its uncomfortable to be because you don't know when you might be insulted. AN will never be the former (thank god!), and because of the system in place it will never be the latter (thank god!)
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
let's be real, Ok???
There was a very strong element of "pack" behavior in that reaction.... to the point that obviously I felt pretty isolated and beat upon. And I'm sure I didn't help matters by arguing so vociferously for the teams' talents-- most people on this site are more cautious, for better or worse-- but that's how I felt. So shoot me.
All of which has created a dynamic here where-- as several others have attested today-- people lie in wait to get me, to pounce on any perceived slight--
so yes context matters. I can praise the world and be on my best behavior for 90% of the time-- but when I do or say something that I alone am gonna get clobbered for-- and again, the insults generally start with someone else-- then I alone have to turn the other cheek-- according to your logic-- or risk expulsion from the site.
If you can't see that-- than I'm sorry. But it is the reality.
but don't you think
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Re:
I won't speak for others, but I don't enjoy teasing you not because of your flip-flop. I do enjoy teasing you because both the flip and flop were accompanied by certainty bordering on, in my view, arrogance. You might do well to consider that it's not what you say, but how you say it.
I was right the 2nd time
Ok now...
What gives you the right to feel that way about another human being? "I do enjoy teasing you because..." That my friend is very, very ugly and nasty. Regardless of how arrogant he may be, it does not make him any less of a person. It's really disappointing to me to read this stuff come out of some of you folks. Maybe I thought way too highly of some of you too begin with. That's just downright uncalled for though, one should never derive pleasure from teasing someone else, especially in any kind of self-righteous manner.
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Operative word: tease.
I haven't been reported to CGV yet, so I assume that people are okay with it. If you think if anything I say is a CGV, report me, and hopefully I'll learn from my mistake. My understanding is that CGV is an anonymous process, so you or anybody else shouldn't have any problems reporting me. If I offended someone - well, I won't say I'm sorry, because I probably won't be - but I will stop so that we can have a civil community.
Salb...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
1027 ...
I definitely treat people differently on the site. There are my friends who I've known a long time and we kid around with each other and tease and we know it's all in good fun.
Then there are people who I don't have that sort of relationship with and with them I'll mostly just stick to the facts.
Then there are people who I just flat out don't like. (JRBH and Reztips have been the only folks to make this category)
I can comfortably put everyone on this site in one of those three groups, except one person. You've got it, the 'toon.
Most of the time I feel like he's cool, we can get our baseball on and have good discussions and we can josh each other a bit and it's just Oaktoon being Oaktoon ... and things are going along swimmingly until he inevitably says something that makes me want to sock him.
We have a long, established relationship, so I can't put him in group #2 ... and most of the time I like him, so group #3 is out ... but he doesn't fit comfortably into group #1 either ...
so, yeah, it's hard to know how to interact with him ...
but, seriously, AN's Good 'Ole Boys club is not only open to everyone of any gender or other demographic characteristic - it's very open to anyone who wants to join. Just talk to us, we're not picky. I mean, seriously, we let Sal in ... There are a lot of long established relationships here and, obviously, we treat each other in a certain manner based on that ... but, while I hate crowded bars in real life, there's plenty of room for more regulars here.
I dunno if I'm actually getting at anything you were saying - I am kinda dense after all ... just kinda rambeling ... feel free to stop me at any time.
Be careful...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I think there is pretty much a consensus
I think at least 95% of the folks who have posted in this thread would more or less agree that Oaktoon generally contributes quite a bit to the site but he also too frequently says things that are rude and mean in a way that stands out from the rest but that such statements are unique mostly in their volume and to a smaller extent their magnitude, but are not unique in their basic nature.
I don't think anyone, including Oaktoon, thinks he's actually innocent. I don't even think that anyone except Oaktoon thinks he's not more over the top than anyone else.
It's rare that he says anything that is really, taken on its own, all that horrible - but he definitely has repeatedly established this as a central aspect of his online personality. I don't think anyone except the man himself would disagree with that.
You're absolutely right that we we should all look within too. I try to ... I'm not perfect, but I try. If someone criticizes me, I assume there's a reason and I try to figure out why. We should always take it upon ourselves to get along with others and not just expect others to get along with us.
I think I'm rambeling again ... but you shouldn't worry about overstepping your bounds ... you're one of us too. You have all of the same rights and priviliges that I do. But its important to note that the reason we had a long discussion about the behavior of one member is because he started a discussion about himself.
And given the impending
speaking as a serial teaser myself ...
I'd say something touchy-feely about how we should all try to recognize one another for the complete, well-rounded human beings we are ... but that's not the way it works.
So, 'toon, you are who you are, and your online persona is what it is -- just try to dial it back a hair.
That was just wrong, man....
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Cap'n Crunch is dense and stupid
You're one to talk about hair
Seems like...
Also, keep in mind that "worth debating" can be in the eyes of the beholder.
"No. It's Oakland."
No problem
To me though, oaktoon does himself a great disservice by not participating in them. If he feels people are baiting him, he should report it. Just because he thinks the rules are silly, it doesn't mean that he should ignore them. If I think the speed limit in California should be raised to 85 and I drive 85, I should expect to be punished if caught. I'm not always going to get caught by a CHP officer doing 85, but that doesn't mean the rules don't exist.
He has the same protection on the highway that anyone else here does.
