Enough with the hyperbole

[Milkman delivers]

Will you be saying them 19 times consecutively or will you be pausing to actually elaborate on them?

 

If it's just said once or twice, does it need the elaboration?

 

EDIT: And I've also seen posters referred to as "drunken idiots" and "douches" in just this thread. I hope this edict doesn't start an open season on pessimistic posters.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Milkman delivers

[iamshack]

Well there was an argument on here earlier this year where people called Dunn "terrible at baseball". It then got into the silly discussion of how Dunn is better than posters at baseball, so clearly he's not terrible at the game. I must be dumber than usual this morning, cause I thought I had a legitimate question.

I was the one who brought those examples up.

 

All I said was that there was a growing trend to make statements such as "Player x is horrible at baseball," or "Player Blah is pathetic at his profession."

 

Honestly, I don't think it is against any rule to make such a statement, but when there is a chorus of people making such statements, what has been added to the discussion? What do I take away from someone's effort to type those opinions out?

[Milkman delivers]

I was the one who brought those examples up.

 

All I said was that there was a growing trend to make statements such as "Player x is horrible at baseball," or "Player Blah is pathetic at his profession."

 

Honestly, I don't think it is against any rule to make such a statement, but when there is a chorus of people making such statements, what has been added to the discussion? What do I take away from someone's effort to type those opinions out?

 

I'll bite. You ask what is added to the discussion when multiple people make those statements. So what is added to discussion in, say, a "Winner" thread? There is usually no meaningful discussion at all in those threads. I've also seen in this thread a complaint about even "Winner" threads being brought down by negativity. So then, what does one take away from discussion in those threads by typing out a negative opinion regarding the game?

[iamshack]

I'll bite. You ask what is added to the discussion when multiple people make those statements. So what is added to discussion in, say, a "Winner" thread? There is usually no meaningful discussion at all in those threads. I've also seen in this thread a complaint about even "Winner" threads being brought down by negativity. So then, what does one take away from discussion in those threads by typing out a negative opinion regarding the game?

Well, it was my impression that the entire reason this forum exists is to bring together White Sox fans to celebrate winning White Sox baseball.

 

I understand your point, and yes, certainly not every thread or post is going to contain some substantive opinion or information. And that's ok...but come on...does someone being happy about the White Sox winning a game really have a negative effect on you?

[BigSqwert]

This might be the worst thread I've ever seen on this site.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is the funny thing in this whole discussion... no one can nail down an exact definition of what people are referring to as that hyperbolic, hyper-negative post quality... and yet pretty much everyone would point to the same few posters as being just that.

 

The exact reactions in this thread to this topic are a perfect illustration of the hyperbole. We are "turning into WSI"? Really? I think everyone here sees that isn't the case, and in fact the guys at WSI would probably be insulted. WSI runs their site a lot differently than we do, for better or worse. They ban entire subjects of discussion, suspend people for being a "dark cloud", or even for content posted on other sites. They feel that keeps their board cleaner, whereas we feel its better to allow posters more license. And we do, so don't even bother trying to say otherwise.

 

I personally have no issue with being "negative" or "positive" - its the way its delivered. You can say "Oh come on Ozzie, really? Leaving Peavy in for another batter? WTF?", and we all get that. But when your post says "Ozzie is a f***ing ass-clown who couldn't manage a little league team!!!", and when the board is full of posts like that... who wants to read that? This, IMO, is the biggest reason why we see fewer and fewer good, in-depth discussions, and why many of the knowledgeable posters stay mostly away. They are smart enough to see that their good points would just get lost amongst the hyperbolic bloviations of a few loud, obnoxious posters.

 

Yes, its subjective. No, we aren't becoming WSI. But we pretty much all know what Jason is getting at here. And if you are one of the few who don't, well...

 

 

[bjm676]

I agree with this, a lot of negativity. This used to be a place to get info and latest news and discussions on upcoming games. But is it still ok for me to criticize Alex Rios? Do I need to back up my statements with research or is hitting under .220 through June on a $12.5MIL salary sufficient enough?

