157 replies to this topic

[absintheofmalaise]

I am a passionate and intelligent baseball observer. I belong to SABR and have won multiple research awards there. I am a B.P. subscriber and check that site, along with countless others, at least five times a week. I don't need to prove myself to anyone, especially when the environment in question is a message board.

On the lurker system thread, Nipper spoke to his desire that only the "brightest, best, most eager of us" be admitted into the ranks. Talk about the best example of insufferable self-importance. This site is designed to promote discussion and analysis for baseball fans and we should leave terms like the "best and the brightest" to books about presidential cabinets written by Pulitzer Prize winners.

I joined SOSH because I wanted to be able to utilize the search function to follow the posts of certain members---that's all. Some members sound like the popular kids sitting at the back table in the junior high lunch room. I didn't care about proving myself to them and I don't care about passing some test to achieve SOSH membership.

This thread---and discussion topics like it---are created so that certain people can feel good about themselves by exhibiting their "power" and reminding us of their superiority.

And now the chorus will join together to attack this message and reassure themselves that they are as truly important as they tell us they are (and, if you don't do that, then they won't grant you membership!).

Actually, we created this thread to get feedback from people about what they thought about the process to become a member. That's all we are trying to do here.
I do love your post. It's a great example of irony in action.

[AlNipper49]

I'm not trying to interpret your intent, though I see how it reads that way. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all moderators and members of SoSH are perfect human beings. I'm trying to describe--in personal terms--how the policy feels to me (and, I think, to some subset of lurkers) on this end. This is not all that important, I suppose, since SoSH is a great, active, much-read site without changing anything. But I think there may be a significant number of people (for the sake of argument, I'll put myself in this class too) who would like to be members, who are articulate and thoughtful, who might add to and will not detract from the tenor of discussion on the main board, and who back off from participating in the sandbox because it seems distasteful. Again, not that big of a deal. But it does mean that there are good members who are likely dissuaded by the process rather than encouraged.

Yes, no sucking is a stated policy. And I don't dwell on any of this all that much. But just now there are email messages in my inbox and pinned new threads about membership when I log in. These suggest that main board mods are thinking about protocols and maybe unsatisfied with the way things work. In other words, I'm trying here to participate in a conversation that I thought you guys were initiating. I'll stop.

I bet there are other membership protocols that could work as well without this downside. I am not privy to the logisitcal concerns from your end, though.

I frankly would not object to seeing the sandbox go away.

The sandbox was my idea so I'll speak for it -- it was always a best effort here. It's not perfect by a long shot. This most recent round of discussions is to acknowledge exactly what you say -- there are better ways to do things and it's worth sticking our toes in the water. The sandbox was brought up when there was a significant amount of 'lurker' traffic who wanted some sort - any sort - of outlet to post here for whatever reason.

And to those of you pissed off at us because of acting elite, well you're probably correct. We do have to have some elitest notions to carry on decent conversations in this day and age on the internet. I mean jesus, even Facebook has invite-only groups. If you have a problem with that then don't join, don't participate and don't visit. It's the internet, there are plenty of other places to go to and we do acknowledge this place might not be the place for everyone.

[URI]

I am a passionate and intelligent baseball observer. I belong to SABR and have won multiple research awards there. I am a B.P. subscriber and check that site, along with countless others, at least five times a week. I don't need to prove myself to anyone, especially when the environment in question is a message board.

On the lurker system thread, Nipper spoke to his desire that only the "brightest, best, most eager of us" be admitted into the ranks. Talk about the best example of insufferable self-importance. This site is designed to promote discussion and analysis for baseball fans and we should leave terms like the "best and the brightest" to books about presidential cabinets written by Pulitzer Prize winners.

I joined SOSH because I wanted to be able to utilize the search function to follow the posts of certain members---that's all. Some members sound like the popular kids sitting at the back table in the junior high lunch room. I didn't care about proving myself to them and I don't care about passing some test to achieve SOSH membership.

This thread---and discussion topics like it---are created so that certain people can feel good about themselves by exhibiting their "power" and reminding us of their superiority.

And now the chorus will join together to attack this message and reassure themselves that they are as truly important as they tell us they are (and, if you don't do that, then they won't grant you membership!).

At least you have a healthy understanding of irony.

But like Craig said, we aren't for everyone. Some people like this site, others like their bookmarks and research awards.

[Keshti]

OK. Well and good.

However, let's also address the elephant in the room: the not inconsequential number of former members who were demoted, denatured, defanged, and otherwise banned by mods/dopes with an agenda or personal vendettas.

I have personal knowledge of a member who posted what could only be described as chicken porn on the site: stuff that woulda/shoulda/coulda have been reported to internet authorities, was briefly shut down, but then reinstated because of personal connections with administrators.

SoSH, as I first found it in '04, set the standard for intelligence, passion, and excellence in online baseball sites. In recent years, however, too often the site has deteriorated to more than fulfill Groucho's maxim.

I realize I have written my own final death sentence with this post. However, it needs to be said, and I fall willingly on my sword, trusting the truth of my words.

Edited by Smiling Joe Hesketh, 03 August 2009 - 02:32 PM.

[jack0329]

At least you have a healthy understanding of irony.

But like Craig said, we aren't for everyone. Some people like this site, others like their bookmarks and research awards.

On the whole system here I have to appreciate it. They don't have to do it at all. We could all be somewhere else posting whatever to a bunch of other members/lurkers. I don't get the whole "I don't like the auditions" part of it is ironic as these folks continue to post a multitude of replies as if they are auditioning. If you don't like it don't do it. It seems simple enough. A few years back I visited quite a bit and never got a sniff of a membership opportunity. I still may not get to be a member but at least here is an opportunity. Jeez people take the opportunity and run with it. If you don't like auditioning then don't post.