As for your point about answering the charges, I can certainly add something like that if that's what the community wants. I just know that it will probably not have the desired impact that people think it will and I also think it will lead to people knowing who made the complaint, which is something I'd like to avoid if possible. That could lead to ill will all the way around.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
and to beat a dead horse
you said Soprano first-- could easily be termed an insult
you asked for a better idea, and when i suggested one, dismissed me with a very snide reference to a foreign country's interpretation of "dense". Insult #3.
Pot calling the kettle.. what now??
I'm being totally serious, now, Blez. Totally.
What you just did in the context of me trying to defensd myself and protesting what I believe to be an injustice-- in process and result--
is far worse than anything I said to get these strikes.
Someone else used the term "Double Standard", not me-- you just gave a textbook definition of that term. Shame on you.
Maybe I'm dense ...
but I don't know how calling someone "big guy" is an insult ...
but, regardless, if you think Blez has made a CGV, report him
and I don't even begin to see how you could think his comment about dense is an insult. If you call someone dense, that is a personal insult - it's pretty simple. Perhaps it's not a black and white issue, but your statement is "in black and white", which is actually what he said.
You're right that he probably should have responded to your suggestion with a little more tact. I personlly don't think it's practical and I explained why earlier but I think he was probably pretty annoyed at that point and wrote without thinking about what would be most effective beforehand.
And none of what he said even remotely rises to what you said in the comment I linked to, where you directly and unequivocally called salb stupid.
"You're stupid"
"You have certain undefined gangster-like tendencies"
Which one is a more serious personal attack?
Seriously, Oaktoon, no one is out to get you. The rules are the same for everyone and they are fairly and equitably applied. You earned your strikes and I'd be willing to bet that they came in instances that had nothing to do with Grover and Nico.
OK-- Here I go, friend
Not "you're stupid".
And there is a huge difference between those two statements.
SO for misleading AN about my statement and thus motives should I report you to CGV??
See it never ends, does it??
So because he doesn't agree with you...
Can't you see where someone might take some offense to that?!
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right ...
"stupid point...
I did it that way precisely because the injuries won't be staggered.
Please use some intelligence, people."
You don't use intelligence and say stupid things is what you actually said. That's much better.
here you go again
Obviously I disagree. Blez asked me to "come up with a better idea".
I did.
He immediately put it down-- in fact mocked it.
I do think that reaction-- given the context of this whole discussion-- was more harmful than me saying once to salb about some baseball thing, you made a "stupid point".
Some people are out to get me on this site-- and if you can't see that, I'm sorry. You just deliberately misquoted me-- why??
I'm sorry I misquoted you ...
I'm sure that if you came up with a full, thought out proposal about how, in reality the CGV system could be improved, Blez would consider it fairly. Simply saying that you should have the chance to defend yourself is not sufficient, though. This isn't a court of law. You don't have any inherint right to defend yourself - the only goal and concern is to make the community run as smoothly as possible. So how would you improve the system within that framework? How would you create a system that would work better for all ANers, not just Oaktoon? If you answer those questions thoughtfully, I'm sure Blez will consider it fairly.
amen
by Cutthemullet on Apr 20, 2006 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow!!!
This is f'ing nuts...Onto Baseball!!! Speakinf of "Onto" when was the year that he tried that miraculous comeback?
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions
why not???
"Onto"?
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Relativism is BS.
Suggestion...
by LD on Apr 19, 2006 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Whether or not I agree with you
But for you to get expelled from the site would be absolutely disgusting and a huge mistake, one that would make me question what is going on with this site.
Sometimes I think you are ridiculously off base, but at leats you have an opinion and get discussions going. I think that is extremely valuable on this site.
So like ya or not, I think this would be a HUGE mistake.
Agreed
by H3liCat on Apr 19, 2006 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
lol
Let me get this straight:
All this with Grover hiding in the weeds waiting to respond!
Oaktoon, I gotta hand it to you. You are a friggin' genius! I look forward to your own Blog and promise to be one of the first to become a member.
I have to admit
But trust me that's not why i did it. I was generally outraged and saddened by the turn of events.
ah,
Just calm down bud. I'II admit I been riding you on the flip-flop thing. But I won't anymore. It's probably just us old school guys with numbers below 750 who probably remember that anyway.
by bigelephant on Apr 19, 2006 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Now that it looks like this is calm:
There was a time last year when Oaktoon and I got into it and I was so ticked and riled by the way in which he communicated that i was absolutely DONE with this site.
I came back a couple of weeks later and all was cool.
But, man, sometimes the way you phrase things makes me want to wring your neck.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Apr 19, 2006 12:11 PM PDT reply actions
JERRY JERRY JERRY!!
by TrizzleNizzle510 on Apr 19, 2006 12:34 PM PDT reply actions
Toon-
I have the same problem talking to people of IM. Words cut like knives even when you meant them to only jab.
Stay with us
by AlBowe on Apr 19, 2006 1:19 PM PDT reply actions
Allright
by TheO4Ever on Apr 19, 2006 1:32 PM PDT reply actions
whoa
oaktoon = 616
the04ever = 615
the snitch! get the snitch harry!!!
Sorry, but how knowledgeable you are
As to the CGV system not being a true democracy, I must have missed the part where somebody promised a democracy. AN is just going for good conversation free of insults and typical message-board garbage. Does AN strive for fairness? Sure. Democracy? Blez is more democratic than your average bear, but that's just his choice.
So stay or go. Just know either way that it was entirely your choice. We all play by the same rules, and the rules are pretty clear.