[Milkman delivers]

Well, it was my impression that the entire reason this forum exists is to bring together White Sox fans to celebrate winning White Sox baseball.

 

I understand your point, and yes, certainly not every thread or post is going to contain some substantive opinion or information. And that's ok...but come on...does someone being happy about the White Sox winning a game really have a negative effect on you?

 

I assumed you would go that route and insinuate I'm actively rooting against the Sox. My point is that this is a discussion board and this move is clearly meant to stifle one side over the other when both sides are necessary to create meaningful discussion. I realize that the initial post includes the people who are "rah rah White Sox" with no substance, but let's not act like this isn't a direct attempt to rein in the negative posts.

 

I still would like some concrete examples (maybe quote a few posts) as the little caveat thrown in on the first post, "Note: No warnings will be issued, so consider this your warning", is pretty disconcerting.

[Milkman delivers]

Here is the funny thing in this whole discussion... no one can nail down an exact definition of what people are referring to as that hyperbolic, hyper-negative post quality... and yet pretty much everyone would point to the same few posters as being just that.

 

The exact reactions in this thread to this topic are a perfect illustration of the hyperbole. We are "turning into WSI"? Really? I think everyone here sees that isn't the case, and in fact the guys at WSI would probably be insulted. WSI runs their site a lot differently than we do, for better or worse. They ban entire subjects of discussion, suspend people for being a "dark cloud", or even for content posted on other sites. They feel that keeps their board cleaner, whereas we feel its better to allow posters more license. And we do, so don't even bother trying to say otherwise.

 

I personally have no issue with being "negative" or "positive" - its the way its delivered. You can say "Oh come on Ozzie, really? Leaving Peavy in for another batter? WTF?", and we all get that. But when your post says "Ozzie is a f***ing ass-clown who couldn't manage a little league team!!!", and when the board is full of posts like that... who wants to read that? This, IMO, is the biggest reason why we see fewer and fewer good, in-depth discussions, and why many of the knowledgeable posters stay mostly away. They are smart enough to see that their good points would just get lost amongst the hyperbolic bloviations of a few loud, obnoxious posters.

 

Yes, its subjective. No, we aren't becoming WSI. But we pretty much all know what Jason is getting at here. And if you are one of the few who don't, well...

 

Although I appreciate the insinuation that the current posters are of substandard quality and that anyone who is questioning this move is "one of those guys", I still have yet to see some real life examples. I'd like to have a better understanding before I take the risk of possibly being suspended with no warning.

[NorthSideSox72]

I assumed you would go that route and insinuate I'm actively rooting against the Sox. My point is that this is a discussion board and this move is clearly meant to stifle one side over the other when both sides are necessary to create meaningful discussion. I realize that the initial post includes the people who are "rah rah White Sox" with no substance, but let's not act like this isn't a direct attempt to rein in the negative posts.

 

I still would like some concrete examples (maybe quote a few posts) as the little caveat thrown in on the first post, "Note: No warnings will be issued, so consider this your warning", is pretty disconcerting.

On the two bolded sentences...

 

First sentence, I'll actually defend you here, I don't think you are rooting against the Sox at all. I think very few people are.

 

Second sentence is just patently false. You're damn right you need both sides to have a good discussion, although "both sides" doesn't have to mean positive vs negative on the team. But all Jason is trying to do is get rid of the garbage posts, the ones that chase off good posts and posters. And let's be honest, its a lot easier to be a negative ass than a positive one, so naturally, more of the garbage is negative.

 

[scenario]

I was the one who brought those examples up.

 

All I said was that there was a growing trend to make statements such as "Player x is horrible at baseball," or "Player Blah is pathetic at his profession."

 

Honestly, I don't think it is against any rule to make such a statement, but when there is a chorus of people making such statements, what has been added to the discussion? What do I take away from someone's effort to type those opinions out?