I would equate this to Sox fans out there who complain continually about Tito, Theo and JH about the job they "aren't doing" and how "cheap" they are. They have won two WS in this century so I say enjoy it. Just like this opportunity.....enjoy it.

[tommyshaun]

OK. Well and good.

However, let's also address the elephant in the room: the not inconsequential number of former members who were demoted, denatured, defanged, and otherwise banned by mods/dopes with an agenda or personal vendettas.

I have personal knowledge of a member who posted what could only be described as chicken porn on the site: stuff that woulda/shoulda/coulda have been reported to internet authorities, was briefly shut down, but then reinstated because of personal connections with administrators.

SoSH, as I first found it in '04, set the standard for intelligence, passion, and excellence in online baseball sites. In recent years, however, too often the site has deteriorated to more than fulfill Groucho's maxim.

I realize I have written my own final death sentence with this post. However, it needs to be said, and I fall willingly on my sword, trusting the truth of my words.

Elephant in the room? If by elephant in the room you mean a subject that no one but you were contemplating then thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. This of course is how things degrade: posting brash, random things, that are completely off topic, or not substantiated. I thought this was discussion about membership policies and penis respect.

Of course I must say I have a heathy respect for the elephant penis....have you ever seen one of those things?

[AlNipper49]

OK. Well and good.

However, let's also address the elephant in the room: the not inconsequential number of former members who were demoted, denatured, defanged, and otherwise banned by mods/dopes with an agenda or personal vendettas.

I have personal knowledge of a member who posted what could only be described as chicken porn on the site: stuff that woulda/shoulda/coulda have been reported to internet authorities, was briefly shut down, but then reinstated because of personal connections with administrators.

SoSH, as I first found it in '04, set the standard for intelligence, passion, and excellence in online baseball sites. In recent years, however, too often the site has deteriorated to more than fulfill Groucho's maxim.

I realize I have written my own final death sentence with this post. However, it needs to be said, and I fall willingly on my sword, trusting the truth of my words.

To clarify this message, SoSH has officially taken on a pro-chicken porn stance. I realize that this may be a controversial stance, amidst what many consider The Issue of The Day, but as a group we have come to realize that we cannot resist our urges to sexually exploit images of chickens.

We will work hand-in-hand with the Internet Authorities to verify this. Can you forward us the number of the President of the Internet so that we can discuss this in detail?

[Burt Reynoldz]

OK. Well and good.

However, let's also address the elephant in the room: the not inconsequential number of former members who were demoted, denatured, defanged, and otherwise banned by mods/dopes with an agenda or personal vendettas.

I have personal knowledge of a member who posted what could only be described as chicken porn on the site: stuff that woulda/shoulda/coulda have been reported to internet authorities, was briefly shut down, but then reinstated because of personal connections with administrators.

SoSH, as I first found it in '04, set the standard for intelligence, passion, and excellence in online baseball sites. In recent years, however, too often the site has deteriorated to more than fulfill Groucho's maxim.

I realize I have written my own final death sentence with this post. However, it needs to be said, and I fall willingly on my sword, trusting the truth of my words.

Your problem here is that you haven't delineated what kind of chicken porn it was. Roosters or hens? Roasting chickens or boiling? I myself could go for some hot hen-on-hen action.

On a serious note, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[URI]

To clarify this message, SoSH has officially taken on a pro-chicken porn stance. I realize that this may be a controversial stance, amidst what many consider The Issue of The Day, but as a group we have come to realize that we cannot resist our urges to sexually exploit images of chickens.

We will work hand-in-hand with the Internet Authorities to verify this. Can you forward us the number of the President of the Internet so that we can discuss this in detail?

I don't know how we are supposed to take this seriously since your tagline is "Respects the Canine Penis".

Being the most offensive (and qualitatively poor) combination of words in the English language, you are chop full of hypocrisy, sir. I would wish you good day, but you are an awful person.

Eat shit.

[ColoradoJack]

To clarify this message, SoSH has officially taken on a pro-chicken porn stance.

like many here i, too, am a long time fan of the chicken-porn....that alone should qualify me for membership, no?

[Steamah]

The sandbox was my idea so I'll speak for it -- it was always a best effort here. It's not perfect by a long shot. This most recent round of discussions is to acknowledge exactly what you say -- there are better ways to do things and it's worth sticking our toes in the water. The sandbox was brought up when there was a significant amount of 'lurker' traffic who wanted some sort - any sort - of outlet to post here for whatever reason.

And to those of you pissed off at us because of acting elite, well you're probably correct. We do have to have some elitest notions to carry on decent conversations in this day and age on the internet. I mean jesus, even Facebook has invite-only groups. If you have a problem with that then don't join, don't participate and don't visit. It's the internet, there are plenty of other places to go to and we do acknowledge this place might not be the place for everyone.

Just to clarify (since I think I may have set this last round of remarks off): I think the sandbox is a fine idea in and of itself, and I assume it was created for the best possible reasons. I have on rare occasion participated in the sandbox game-threads, too, because there are times when watching a game alone is just too agonizing. I have kind of opted out, though, from participating in the other threads for reasons discussed here, and if the game-threads are merged I would not miss the sandbox.

From reading this and the other pinned threads, I don't see anyone disputing the importance of some membership restrictions or the right of mods to decide how these will be implemented. What I do see is a) a lot of lurkers (including myself) who feel that the rhetoric in which we are enjoined to audition is off-putting and b) a certain amount of defensiveness in the responses of the mods who are reading these threads and feeling accused of elitism.