And people call me arrogant??
That's a crock, Nico.
Again-- if I have no idea who's fingering me... if I have no idea who's judging me... if I have no idea when I'm been judged.. and no recourse to change the judgement.. and no ability to influence the judgement with my defense...
then the supposed freedom of expression and community spirit that the Internet and a site like this are supposed to produce have been corrupted from the start.
Instead of you and Blez getting on your high horse about this, I wish you would step back and at least pretend to listen to what I am saying. It's not fair. It's not open. It's so far short of democratic (and yes, I know weren't promised that particular rose garden) as to be something much worse.
but instead your solution is for me to constantly be walking around on eggshells.
Nah gonna do it-- OK, Steamroller??
Oh my gosh.
Defend:
HE WILL NOT BE TRADED NOW... IN MAY... IN JUNE... OR JULY BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
HE WILL NOT BE TRADED TO A TEAM THE A'S COULD MEET IN THE POSTSEASON.
HE WILL NOT BE TRADED. PERIOD.
When will you folks get that through your increasingly thick skulls??
what you're talking about.
Any idea how many are "feast or famine" hitters-- like Crosby-- as opposed to the "steady" kind??
Why don't you research it? bet the results surprise you.
huh??
Mulder and Zito pitched here together for nearly 5 years.
Crosby has played one and a half.
Is your last name "dense"?
We've been doing, reading, consuming, regurgitating, these predictions for weeks now.
I don't really see what this one adds to the mix, other than fulfill some unspoken responsibility for Blez as site founder/leader, etc. We've been over all this stuff umpteen times before.
So no offense Blez if I call it a big yawn-- OK??
Let's just play ball!!!
i simply said "no offense, but it's a yawn"-- OK-- imagine the yawn, for a moment. hardly a capital offense now, is it??
So don't going to try to read my mind-- you've got enough problems with the one you're carrying.
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Personally,
...I think some of those are rather humorous. Then again, they weren't directed at me (how could they POSSIBLY be, 'cuz I'm, like, really smart).
So I think that's why we have rules on postings. It does make for a somewhat blander e-world, but it's the price we pay for civil e-discourse. This is a huge-ish community, we're all guests here, and we have to respect the sensitivities of our most sensitive members.
OR start our own community for the thick-skinned. Always a possibility. Hell, I'd join.
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
For me,
Broken record, party of one.
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
OK then...
...good point. If it's constant, then, well...any humor isn't really humor anymore.
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Good-- glad you did it..
Two: "You don't know what you're talking about"-- was a rejoinder to grover-- of course-- in which he had just used a very small sample size to allege that Crosby was a super streaky hitter and thus unsuited for the 3 spot. That more consistent hitters would be better. This came well after he used terms like BS, crap, flipflopper and others to attack me. It describes the fact that I am relatively confident that most major league hitters are "streaky" and that the perceived weakness with Crosby might not be real. I think it's legit piece of commentary, and the fact that the normally thorough grover couldn't find evidence to challenge it suggests it is right. And obviously it is contained to just this point, not a larger conclusion about grover.
Number Three: this garnered me the strike. And as I read it I get more incensed at that judgement. grover and I had had a long discourse about Mulder vs. Zito-- in that discourse he had essentially chosen to ignore the comparative results of their rookie seasons in 2000. I said, in effect, "sure rookie seasons can vary and many players don't improve until after them, but this is a huge part of their service in Oakland and can't be ignored in judging their relative value to the team while both were here."
Then many days later in the midst of a totally different discussion-- Crosby and the 3 hole-- I pointed out that in this context Crosby's improvement from his rookie year to 2nd year-- was important. (and similar to many of the other contenders for the third spot in the order, by the way) Grover did essentially a "nah..nah..nah..nah" routine thinking he had trapped me with the Mulder comment-- and i, out of utter frustration with his inability to step back and consider the two contexts, replied "is your last name dense?" Given the context, he got off easy. In both cases he was the aggressor, a fact that I'm sure the CGV committee paid no attention to.
Number Four: seriously??? simply said that Blez' AL west prediction thread, delivered on Opening day after many similar threads and extensive reports of an on-line discussion featuring Blez and the other 3 site managers was a bit boring to me. Very mild criticism.. delivered in anything but a hostile way. As opposed to numerous examples of praise I have given him for his interviews and other activities.
Number Five: I absolutely felt that I was jumped on here. Blez got all testy and said, in effect, how dare you criticize me when I spent four hours on this? To which I replied, big deal-- that shouldn't matter-- is your time so precious??
Someone else-- might have been Nico, might not-- then tried to ascribe motives or something to me.. and others piled on in response to my original criticism.
This is a classic case of the "pack" having a huge impact and obviously the CGV committee-- who for all I know has elements of the pack on it-- didn't care. Again, you're asking me to be a saint. All the praise I heap on Blez-- criticize him once, and i get pounced on. Fight back..,. and I'm on the road to expulsion.
Thanks-- these examples are illuminating and make my point, not yours. if you want a "nicey-nice" site, then it's yours.
My point?
Who tells someone that their article is boring after they obviously worked hard on it and it really is something that people wanted to read? Who does that? That's not a CGV, but it's just an arrogant move. So is posting a game recap of your own after every game just to get it out before Blez's 'official' one. That's arrogance at its best.
Most of the posts you make in reply to others' opinions imply that someone is an idiot if they don't agree with you. Why do you have to do that? I think you are a good writer and you obviously know a lot about the A's. People appreciate your POV, but it is freakin' annoying to have you shoot people down all the time, and obviously some people are tired of it!