 

Agreed.

I think it's natural to see some posts like this in a thread as people vent their frustrations.

The problem is that posts like these have (IMO) become the average post... with people spewing more and more negative comments like they're trying to outdo each other.

That's what it seems like these days.

As a result, there are days when not only do I not post... I simply stop reading game threads... and catch myself wondering why I even bother posting here anymore.

And I'm a pretty hardcore baseball junkie. So, I know if it's happening to me there are lots of other people who feel the same way.

 

Solution? People must simply be aware and take responsibility for the quality of their posts. Nothing wrong with being negative. But if the only contribution being made is bash more and louder without much substance... the board becomes much less interesting... and much more like a Yahoo or ESPN board.

 

[iamshack]

I assumed you would go that route and insinuate I'm actively rooting against the Sox. My point is that this is a discussion board and this move is clearly meant to stifle one side over the other when both sides are necessary to create meaningful discussion. I realize that the initial post includes the people who are "rah rah White Sox" with no substance, but let's not act like this isn't a direct attempt to rein in the negative posts.

 

I still would like some concrete examples (maybe quote a few posts) as the little caveat thrown in on the first post, "Note: No warnings will be issued, so consider this your warning", is pretty disconcerting.

I'm not trying to insinuate that at all....I'm asking you a legitimate question....if a White Sox winner thread bothers you, do you really think you're at the right place?

 

I have some of my best discussions with some of the pessimistic posters, so please don't feel as though I don't respect and want those posters here contributing. And what NSS said above, those "ass-clown" posts are even funny once in awhile or when done to break up some anger or tension, but it's when things become a contest to see who can become the most shocking or negative trash talker that I think that sort of style begins to weigh on many.

 

Just my seven cents.

[NorthSideSox72]

Although I appreciate the insinuation that the current posters are of substandard quality and that anyone who is questioning this move is "one of those guys", I still have yet to see some real life examples. I'd like to have a better understanding before I take the risk of possibly being suspended with no warning.

If the bolded were true, I'd be referring to myself as well. So no, not really what I was getting at.

 

But I do appreciate your desire for examples. Now, if I go find a bunch, people will of course figure out who said them, and then it will look like I'm picking on certain posters.

 

Eh, f*** it, I am picking on certain posts and posters, because I'm tired of the garbage. So let me go find a few examples for you...

 

[Milkman delivers]

And again, I notice that the personal jabs usually don't come from the negative posters, but are normally directed at them. I hope that is considered, as I pointed out that this group has already been referred to in unsavory ways in this thread alone.

[WHarris1]

This is all really fairly simply and being read way too far in to it seems. Could have been left at Jason's post.

Edited June 24, 2011 by WHarris1

[southsider2k5]

I agree with this, a lot of negativity. This used to be a place to get info and latest news and discussions on upcoming games. But is it still ok for me to criticize Alex Rios? Do I need to back up my statements with research or is hitting under .220 through June on a $12.5MIL salary sufficient enough?

 

Criticizing players is going to be OK, like it always has. Things like "Alex Rios is a lazy mfer who only cares about his money." are more what is the problem here.

[Milkman delivers]

I'm not trying to insinuate that at all....I'm asking you a legitimate question....if a White Sox winner thread bothers you, do you really think you're at the right place?

 

I have some of my best discussions with some of the pessimistic posters, so please don't feel as though I don't respect and want those posters here contributing. And what NSS said above, those "ass-clown" posts are even funny once in awhile or when done to break up some anger or tension, but it's when things become a contest to see who can become the most shocking or negative trash talker that I think that sort of style begins to weigh on many.

 

Just my seven cents.

 

It doesn't bother me. But if the Sox win a game and Juan Pierre goes 0-4 with a failed bunt attempt and a walk that led to a CS, it should be allowed that a poster mention how badly he sucks in the Winner thread. Or when there is a win despite Ozzie's best attempts to lose the game, that warrants being mentioned. But that's viewed as attempting to bring down a thread or a win.