Not sure why people should insult Genco Olive Oil for self-importance here. For all I or any of you know know, he IS an accomplished and smart person whose insights would benefit SoSH and people like me who read the threads. He may have worded this more strongly than some others, but his general feeling is expressed by at least some others too. Besides, the mods have asked for feedback and he is giving it: that is a service--he took the time to reply to a question asked of him. If the goal here is to get a good picture of the spectrum of user response, that is a contribution.

This is from the original post quoted by Nip delineating the problems with the Lurker System:

• The Lurker System: Let's face it, the system is somewhat insulting. I doubt many of our best users would have gotten through on the lurker system. It's a pain, it's confusing and ultimately I think it's long-past served it's purpose.

All Genco is doing is putting a personal face on this observation.

This discussion was started by members and admins who apparently wanted feedback. One data point coming back would seem to be that there in fact a set of lurkers who feel, as I do, that the audition aspect is "somewhat insulting" (regardless of intent). All this means, I think, is that there is a class of people who think highly of themselves (!) and who will not become members of SoSH in the current configuration. That's fine, unless this is also a class of people that SoSH would benefit from including. I don't think anyone is suffering because I'm not a member, but it may be that people would be better off if Genco Olive Oil were.

[absintheofmalaise]

Just to clarify (since I think I may have set this last round of remarks off): I think the sandbox is a fine idea in and of itself, and I assume it was created for the best possible reasons. I have on rare occasion participated in the sandbox game-threads, too, because there are times when watching a game alone is just too agonizing. I have kind of opted out, though, from participating in the other threads for reasons discussed here, and if the game-threads are merged I would not miss the sandbox.

The game threads have been merged.

From reading this and the other pinned threads, I don't see anyone disputing the importance of some membership restrictions or the right of mods to decide how these will be implemented. What I do see is a) a lot of lurkers (including myself) who feel that the rhetoric in which we are enjoined to audition is off-putting and b) a certain amount of defensiveness in the responses of the mods who are reading these threads and feeling accused of elitism.

What rhetoric could we have used to make you, and others, feel better?
All we've been trying to do here is to help explain what our reasoning was, and is, about making the entire process open.

Not sure why people should insult Genco Olive Oil for self-importance here. For all I or any of you know know, he IS an accomplished and smart person whose insights would benefit SoSH and people like me who read the threads. He may have worded this more strongly than some others, but his general feeling is expressed by at least some others too. Besides, the mods have asked for feedback and he is giving it: that is a service--he took the time to reply to a question asked of him. If the goal here is to get a good picture of the spectrum of user response, that is a contribution.

All true, but didn't you find his response rather ironic?

This is from the original post quoted by Nip delineating the problems with the Lurker System:

• The Lurker System: Let's face it, the system is somewhat insulting. I doubt many of our best users would have gotten through on the lurker system. It's a pain, it's confusing and ultimately I think it's long-past served it's purpose.

All Genco is doing is putting a personal face on this observation.

This thread is an offshoot of the thread you're quoting from. The main reason we started this thread was to let people know as much as possible about what we're looking for. Nothing more, nothing less. And what you quoted is why we did this. People had no clue about what it took to become a member. Now they do and we have made changes to make it less insulting to people like you.

This discussion was started by members and admins who apparently wanted feedback. One data point coming back would seem to be that there in fact a set of lurkers who feel, as I do, that the audition aspect is "somewhat insulting" (regardless of intent). All this means, I think, is that there is a class of people who think highly of themselves (!) and who will not become members of SoSH in the current configuration. That's fine, unless this is also a class of people that SoSH would benefit from including. I don't think anyone is suffering because I'm not a member, but it may be that people would be better off if Genco Olive Oil were.

Genco came off as an arrogant prick in his post. I think he'd be a fine addition to the board once he learns that other sites are better than BP.

[barbed wire Bob]

Not sure why people should insult Genco Olive Oil for self-importance here. For all I or any of you know know, he IS an accomplished and smart person whose insights would benefit SoSH and people like me who read the threads. He may have worded this more strongly than some others, but his general feeling is expressed by at least some others too. Besides, the mods have asked for feedback and he is giving it: that is a service--he took the time to reply to a question asked of him. If the goal here is to get a good picture of the spectrum of user response, that is a contribution.

Unfortunately his post did not demonstrate that he is an accomplished and smart person whose insight would benefit SoSH. Instead, he came across as rather rude and slightly nutty.

This discussion was started by members and admins who apparently wanted feedback. One data point coming back would seem to be that there in fact a set of lurkers who feel, as I do, that the audition aspect is "somewhat insulting" (regardless of intent). All this means, I think, is that there is a class of people who think highly of themselves (!) and who will not become members of SoSH in the current configuration. That's fine, unless this is also a class of people that SoSH would benefit from including. I don't think anyone is suffering because I'm not a member, but it may be that people would be better off if Genco Olive Oil were

.

When you go to a job interview you are auditioning. When you ask a girl on a date you are auditioning. Life is full of auditions so you better get used to it.

Edited by barbed wire Bob, 03 August 2009 - 10:54 AM.

[Steamah]

When you go to a job interview you are auditioning. When you ask a girl on a date you are auditioning. Life is full of auditions so you better get used to it.

Dear Barbed Wire Bob,

I can only dream of a future in which I am as wise and accomplished as you are. But having never held a job, or dated an actual girl, or even emerged into the light of day from my mother's basement, I can only thank you for clarifying this for me.

Affectionately,

Steamah

Edited by Steamah, 03 August 2009 - 11:04 AM.

[Scriblerus]

When you go to a job interview you are auditioning. When you ask a girl on a date you are auditioning. Life is full of auditions so you better get used to it.

When you ask a girl on a date, you don't "audition" with the entire family before she answers the phone, and if you were asked to, it would make you seriously consider whether the date was worth it. A job interview is normally based on a skill set that is clearly defined, allowing you to accurately explain your qualifications. The problem with the Sandbox is you have the family watching but the skill set is pretty loosely explained.