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions
game recap
But to be honest... why wait for the "offical" thread?? It's going to come... and people will respond to it-- including me-- and that's fine..
I just like to stir the pot a bit in other ways. What's so wrong about that?? See you all want to conform-- "oaktoon, why not wait for Nico's thread? For Blez' pronouncement?"
Why? What's the harm?
for such a stupid, dense pack ...
Oaktoon, it seems to me that none of this has to do with your actual opinions, or the unpopularity thereof.
It has everything to do with this: "I personally think that is far from a big insult." Yeah, it's not a big one ... but it is, as you implicitly concede, an insult. And you do it all the time -- to a broad swath ("pack") of the AN populace.
If every single time you'd simply typed "I disagree with your assertion" instead of denigrating the assertion or the asserter, there'd be no issue whatsoever.
Personally, I myself wouldn't have reported you for any single one of those insults. But insults they remain, and I understand the cumulative effect of them.
No one is trying to quash your dissenting opinion on anything here. I, for one, welcome your opinions, especially when I disagree with them. But when you and someone else start flinging poo at each other, I stop reading.
Really
It seems to me the examples above are very simply about a lack of civil respectful communication. Plenty of other people on this site show that you can be knowledgeable and passionate, disagree and find fault, and still stay civil and respectful. That's all you're being asked to do.
and I'm very civil and very respectful
on "numero uno"
i wasn't "offend" mainly because that's been the way oaktoon and i generally converse....which doesn't happen often. i can maybe understand why others may have been touched off but i usually ignore half of what he says anyway.
i'ii agree with oaktoon on this one item though. i happen to think this committee idea creates more problems then it's worth. i realize blez was getting sick of the emails sent his way with bitching and complaints about so-and-so said this and so-and-so said that. surely blez has a delete key on his incoming, right? now, having said that, i have no other better idea so i appreciate blez's dilemma.
my only advice on this big pile of goo is this-and it's already been said-ignore who and what you don't like and keep the rest. hell, my wife ignores me all the time!
I've got pretty thick skin in general, but ...
e.g.
- 'When will you folks get that through your increasingly thick skulls??' ... Maybe people deserved this, but in an online medium, it was probably unnecessary to 'verbalize' it. Point would've been made without the line.
- I had to reread this several times. Maybe it was the 'you don't know... what you're talking about.' Again, point could've been made without it.
- 'Is your last name "dense"?' Unnecessary, this one seems pretty clear-cut.
- This one didn't seem very bothersome, and sounded more like venting than an actual attack.
- 'you've got enough problems with the one you're carrying.' Could have left well enough alone after 'So don't going to try to read my mind'.
If I were to make a suggestion to the CGV however, I would recommend, in addition to looking at the context of the discussion, the possibility of issuing 'counter-strikes' if baiting seems to be evident. After all, if it's a mutual fight, a teacher should be sitting dwn both participants, not just who 'tells'. At least this way, it doesn't put people who aren't inclined to complain at a disadvantage in the system. That said, if that's already in place and the CGV agreed not to issue strikes against Oaktoon's debaters, then it would seem to be clear-cut.
P.S. I do find Oaktoon's diaries to be very thought-provoking, and they often do raise a very devil's advocate POV, which I find valuable.
I have asked the subcommittee to please
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Couldn't...
The subcommittee goes
But sometimes people just get offended by one person constantly insulting others. I think with most people it takes a good history of it before they report it. At least that's what I believe.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks
It would feel better around here if complaints only came from those the derogative comments were aimed at, was my only point, not questioning the process you have.
I've never had a problem with anyone
on this site besides the late great R**tips. Now THAT guy got my goat, and probably earned me a strike or two in retrospect.
I also think email messages/board postings lack the personal interaction of a real conversation. My friends and I give eachother grief all the time, and verbally calling eachother "dense" would be pretty mild, comparatively. Unfortunately, that type of...(sarcasm?/witticism?/just kidding-ness?) doesn't come through in this medium very well, and people get insulted sometimes.
So I reckon Nico is right -- the rules are there and should be followed. Board postings aren't "real" conversations, and in a "real" conversation, there's all kinds of vocal intonations, facial expressions, and body language that say "Aw, I'm just messing with ya". Unfortunately, that doesn't come thru in this medium.
Even if you end every sentence with ;-)>. Jesus, that drove me crazy.
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 2:45 PM PDT reply actions
Uh oh...
could it be....?
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh my gosh!!
by baseballgirl on Apr 19, 2006 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Tee hee!
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Posting a response down here
Oaktoon-I still think if you stepped back and took a little time, made sure you realized what the other person was saying, it would be different. Because i agree with others, your posts can be arrogant, snotty, and rude. Try and change that.
Who cares?
I disagree with your assertion ;)
I agree that each individual 'toonism (and by that I mean the insults, not his overall posts or arguments) doesn't amount to much. But he's a feisty critter, and there are a lot of 'em.
I'd like to see him stick around too
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 19, 2006 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
As I've said
I don't want toon to go away either. I think he provides some good stuff here. That OPS diary yesterday was really well done. But, per his own admission, he likes to rile people up and when you do that, inevitably you will cross the line.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2006 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'd like to see him stick around too
Me too. And hopefully everyone sees this diary as a healthy thing -- I think it is.