[Milkman delivers]

If the bolded were true, I'd be referring to myself as well. So no, not really what I was getting at.

 

But I do appreciate your desire for examples. Now, if I go find a bunch, people will of course figure out who said them, and then it will look like I'm picking on certain posters.

 

Eh, f*** it, I am picking on certain posts and posters, because I'm tired of the garbage. So let me go find a few examples for you...

 

I said already that you can use me as an example. It doesn't bother me and it will help clarify the rules for everyone.

[iamshack]

And again, I notice that the personal jabs usually don't come from the negative posters, but are normally directed at them. I hope that is considered, as I pointed out that this group has already been referred to in unsavory ways in this thread alone.

I think you are being a bit defensive here.

 

The lollipops and gumdrops posters get mocked and laughed at just as much or more as some of the negative nancy guys.

 

I think guys like you, that usually take a pessimistic approach, but do so in an intelligent manner and seem to have some sense of reasonable and rational thoughts in your mind, are respected, even though you do take a bit of s***. But you've got to expect that, given the fact that you are on a White Sox fan forum and where you're coming from most of the time with your opinions.

[StrangeSox]

We're in the middle of what I think everyone can agree has been a pretty disappointing season thus far, regardless if you're pessimistic or optimistic about how it will end. I hope there isn't an overreaction to the negativity that the play on the field is producing.

[Balta1701]

We're in the middle of what I think everyone can agree has been a pretty disappointing season thus far, regardless if you're pessimistic or optimistic about how it will end. I hope there isn't an overreaction to the negativity that the play on the field is producing.

I feel like we wind up with ~ 1 of these threads a year, every season, no matter how the team is doing.

[iamshack]

It doesn't bother me. But if the Sox win a game and Juan Pierre goes 0-4 with a failed bunt attempt and a walk that led to a CS, it should be allowed that a poster mention how badly he sucks in the Winner thread. Or when there is a win despite Ozzie's best attempts to lose the game, that warrants being mentioned. But that's viewed as attempting to bring down a thread or a win.

I don't think that's the case at all.

 

I think it's when someone basically insinuated the player or manager should be drawn and quartered in a very explicit manner that people get a little tired of it.

[Milkman delivers]

I think you are being a bit defensive here.

 

The lollipops and gumdrops posters get mocked and laughed at just as much or more as some of the negative nancy guys.

 

I think guys like you, that usually take a pessimistic approach, but do so in an intelligent manner and seem to have some sense of reasonable and rational thoughts in your mind, are respected, even though you do take a bit of s***. But you've got to expect that, given the fact that you are on a White Sox fan forum and where you're coming from most of the time with your opinions.

 

That part doesn't bother me. It's the fact that people seem to often get away with personal shots as long as it's against a person who is considered pessimistic. A guy that comes to mind recently (even though he's sometimes pessimistic, sometimes optimistic) is Real, who seems to come at the person he's arguing with directly. And again, right in this thread you have people being referred to as idiots and douches, but it's glossed over.

[SoxAce]

This is all really fairly simply and being read way too far in to it seems. Could have been left at Jason's post.

 

 

Agreed completely, and I was meh on the whole thing to begin with. As long as the optimist and pessimist are still allowed to do their thing (which makes this board great to begin with) and just cut out the terrible hyperbole on both accounts (optimist and pessimist) then its all good.

[Milkman delivers]

I don't think that's the case at all.

 

I think it's when someone basically insinuated the player or manager should be drawn and quartered in a very explicit manner that people get a little tired of it.

 

If you really don't think any amount of negativity after a win is looked at in disgust by more than a few posters, then I think you're just blind to it. Hell, we had a guy basically swear a vendetta to get negative posters banned because he was tired of the negativity which is caused directly by the team's poor play.

 

I think the real issue comes down to where people vent their frustrations. It seems to me that those viewed as negative vent towards the team, whereas the other side vents towards the negative ones.