I don't think there is a satisfactory way to regulate membership and still be fair to everyone. I think the mods are trying things out and that's the best anyone can ask. It's important to give people a chance to voice their concerns, but this thread is a prime example of the problem with the Sandbox: some people seem to be playing it safe by praising the members for giving them a chance, others are pissed and show everyone why membership is regulated, and some seek clarification with mixed results.

I appreciate the chance to contribute without having to PM a member asking to have my thoughts considered for posting. To be honest, I rarely post, and therefore don't think of this as an audition in any sense, but I can understand why people who really want to be a member would have some concern.

Edited by Cuzittt, 03 August 2009 - 07:01 PM.

[Steamah]

What rhetoric could we have used to make you, and others, feel better?

I think the implication that not being admitted = sucking is a rhetorical issue. It rubs some people the wrong way.

[absintheofmalaise]

I think the implication that not being admitted = sucking is a rhetorical issue. It rubs some people the wrong way.

Dont' Suck has been the motto around here for years and it's for anyone who posts. We look upon it as the easiest way to tell people not to post fanboy crap, stupid one-liners etc. There are plenty of boards out there for that.

[CR67dream]

Steamah, you seem to be obsessed with the no sucking rule. The rule is not going away. You can continue to give us a hard time, even though several of us have done our best to explain our stance, and appease concerns. I just think that it's pretty ridiculous to continually slam us when we have acknowledged changes are needed, and are spending a whole lot of our time trying to implement these changes.

As far as Genoa Olive Oil goes, his post was more arrogant and demeaning than any policy we've ever had, and yet here is the PM I sent him. He has not bothered to read it, by the way.
__________________________
I'm sorry you feel the way you do. Unfortunately, given the amount of folks only out to post crap and start trouble, we've got to be careful. Someone like you would be admitted upon an introduction without any kissing up or fanfare as a matter of current policy. We don't want anyone to prove they're as good aa anyone, we're all human and none of us mod this place out of a feeling of superiority. Look at our standards and guidelines in the MLB forum and you'll see that those of us who do this are aware that simply being a member here means nothing in and of itself. We just want to take prudent precautions. Anyway, all feedback is noted and discussed, so at the very least know we take your take seriously. Best,

Craig R
___________________________

We have pretty thick skin here-it's another trait, along with not sucking that can get you a long way here. I guess the bottom linr for me is that criticism is fine, we'll listen and consider all opinions. Some of what has started going on in here now, though, is beyond criticism and quite frankly, simply comes off as bitter bile. Genoa and Keshti have no other purpose posting here than to try to cause trouble and tweak the mods and dopes. But we listen. And yet somehow you think that Genoa not being in here may be a loss for us. Because he writes of how awesome and better than others he is. Nice. It's obvious that some folks just won't be pleased with whatever we do, and I think we're all quite prepared to live with that.

[CR67dream]

Steamah has requested that his account be disabled. I just want folks to know that we did not initiate this action. From his PM:

"Can you please disable my account? I don't seem to be able to do this."

Sure, as we've said, we're not for everyone. No hard feelings.

[pockmeister]

I'm almost nervous to post in this thread, given what's been going on in here. But there are a couple of things that I feel strongly about:

1) We need to keep a sense of perspective. This is a message board on the internet, albeit one with a very active community behind it. But it is still "only" a message board. Being a member here is unlikely to be a life-changing event, it just falls into the category of "nice to have".

2) Yes it is a fairly closed shop, run by people who may at times show signs of arrogance and hypocrisy. But here's the deal - they built this community, they invest time, money (I assume) and effort in managing this community, and hence they're entitled to do what they like. I don't have any issue with that at all - when I've built businesses that have been a success, I've wanted to protect them and ensure that they evolve in the way I would like to see. And doing that sometimes means that well-meaning people with bright ideas may get upset. I know I would feel exactly the same if I had created SoSH, so the Dopes and Mods are fully entitled to run things their way. If that's too much for some to handle, then go back to the playground.

3) Setting clear rules for membership (any kind of check-list) would not be desirable. I think the Dopes are doing a decent job of laying out the broad requirements for lurkers to move towards membership, whilst retaining the key attribute of subjectivity. If this is lost, then the "promotion" process becomes a purely mechanistic exercise, devoid of human judgement. Which would be a very poor thing.

Above all, there is a need to protect the quality of this community, which is a massively valuable resource to me and many others. I would much prefer the Dopes to err on the side of letting too few in, rather than the other way. It seems like a sensible balance is being established, and any lurkers who get themselves drawn into being baited by Dopes in threads like these (see earlier in the thread) need to have a good few deep breaths before biting on the hook again.

[C4CRVT]

I'd like to address a few of the folks who are unhappy with the lurker system and the sandbox in particular.

You have access to a whole bunch of people who want to discuss baseball at a high level. Me. I'm a happy enough for now to be a lurker and I find it insulting (even if true) that I'm being referred to as either a suck up, a phony or a moron. There are many like me in the sandbox. Ignore the idiots and give it a try. You might learn something and might enjoy some of the folks in there. Bring your big fng brain in there. Why would you post anything differently in there than you would on the main board?

I looked up an old thread (from spring training about Lugo) and was a little surprised to see that more than half of the posts were by folks who are now members.

You have access to almost the entire site. You have access to the game thread. You have access to the mods and they're listening to you about how to improve the system.

[luckysox]

I'd like to address a few of the folks who are unhappy with the lurker system and the sandbox in particular.