And I agree -- I wish some people would have thicker skins. But from a practical standpoint, an online "community" is only as thick-skinned as its most sensitive members. As much as I'd like to type "Ah shaddap" sometimes, and I would think it was funny if I did it, some people wouldn't think it was funny. Then I'd get reported to the SUV committee, or whatever it's called. It just is what it is, and I play by those rules.
It's just a practical matter -- how many members are here anyway, Blez? -- that you have to take everyone's sensibilities into consideration in an e-"community". In a real-life, physical, brick-and-mortar, skin-eye-hair-organs-gristle interaction, I don't think you'd have to worry about it as much.
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
"most sensitive members"
<reports self to CGV>
Re: "most sensitive members"
...well, you know what I mean... it was the only term I could think of that wouldn't, you know, send me to the SUV.
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
SUV, CGV, WWIII, whateva...
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm just still chuckling
Now that's enough! Go to the Suburban RIGHT NOW!
"The Suburban"
Seriously?
<whisked off to CGV by kRaZeE wAnD aCtIoN>
I'm surprised there isn't poo being flung at said
Oh...
I forgot to add, I don't think that this situation is unique to AN. Whoever's blog you post on, there are community standards to that blog. It's just one of those things that is.
It's mostly common sense -- I've self-censored myself several times (except in the case of Reztips. I know I look like I have a Reztips fixation but I don't, I promise. He was just a jerk). I don't post a lot, I refrain from posting some things that I think are funny due to it possibly offending someone, but I still get enjoyment out of this site.
It's all about compromise, and for the sake of my posting privileges I can live with that, even if it makes some of my posts less forceful or funny. If someone starts a blog where we can go all out, I'm all for it. I don't know how to do the blog startup thing. But I'd still be a member here, because of the aforementioned enjoyment thing.
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
This is my concern...
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
As a relatively thin-skinned person
re: As a relatively thin-skinned person
Exactly!
And even as a non "thin-skinned" person, there have been times, upon reading an email or a posting, that I think "Hey, bud, what's your problem?" Emails and postings lack the nuances and subtlety that real conversations have, so I think that should be taken into consideration. Even small, meant-to-be-funny comments can come across as mean in this medium.
And of course credit goes to Jeff Spicoli for the above thought. I like it so much, I'm going to change my signature line.
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice sig!
If YOU'RE here,
I meant it should be taken into account by the poster. I shoulda been more clear...
by 66th Hegenberger on Apr 19, 2006 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Explaining the constitution...
Explains the whole CGV thing too, doesn't it?
by peanut gallery on Apr 19, 2006 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Ironic
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 20, 2006 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Blez. First thing antibodies do when the body
and isolate it.
We are now up to date.
You asked for suggestions so here is mine:
The diversity of comments and O.T. support here suggest an experiment; give O.T. his own "name calling ACCEPTABLE & EXPECTED" Diaries with it's posted warning that you are entering the "O.T. ZONE".
Obviously there would still be AN rules, but an A.N. "minimum" meaning posters can call other posters "dense", "idiot", "moron", "horse's hind end", etc. (No offense intended) as demonstrated in previous O.T. postings. A link may provide acceptable/not acceptable stylus. (O.T. can put it together)
This accomplishes two things;
- O.T., a very prolific AN poster and contributor, can continue his controversial postings to the entertainment of many AN readers and posters. Myself included.
- ANer's have the rest of AN free of that same name calling "style" posting.
This would be followed with a brief line that explains namecalling is restricted to AN's "O.T.'s Outlawland" Only and other rules apply with link.
AN would have it's own name calling Rev HaloFan on site, and ANers that want to call other posters names can vent it out where it is expected, harmless, and the "norm".
Problems of a diary with rules "contradiction" are probably smaller than imagined.
A "Namecalling" zone may actually prove popular.
A one month test might be worthwhile.
Great Blog Blez,
Best wishes to both families.
by Billy Ball 2005 on Apr 19, 2006 3:51 PM PDT reply actions
AN caters to many types
by Billy Ball 2005 on Apr 19, 2006 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
AN caters?
Severe real folks?
by Billy Ball 2005 on Apr 19, 2006 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
why should oaktoon get special priviledges on AN?
by rockit on Apr 19, 2006 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
OT is not the only poster cited
It is not so much special priviledges as an "AN Back Room"
OT seems qualified to operate it since he starts 10% of the Diaries on AN.
by Billy Ball 2005 on Apr 19, 2006 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I love this idea
by rubin sierra on Apr 20, 2006 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Interesting Topic today....
1. The most disappointing thing about this debate is that no one has <thrown chair>, <fallen out of chair>, <banged head against a wall>, <drops jaw>, or any of that "stuff"... especially with this topic.
2. Shouldn't there be another thread started???
3. By the way, the A's are playing the Tigers tonite, if anyone is interested...
I guess, in the end, we all have a choice on this topic - to either:
A) log-in, contribute, voice our opinions with the off chance that someone out there may have a differing opinion that our own (it happens), offer point/counterpoint/counterpoint/etc etc etc, "Agree to Disagree" (where have we heard that before), and continue to root for our favorite team, which, I guess is the tie that binds us all in this on-line family.....
OR
B) choose not to log in, take our toys and go home....
Can't we all just get along???
by Ludawg6 on Apr 19, 2006 5:05 PM PDT reply actions
Seriously ...
Awww....
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm just about done now ...
dammit, there you go distracting me again ...
