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.