You have access to a whole bunch of people who want to discuss baseball at a high level. Me. I'm a happy enough for now to be a lurker and I find it insulting (even if true) that I'm being referred to as either a suck up, a phony or a moron. There are many like me in the sandbox. Ignore the idiots and give it a try. You might learn something and might enjoy some of the folks in there. Bring your big fng brain in there. Why would you post anything differently in there than you would on the main board?

I looked up an old thread (from spring training about Lugo) and was a little surprised to see that more than half of the posts were by folks who are now members.

You have access to almost the entire site. You have access to the game thread. You have access to the mods and they're listening to you about how to improve the system.

After reading the last 3 pages of this thread, I'd have to agree with the above...but I do want to point out in the accountless Steamah's defense that if "not sucking" essentially gets you membership, then there are alot of lurkers who have been posting with the best of intentions who probably think that the moderators/members/dopes still think they suck. If you are a lurker with the intent of becoming a member (and will be disappointed until this happens) then not being promoted must mean that what you post sucks, even if it was intellegent, rational, well argued and contributed to the thread, and even if you were not a moron, troll or other troublesome type. It can be demoralizing, and frustrating. That is what I understood his obejections to mean. I don't think he was trying to attack you guys, just really looking for a better way from his own persppective. And I can understand that.

That said, I like the Box, and my only sad days there are when good Boxmates get called up and we lose their voices, humor and well reasoned arguments and opinions. Honestly, since I started posting in the Box (a few months ago) my desire to become a member has increased mostly because I miss the interaction with former lurkers who are now members. I can read the main board anytime and see what's happening (and I do all day) but I miss being able to interact with those folks on Sox related content - because that's the content with which I am most concerned.

[URI]

After reading the last 3 pages of this thread, I'd have to agree with the above...but I do want to point out in the accountless Steamah's defense that if "not sucking" essentially gets you membership, then there are alot of lurkers who have been posting with the best of intentions who probably think that the moderators/members/dopes still think they suck. If you are a lurker with the intent of becoming a member (and will be disappointed until this happens) then not being promoted must mean that what you post sucks, even if it was intellegent, rational, well argued and contributed to the thread, and even if you were not a moron, troll or other troublesome type. It can be demoralizing, and frustrating. That is what I understood his obejections to mean. I don't think he was trying to attack you guys, just really looking for a better way from his own persppective. And I can understand that.

That said, I like the Box, and my only sad days there are when good Boxmates get called up and we lose their voices, humor and well reasoned arguments and opinions. Honestly, since I started posting in the Box (a few months ago) my desire to become a member has increased mostly because I miss the interaction with former lurkers who are now members. I can read the main board anytime and see what's happening (and I do all day) but I miss being able to interact with those folks on Sox related content - because that's the content with which I am most concerned.

I think you're reading a little too much into the "Don't Suck" rule.

Promotion is largely based on interaction (in the MLB forum/game threads etc.) or by getting noticed by someone (in the Sandbox). Not getting bumped up doesn't mean you suck, it just means that you're stuck in the crowd.

Look at Sprowl. It took him a long time to get called up, and I don't think anyone ever said he sucked...he just posted and eventually got the call.

[Beanpot]

I heard someone mention "penis" and got here as fast as I could.

[URI]

I heard someone mention "penis" and got here as fast as I could.

You're only 2 days late, Dad.

[AlNipper49]

I think you're reading a little too much into the "Don't Suck" rule.

Promotion is largely based on interaction (in the MLB forum/game threads etc.) or by getting noticed by someone (in the Sandbox). Not getting bumped up doesn't mean you suck, it just means that you're stuck in the crowd.

Look at Sprowl. It took him a long time to get called up, and I don't think anyone ever said he sucked...he just posted and eventually got the call.

Sprowl is a Canadian, saying that he sucked would have been redundant

[absintheofmalaise]

Sprowl is a Canadian, saying that he sucked would have been redundant

Not to mention that he stole his avatar from dcmissile.

[luckysox]

I think you're reading a little too much into the "Don't Suck" rule.

Promotion is largely based on interaction (in the MLB forum/game threads etc.) or by getting noticed by someone (in the Sandbox). Not getting bumped up doesn't mean you suck, it just means that you're stuck in the crowd.

Look at Sprowl. It took him a long time to get called up, and I don't think anyone ever said he sucked...he just posted and eventually got the call.

Fair enough. And candian or not, I learn a ton from his posts. So a nice example.

[URI]

OK. Well and good.

However, let's also address the elephant in the room: the not inconsequential number of former members who were demoted, denatured, defanged, and otherwise banned by mods/dopes with an agenda or personal vendettas.

I have personal knowledge of a member who posted what could only be described as chicken porn on the site: stuff that woulda/shoulda/coulda have been reported to internet authorities, was briefly shut down, but then reinstated because of personal connections with administrators.

SoSH, as I first found it in '04, set the standard for intelligence, passion, and excellence in online baseball sites. In recent years, however, too often the site has deteriorated to more than fulfill Groucho's maxim.

I realize I have written my own final death sentence with this post. However, it needs to be said, and I fall willingly on my sword, trusting the truth of my words.

Previously banned members that come back to trash the site don't hold a whole lot of sway with me.

But keep thinking that it was a personal vendetta against you, rather than you sucking something awful. That's the elephant in the room that we all are talking about...people who suck get some rope, but eventually it snaps.

Your death warrant was signed two years ago when you were banned the first time, Meems.

[Genco Olive Oil]

The game threads have been merged.



What rhetoric could we have used to make you, and others, feel better?
All we've been trying to do here is to help explain what our reasoning was, and is, about making the entire process open.



All true, but didn't you find his response rather ironic?


This thread is an offshoot of the thread you're quoting from. The main reason we started this thread was to let people know as much as possible about what we're looking for. Nothing more, nothing less. And what you quoted is why we did this. People had no clue about what it took to become a member. Now they do and we have made changes to make it less insulting to people like you.