HEY DEVO!!!!
by PosterNutbag44 on Apr 19, 2006 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions
agree with Blez
I used to help run an A's board -- not the blog we have now -- that got pretty much destroyed by three people whose fight escalated until they were insulting each other's ethnic origins. When I banned a guy for posting personal information about one of his enemies and he complained to the B'nai Brith that we were siding with the Ukrainians against the Jews, or something like that, I knew that people were taking this way too seriously.
Wow.
Honestly, I think oaktoon has probably NOT received as many strikes as he should have been based on his treatment of a number of others on this site.
Yes, he offers some great diaries. And yes, people try to bait him. Some of his treatment isn't deserved, definitely. But he doesn't seem to mind treating people very poorly and it bothers me to read a lot of his comments -- in general, I just skim past anything he writes the moment the conversation starts to get heated, but it's hard to ignore how absolutely common it is. So hence I stuck around to read this one. :-)
Seems like this site is supposed to be a "nicey-nice" site, and there's plenty of "mean ones" out there if a person wants to engage in attacks (I'm actually a rather big fan of it, but this just isn't the place). If this is a "nicey-nice" place, I guess I just don't get why it's so hard to follow the rules most of the time -- everyone slips sometimes (lord knows I get bitchy as heck after an A's loss) but it seems to be a very consistent pattern with oaktoon. Being a part of a community means that it's a system of compromise.
"No. It's Oakland."
What a tempest in a teapot !
Actually, I find most of your analysis
I find it sad that this place is gettings so "PC" that little things like those mentioned above are worthy of a ban. Man!
I can't believe I made it this far in the comments
I personally have always enjoyed Oaktoon's diaries, although I can't speak for his comments because I rarely read them. And the back-and-forth "he said, he said" is just wasted time. Can we please move on folks?
Guys and girls, let's talk about the A's and baseball.
And Oaktoon, if you ever do get kicked, drop me a line, I would be happy to have you post entries on my blog.
On a side note
grover has a job and a family
good point about the eric gregg reference, though.
it's lower-case x
by Cutthemullet on Apr 20, 2006 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
It's lower case "g" on the name, friend.
sorry sir, mr grover sir
No problemo rook
Been watching this transpire
i've always enjoyed your input
by interior decor on Apr 19, 2006 8:32 PM PDT reply actions
Of all the days to work overtime...
Oaktoon, are you calling me a snitch?
no, no
If I said it that way
only if the name fits.
And this post illustrates
I have never once flagged you for a CGV.
I may call your analysis bullshit and your ideas foolish, but I never call YOU bullshit. You got dinged for attacking the indivdual. I don't know if it was a shot at me or if it was something you said to someone else, nor do I care.
(And let me take this moment to laugh aloud if ANYONE thought Blez would be insane enough to put me on the Committee. HA! Ha ha!)
And I would like an apology for the insinuation.
I didn't insinuate a thing
The Mulder-Zito debate got pretty surreal by the end-- as you simply dug in your heels and refused to accept simple facts but instead got pretty belligerent. There have been other instances like this.
Now you say: "are you calling me a snitch?"
I reply-- "well if you were the one who reported me, that would be the least of it"
notice the word "if". I never said you did. I had no way of knowing, and now I accept your word that you didn't.
The fact that you asked the question, however, might lead one to that conclusion since obviously I am only going to refer to someone in that manner who did report me.
As to several posts implying that you were out to get me or to get me tossed, don't flatter yourself. I simply singled you out as a particularly difficult person to argue or have a discussion with-- find a reference where i say that you were out to get me or wanted me gone.
As for your belief that you don't attack me personally but rather my analysis and ideas, I think it's a distinction without a difference. The bottom line is that there is little respect involved from your end-- at least i try to give it until my patience runs out. In your case it is strangely absent from the start... which i think is somehow linked to the other quality-- this "alternative universe" type of disregard for real facts and common sense.
A simple apology would have been sufficient
"As for your belief that you don't attack me personally but rather my analysis and ideas, I think it's a distinction without a difference."
The difference is you got two strikes called on you and I didn't.
oaktoon v. grover posts are classic
by haren4prez on Apr 20, 2006 12:06 AM PDT reply actions
I'm not very fond of oaktoon.
As for me, I am one of the biggest assholes on this site. That would probably be my tag line if I hadn't already gotten a head's up for the use of coarse language. It seems I post too often and too colorfully for such an adult advertisement. That and I do try to be on my bestest behavior. :)
Now I came rather late to this show, well after the 300th post was made and I've read many a thing that makes me shake my head. I am one of oaktoon's most vocal critics and I have heard several people refer to "a couple individuals" who seem to "have it out for" or "lie in wait for" or generally attack oaktoon. Given my public record, I don't believe it's a stretch to think that my name crossed the minds of these people.
LMAO!!!
I'm sorry, but, "lie in wait" for oaktoon? He's not worth the time! And it's not just him, no one at AN is worth that kind of effort... except for maybe Ohad, that way I can remind him of the time he traded me Brad Lidge for Dustin Mohr.
Ladies and Gentlemen! Boys and Girls! Children of all ages! What we have here are almost total polar opposites in philosophy. He's opptomistic, I'm pessimistic. He thinks a guy like Zito is crucial to the A's, I think you trade anyone if it makes the team better. Oaktoon thinks Crosby should bat 3rd, I think anyone hitting .200 should bat lower in the order. Etc. etc. etc..
He posts a lot, I post a lot. Thus you have entertainment for the masses.