Genco came off as an arrogant prick in his post. I think he'd be a fine addition to the board once he learns that other sites are better than BP.

Sorry I haven't checked my PM's for the last 12 hours or so---I guess I'm off to a rough start to my audition.

I came off as an arrogant prick in my post? Aren't we supposed to avoid personal attacks and the use of empty and crude insults?

Sure, I mentioned my background and it is now being labeled as arrogant and ironic. But Barbed Wire Bob just told us that we should get over this audition process by thinking of it as a job interview or a first date (because aren't they auditions, too?). If this is an interview for a job---and the job can be loosely described as discussing baseball---then I would not be properly describing my qualifications if I didn't include some mention of my baseball experience.

Now, abs had mentioned that I had referenced B.P. and that I could become a member capable of posting valuable thoughts if only I could realize many other sites are better to B.P. O.K., fine. But doesn't that make him sound arrogant, too, considering he said that there are far better sites than B.P. (as if Fangraphs v. B.P. wasn't a personal choice)?

Let's face it: Every poster on a message board comes off like an arrogant tool (it's impossible not to come off that way), because every topic is some sort of an argument in which we try and prove how right we are. We don't meet in person and view facial expressions or hear tones. Almost every subject we discuss is one that we're all passionate about (and, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here).

And I do have a purpose of posting here, Craig, and it's not to rile feathers. It is to discuss baseball and the Red Sox, which are my two favorite things in the world, and two things that I take seriously. But I haven't posted here yet because I'm not going to ask a member to post for me and I'm not going to try out and audition for an Internet message board.

There are two options to improve the site and its ranks, I think: 1) change to a pay site and only allow subscribers to post; or 2) use an innocent before guilty policy---have someone register and answer a few baseball-oriented questions in the process, and, as long as they don't answer with "Yankees suck!", give them full membership. Under each person's avatar, post an "object" button. Should a poster reach a certain number or level of objections, then revoke rights.

To abide by a policy of "prove it" means that there really isn't a free and easy exchange of ideas and thoughts. The idea that a lurker is "promoted" to member status is a shining example of what I find frustrating. Essentially, just don't take this stuff so seriously. That's what I find so off-putting.

Edited by Genco Olive Oil, 03 August 2009 - 03:09 PM.

[absintheofmalaise]

Sorry I haven't checked my PM's for the last 12 hours or so---I guess I'm off to a rough start to my audition.

I came off as an arrogant prick in my post? Aren't we supposed to avoid personal attacks and the use of empty and crude insults?

Sure, I mentioned my background and it is now being labeled as arrogant and ironic. But Barbed Wire Bob just told us that we should get over this audition process by thinking of it as a job interview or a first date (because aren't they auditions, too?). If this is an interview for a job---and the job can be loosely described as discussing baseball---then I would not be properly describing my qualifications if I didn't include some mention of my baseball experience.

Now, abs had mentioned that I had referenced B.P. and that I could become a member capable of posting valuable thoughts if only I could realize many other sites are better to B.P. O.K., fine. But doesn't that make him sound arrogant, too, considering he said that there are far better sites than B.P. (as if Fangraphs v. B.P. wasn't a personal choice)?

Let's face it: Every poster on a message board comes off like an arrogant tool (it's impossible not to come off that way), because every topic is some sort of an argument in which we try and prove how right we are. We don't meet in person and view facial expressions or hear tones. Almost every subject we discuss is one that we're all passionate about (and, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here).

And I do have a purpose of posting here, Craig, and it's not to rile feathers. It is to discuss baseball and the Red Sox, which are my two favorite things in the world, and two things that I take seriously. But I haven't posted here yet because I'm not going to ask a member to post for me and I'm not going to try out and audition for an Internet message board.

There are two options to improve the site and its ranks, I think: 1) change to a pay site and only allow subscribers to post; or 2) use an innocent before guilty policy---have someone register and answer a few baseball-oriented questions in the process, and, as long as they don't answer with "Yankees suck!", give them full membership. Under each person's avatar, post an "object" button. Should a poster reach a certain number or level of objections, then revoke rights.

To abide by a policy of "prove it" means that there really isn't a free and easy exchange of ideas and thoughts. The idea that a lurker is "promoted" to member status is a shining example of what I find frustrating. Essentially, just don't take this stuff so seriously. That's what I find so off-putting.

I meant that as a compliment and I was serious that you would probably be a good member.
Scroll up a few posts and read what URI wrote about interacting with members in various forums.
I thought your post was ironic because you spoke very highly of your own credentials and how you wanted to follow the posts of some of the members here even though we're just some message board.
We didn't start this thread, or any of the other ones to show how powerful we are, we started them because we'd like to add members here and we wanted people to know what the process was. And that's the only reason we posted these threads. If we only wanted to show how powerful we all think we are, why would we open ourselves up to questions and comments from people. We'd just throw a post up with the rules and lock it if we didn't really care what people thought about it all.

[URI]

And I do have a purpose of posting here, Craig, and it's not to rile feathers. It is to discuss baseball and the Red Sox, which are my two favorite things in the world, and two things that I take seriously. But I haven't posted here yet because I'm not going to ask a member to post for me and I'm not going to try out and audition for an Internet message board.

The problem is that you don't post here. You have 2 posts on the site and both are in this thread...one being a fairly strongly worded post about how we're elitist and you're above "auditioning".

There is a disconnect here...the only way to "audition" is to make quality posts. That's it. The hoops to dive through don't really exist...if you're a good poster eventually you'll get promoted to membership.