Oaktoon, I don't want you gone. I don't want you banned. I want to hear you say "I was wrong" because a lot of the times you are and you won't admit it. But lets not re-hash old arguements. Do I "bait" you? Of course. What else do you call it when you try to provoke a response from someone else? You do the same to me, out own little Mutually Assured Baiting. Sounds like a fishing show.
But have I ever singled you out in a diary? Not once and only one of us can make that claim. Do not accuse me of attacking you after you've called me out. I've told you this will merit a response from me, and my responses are generally designed to point out the flaws in whatever it is your trying to sell.
You say I don't fight fair. What the Hell does that mean? I fight to win and so do you, so don't try going Holier Than Thou on me. That's bullshit (and note, I'm referring to that particular course of action as bullshit and NOT calling you the individual bullshit) and it's not even interesting bullshit. I can cast an objective eye on the majority of our exchanges and we both get muddy. No big, I can deal and I think you can too and if I'm wrong about you... well, tough cookies.
On to other things.
First, I have to laugh at the "democratic principles" arguements. AN is NOT a democracy. It is a dictatorship. There's a constitution (of sorts) but at the end of the day there is one guy who at the push of a button make any one of us disappear. Never forget that.
Second, I too have had my run ins with the CGV people. I protested in private because I thought that was the more mature thing to do. (Believe it or not I do attempt to act my age on occasion.) Sorry oaktoon, but I agree with the secret informant policy. I didn't need to know who flagged me, because my offense was only slightly less obvious than running up to a live camera crew and flipping the middle finger.
With both hands.
And finally...
why is Bobby Crosby still batting third?
<click>
Halfway around the world, somewhere in the fiery forests of souther Oregon
<grover checking on trade>I wonder if he'll let Lidge go (click). GREAT MERLINS BEARD (tears of joy spewing down face)!!!!! IT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE. WHAT'S THE DATE? IT'S NOT APRIL 1 RIGHT?! THANK THE HEAVENS!!!!(viciously clicks "accept" on the trade proposal)
Dotel blows out arm, while Mohr proceeds to suck..............
Back near Tel Aviv: NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! AHHH---GAAAK
<Ohad wakes up>NO NO NO!!! Wha... what??? Oh thank God it was just a dream. Right?? RIGHT?!!
What i wrote here was pure fiction. Including that horrendous trade ;)
I managed to hold back the tears
And the trade did happen. :)
Funny thing is
now what do i do in response to this??
If a fair minded-person would actually review the times grover and I have debated issues, i think they would conclude that, in fact, most of the bill of particulars grover cites about me should actually be directed at himself.
My rep, in other words, is part myth...
Arrogance and smugness are hardly the province of someone who-- in response to grover's insistence that Mulder had the better record as an A than Zito-- simply showed that he most assuredly did not. Arrogance and smugness are hardly the province of someone who-- when grover then decided to argue that the rookie year should be thrown out-- politely pointed out that that season did constitute a fair amount of the time the two pitchers spent here, and that Zito's brilliance vs. Mulder's mediocrity (or worse) in 2000 had consequences.
Then when grover tried to accuse me of inconsistency-- a favorite technique given my admitted flip-flop last season-- by citing Crosby's rookie year as shaky evidence to deny him the 3 spot, I politely showed out most of the A's regulars with much longer careers also had struggled their rookie season but then found their true level.
All of which is to say that i really do not believe I am anywhere near the person in this space that grover has identified. Because other people believe it... he is quick to hide behind that protection.
As for never admitting when i am wrong.... come on. Were you here last June??
That was a whopper of a Mea Culpa from me then!!
How many times must I ask?
Do ya one better
You keep saying give him time. Fine, how much time?
Mulder v Zito
2005 37.0 41.1
2004 40.1 32.5
2003 58.3 56.1
2002 52.4 75.3
2001 61.4 51.2
2000 07.8 37.8
Total 257 294
You're gonna throw out 20% of Mulder's time here? Doesn't mean anything? Doesn't mean anything that this other kid from USC came up in July of that year and was the 2nd best pitcher in baseball the rest of the year and won a playoff game? Doesn;t mean anything that in a race that went down to the final day and thus screwed up the A's rotation, which played a huge role in their defeat to the Yankeees, Mulder was a mediocre at best pitcher all season? Wouldn't one or two more wins have made a huge difference? Or that his injury in September helped screw up the rotatio?
I wouldn't throw out Zito's rookie year ... but I would throw out Mulder's. He was a rookie who was called up before he was ready, we can't hold that against him. Zito's success is certainly to his credit, though.
So, if we take the average VORP from each player, Mulder from 01-04, Zito from 00-05 (counting 00 as .5 year), we get:
Mulder: 53.1
Zito: 56.2
So, based on VORP, during the relevent parts of their co-tenures Barry Zito was slightly better but, ultimately, very comperable to Mark Mulder.
But, of course, the more relevent question is, what can we expect going forward?
Well, PECOTA says:
VORP Muld Zito
2006 22.9 33.0
2007 20.0 26.0
2008 15.3 23.8
2009 15.2 20.7
2010 11.3 17.4
tota 84.7 120.9
Anyhow, I read and re-read and it was hard to figure out if anyone had a point that they were actually trying to make ...
but, as best I can figure:
Grover's point was that, going forward, Zito isn't going to be worth keeping around.
Oaktoon's point was that Zito is better than Mulder.
And, ultimately, they're both right! Yay, hugs!
Zito has been better - though just slightly - but, going forward, his future is much brighter.
That said, even if he fulfills PECOTAS relatively rosy projections for him, Zito will only actually be worth ~$26m over the next 5 years, probably less than half of what he'll actually be paid.
And this brings me to my point. After having some time to think about, Oaktoon, this is the conclusion I came to. I would hope you reform your ways not because I think you should care about being nicer to folks or because it's even your fault. I think that it is in your own best interest to reform your ways because I believe you would agree that the ~350 posts we have spent discussing this issue (and countless more in the past) could have been better spent discussing the relative worth of Mulder and Zito, Bobby Crosby being suitable for the 3-hole or Huston Street's ass and, whether its your fault or not, its a heck of a lot easier to change one person's part in the problem than the hundreds who react to you.
The complete inability to admit when he is wrong
by secret ASian man on Apr 20, 2006 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Since "lay in wait" was my phrasing...
Yes, your name is obviously one of the ones that crossed my mind (but not the only one). And no, I most definitely do not visualize you hunched over your computer, going <refresh> <refresh> <refresh> "Come on, oaktoon, post a diary!" <refresh> <refresh> <refresh> all day long...
I used quotation marks around "lay in wait" in my original comment because it's a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally, but was the closest thing I could come up with to express the fact that you do often pounce first, and over some pretty petty stuff. (and by "first," I don't mean "first comment on oaktoon's diary," I mean "first, before oaktoon has levelled anything at you")
Granted, I haven't read absolutely everything that's ever transpired between you two. I've read enough to know that oaktoon does escalate things to a generally more offensive level than you do, and I agree that that's on him, not you (or the other "certain users"). But when you know he's going to go there if you push the buttons, it's obnoxious to start a conversation with the apparent intention of inflaming him because he's easily inflamed.
Is oaktoon ever at fault for fights? Of course he is. He's a grownup, he has the control and the choice to express his anger & frustration in ways that are not abusive toward the person who's disagreeing with (or insulting) him, or he can choose to hurl insults back. And if he hurls insults back, he should be prepared for consequences. By no means do I think he's an innocent victim just because I disagree with banning him. I've just seen numerous cases (and if I didn't also have a full-time job and a family, I'd retrieve a slew of links) where your first response to his diary is written to him in an insulting manner, or refers back to some other issue that you two have had previously that has nothing to do with the current diary... and all I can think is "You don't like him, so if you don't want to interact with him, why don't you just ignore him?" (or, if you want to have a conversation despite the fact you dislike him, why can't you just initiate it in a less deliberately provocative way, since you know how short his fuse is?)
I really enjoy reading the insights from both of you, except for when you're going back & forth with each other, and I don't think you reported him (I didn't think it even before you said it wasn't you). And I'm sorry if "lay in wait" was too strong(?) an expression to use for what I was originally trying to say -- but hey, no harm, you got a good laugh out of it... ;)
OBJECTION
"Is oaktoon ever at fault for fights? Of course he is. He's a grownup"
Excuse me. For all we know Oaktoon is a super genious toddler sitting in his crib right now. So don't falsify and fabricate please.
Hilarious
Awesome!
A little humiliaty from Oaktoon would go a long, long way - IMO.
by Colorado Fan on Apr 20, 2006 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
glad I made you smile
Except for this.
We could all use a little more humility in our lives... unless you went to a Catholic High School, in which case you've been humiliated enough!
<personal experience>
Wow
And the policy just got quite firm after reading this astounding thread.
by RevHalofan on Apr 20, 2006 1:22 AM PDT reply actions
What can I say Rev
check that
by Cutthemullet on Apr 20, 2006 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Funny you say that
Who reported Oaktoon?
<Johnny Tightlips response> Who said I had a mother?
Bad jokes aside, FWIW, (approximately $.02, I really like you (your opinions on the other hand...OK, I lied about the bad jokes being over) as a character and I think you add a lot to this community, 'toon. I'm sure many have said this, but you often say what I am thinking at a certain time and that's good. I think you should stay as it sounds like you will with good behavior (Wait, has AN become a prison?). Good luck with that oaktoon, we're all rooting for you (save maybe a couple members!
Oh, and I haven't read all these comments (who has?) so nobody better have stolen my jokes.
Disclaimer: I am not responsible for anything in this post (except if you like it). See it's easy to get around getting a CGV!
Free Oaktoon !!
by china bob on Apr 20, 2006 8:06 AM PDT reply actions
i'd like to report baseballgirl
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comments/2006/4/20/175146/148/2#2
My advice:
There will always be people in your family, at the office, a neighbor, a friend, some regular at the bar that needs aconstant attention and validation, they feel that "Stirring the pot" is a form of public service....
The best way to deal with these types of individuals, is to just ignore them.....provoking you is their drug of choice....arguing for the sake of arguing is "normal" to them.
PEOPLE: Stop fueling the fire. Stop engaging these individuals....you are playing right into their hands and they are eating this up...
And to those that think that the defense of "But, I was being baited"........is valid....that is laughable!! People CHOOSE to respond to a comment that they feel is incorrect.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
- Jonathan Lucroy breaks hand after suitcase falls during search for sock
- The Juice: Long Adam Dunn homer punctuates Chris Sale’s 15 Ks, Mark Trumbo goes deep after Jered Weaver goes down for Angels
- Leyland begs media to make umpires ‘accountable’ for bad calls (VIDEO)