The Sandbox exists as a feeder system not to create a heirarchy between member levels, but to replace the members lost through attrition, and to get some good voices on the board. This might not be the most efficient way to cull members, but it works for us, and has been largely successful in getting posters that know their baseball, and people that can fit in a community that is shockingly tight-knit for it's size.

Though I do appreciate you backing off the "the only reason why I'm here is to use search to read posters" stance to the more useful "I'm here to talk baseball and the Red Sox."

I will say one more thing though...if your posts on baseball are as good as I presume they are (given your stated resume), you'd get membership pretty quickly.

[Beanpot]

I'm a member of numerous internet "sites" and if I keep up this pace I expect to be nominated for a "World's Greatest Grandpa" award sometime after my unborn children have kids of their own.

[yaz75]

Best
Thread
EVER!

[resx18]

Thanks for the update.I look forward to becoming a member.

[Burt Reynoldz]

I just need to ask, since I see his name mentioned all over the place, but I have no idea who the fuck he is. Who/what is Imgran? I assume he's some dickish lurker who got the ban, but is there a good story here?

[absintheofmalaise]

I just need to ask, since I see his name mentioned all over the place, but I have no idea who the fuck he is. Who/what is Imgran? I assume he's some dickish lurker who got the ban, but is there a good story here?

He's in the cookbook too. And yes, there is a very good story there. More than one in fact. The privileges of membership....

[Burt Reynoldz]

He's in the cookbook too. And yes, there is a very good story there. More than one in fact. The privileges of membership....

Gotcha. Well, once I finally write my magnum opus of posts, I look forward to my invite.

[ColoradoJack]

I just need to ask, since I see his name mentioned all over the place, but I have no idea who the fuck he is. Who/what is Imgran? I assume he's some dickish lurker who got the ban, but is there a good story here?

He's in the cookbook too. And yes, there is a very good story there. More than one in fact. The privileges of membership....

the late, great Imgran is fast becoming an internet legend....got thrown out of at least two othe Red Sox message boards before coming here.

i'm not sure if its to his credit or to SoSH's everlasting lasting shame but he lasted here much longer than other boards and much, much longer than i expected.

[absintheofmalaise]

the late, great Imgran is fast becoming an internet legend....got thrown out of at least two othe Red Sox message boards before coming here.

i'm not sure if its to his credit or to SoSH's everlasting lasting shame but he lasted here much longer than other boards and much, much longer than i expected.

Let's just say that Imgran brought the level of discussion around here to a new level. And is anyone truly gone if their memory lives on.

[ElcaballitoMVP]

You guys are doing fine running this site and the system. I see no problem with having to earn your stripes and proving you have the knowledge/passion/creativity to graduate from Lurker status. As a Lurker, I get to talk to a whole bunch of people just like myself and in no way have I ever been offended that I can't post in the big boy forum. I understand this place was here long before me, I was just never quite sure how to become a member. SoSH has done that for us now.

If being a lurker really bothers you to the point where you shit yourself on this thread, why waste your time here? I just don't get people bitching about something like this. If it's really that awful to be a lurker and you hate those big mean guys on the main thread so much, just go away and it will be one less problem for you.

I don't think the guys here are trying to be all high and mighty and saying their better than everyone. But they do expect a level of knowledge/passion/creativity that is on par with who they already have. They don't want it to become a shit show. When I read this, I thought, "Alright, now I know these guys are willing to give us 'Lurkers' a chance, and here's how." I didn't think, "Oh, these elitist assholes think they're better than me." because frankly, I don't give a shit if they do. It's an internet message board for Christ sakes.

[Only86Years]

You guys are doing fine running this site and the system. I see no problem with having to earn your stripes and proving you have the knowledge/passion/creativity to graduate from Lurker status. As a Lurker, I get to talk to a whole bunch of people just like myself and in no way have I ever been offended that I can't post in the big boy forum. I understand this place was here long before me, I was just never quite sure how to become a member. SoSH has done that for us now.

If being a lurker really bothers you to the point where you shit yourself on this thread, why waste your time here? I just don't get people bitching about something like this. If it's really that awful to be a lurker and you hate those big mean guys on the main thread so much, just go away and it will be one less problem for you.

I don't think the guys here are trying to be all high and mighty and saying their better than everyone. But they do expect a level of knowledge/passion/creativity that is on par with who they already have. They don't want it to become a shit show. When I read this, I thought, "Alright, now I know these guys are willing to give us 'Lurkers' a chance, and here's how." I didn't think, "Oh, these elitist assholes think they're better than me." because frankly, I don't give a shit if they do. It's an internet message board for Christ sakes.

I agree, but that works BOTH ways. If it is just a message board - why the Defcon 1 membership procedual nonsense? Personally, I have just about enough of the statistics argument. Saying that Varitek's day/night , home/away, blah blah blah splits are down .005% since 2002 - does nothing for me. Or a year before coming to the Sox, Schilling's K/BB ratio was 237/17(not true, but for argument sake it was close)....what does this kind of talk prove? Nothing except the poster has FAR too much time on his hands and is trying to appear informed....

Seriously, show me an example of a post that determined that a lurker was ready for the main board. I'd really like to see one.

[Cuzittt]

Seriously, show me an example of a post that determined that a lurker was ready for the main board. I'd really like to see one.

The post you quoted just gained Elcaballito membership. With not a single mention of stats. So, there you go.

[RoyalOrange]

To address the Suck Rule, I think of it not as saying that if you aren't a member you suck, but rather, don't do stupid shit when you are a member, and keep the quality of the board up.

I don't like sucking up to people either, but if you come onto this website with the attitude of wanting to read and discuss about the Sox, then it shouldn't matter. Some people seem too worried about becoming a sacred member than what this site is about, the damn Boston Red Sox. That is why I am here, and if that happens to me becoming a member sometime then so be it, but my life isn't going to depend on it. Comparing the board to a business that you own was a great illustration.

[USFSoxFan]

Seriously, show me an example of a post that determined that a lurker was ready for the main board. I'd really like to see one.

This post also also granted immediate membership

[CR67dream]

If it is just a message board - why the Defcon 1 membership procedual nonsense?

Nonsense? It gets proven necessary over and over again. Basically, it's so crappy, ridiculous threads like the one you started in the sandbox yesterday never see the light of day. And rather than listen to the feedback you received, you blew off the mod who was trying to fill you in on why that shit didn't fly. Now you come in here pissing and moaning. I really don't want to come across as slamming you here, but we've been over what we're trying to do here, we're discussing all feedback, and we're beginning to figure out the next wave of members. We've laid things out pretty clearly, we'll continue to keep the whole process more transparent, and we really hope the people that want to be here stick around and bear with us and do their part by posting well. Those who don't want to be here, for whatever reason can find the door easily enough. Personally, I've had it with the bitching, whining, and trolling in this thread though. Anyone who doesn't like it here, for whatever reason, is more than free to leave. (This isn't pointing the finger at anyone in particular, I'm speaking generally)

Yeah, in a way this is "just a message board". In many others, it's not. It's a community that has provided much more than the opportunity to exchange electronic messages with each other. We're a real world community as well as an internet one. We really care about the place as much more than "just a message board".

[StAubrun]

My take away from the 4/5 pages of conversation is that some lurkers are frustrated by the vagueness of the process. Actually, maybe lack of personal action might be a better term. For example, I don't mind working for something I want, but I always feel more empowered when I know I'm actively working towards that thing.

That's it... I think the lack of empowerment is the problem, or maybe it could be better described as the perception thereof. Let's say I want to join a softball team. I am going to go to the tryouts and play my ass off. If I get in excellent. If I don't, I have to try harder next year. Either way I was empowered in the process.

Another point... Structure (or the perception thereof) is comforting. Let's say this were a design competition (example). There would be guidelines, rules, suggestions, feedback etc. You know... clearly defined goals. However, it would remain clear, as in the example, that final judgment is subjective.

How about something empowering, structured, permanent, and clearly defined that a slight obsessive compulsive person like me can do. I can hear some people thinking, "There's already something you can do. Write posts that don't suck!" But, here the rub, I have no way of knowing whether anyone noticed my efforts. No one likes pissing in the ocean, well I do, but that's a whole other story.

I digress...

What do you think about adding pet projects to the existing paths to membership? Maybe someone has spent the last two years secretly working on "The correlation between wind dynamics and the ratio of fly balls to homers @ Wrigley Field from 1990 to present". Surely, that person would be deserving of membership.

I'm just saying. Give the super nerds a chance. You're missing out.

[bradcote]

How about something empowering, structured, permanent, and clearly defined that a slight obsessive compulsive person like me can do. I can hear some people thinking, "There's already something you can do. Write posts that don't suck!" But, here the rub, I have no way of knowing whether anyone noticed my efforts. No one likes pissing in the ocean, well I do, but that's a whole other story.

I can see where you are coming from, but the nature of posts are subjective. It isn't really practical to run posts through a series of criteria because it would make the process of creating new members so complex that fewer people would be nominated for membership (because it would be a giant pain in the butt).

The way that I have made sense of "write posts that don't suck" deals with embarassment. If I would be embarrased to read my post to my friends (who are all knowledgable sports fans, especially baseball), then I don't post it. I want to make sure that my points and arguments are sound and that there is evidence (stats, facts, etc.) to back up what I discuss. I am not perfect, but I try every post to stay at a high level of quality.

Not always easy to do, but I am looking forward to the day that I am invited to the membership ranks of SoSH.

[absintheofmalaise]

My take away from the 4/5 pages of conversation is that some lurkers are frustrated by the vagueness of the process. Actually, maybe lack of personal action might be a better term. For example, I don't mind working for something I want, but I always feel more empowered when I know I'm actively working towards that thing.

That's it... I think the lack of empowerment is the problem, or maybe it could be better described as the perception thereof. Let's say I want to join a softball team. I am going to go to the tryouts and play my ass off. If I get in excellent. If I don't, I have to try harder next year. Either way I was empowered in the process.

Another point... Structure (or the perception thereof) is comforting. Let's say this were a design competition (example). There would be guidelines, rules, suggestions, feedback etc. You know... clearly defined goals. However, it would remain clear, as in the example, that final judgment is subjective.

How about something empowering, structured, permanent, and clearly defined that a slight obsessive compulsive person like me can do. I can hear some people thinking, "There's already something you can do. Write posts that don't suck!" But, here the rub, I have no way of knowing whether anyone noticed my efforts. No one likes pissing in the ocean, well I do, but that's a whole other story.

I digress...

What do you think about adding pet projects to the existing paths to membership? Maybe someone has spent the last two years secretly working on "The correlation between wind dynamics and the ratio of fly balls to homers @ Wrigley Field from 1990 to present". Surely, that person would be deserving of membership.

I'm just saying. Give the super nerds a chance. You're missing out.

If you interact with people in MLB or one of the other sports forums then you'll probably get noticed. One way or another. No guarantees though.
I know of a number of people here who would be interested in a study like that. and yes, it would probably be deserving of membership. If you did write a study like that either start a thread about it and include a link to the study in MLB or you can PM me the info and I can post it if you like and/or I can email it to a couple of physics professors we have on here. Like I said, there are other people that would like to read it too.

Don't ever use the word empower on here again unless you're making fun of something or someone.

[StAubrun]

The study part was a joke. It would be interesting though. Also I like empower. It is one of those fun 90s terms I grabbed onto, and never ever intend to let go.