Message to BF.net users regarding member behavior and banning - August 2018 - PLEASE READ

[istanbultaye]

It's been to the benefit of the site to keep things semi-positive and productive.

 

I don't really think this is all that productive either though. Throughout the course of the season fans are going to be happy, angry, frustrated and pretty much any other adjective you can come up with. Trying to stifle the anger and frustration can lead to "boil over" posts that might not happen had fans been allowed to vent over the course of a frustrating week or two. Plus, what's the fun of baseball if you don't have well timed DFA *insert player here* posts?

 

Just my $.02.

 

Frankly, any person who gets so frustrated over a baseball game (that they aren't even playing in) that they lose any self-constraint when posting deserves any ban that they get.

[LouisEly]

LouisEly, if you read this, I wasn't calling you a nerd! I promise you. My apologies if you took it that way. My bad!

I knew you were referring to Stearns, and I was not one of the people who complained about it. Thank you, though, for the apology and thank you to those who stood up for me.

 

There was a post - I thought it was from you, but maybe I'm not remembering correctly - when I questioned not having Thames in the lineup vs. Bailey (a RHP on the Reds), and was told to look up Braun's career numbers and "go back and edit (your) post". This is a good example - and I'm not bring it up to call anyone out, but to use it as an example and a teaching moment - of what the mods are referring to, as that last part was not necessary. Maybe it was in jest, but it's hard to tell that in writing as words on a screen don't have voice inflection, facial expressions, etc.

 

A better way to phrase that response could have been something like, "They all have crushed the Reds and Bailey - he's having a tough season, but Braun's likely in the lineup because he has a 1.100 career OPS vs. Bailey." Could have made the same point without the last comment. Again, not calling anyone out here, just showing an example of how the same point could be made without potentially offending anyone.

 

The point the mods are making is, take an extra second or two to think about your comments before hitting submit. No need to call anyone names, no need to call someone out because they didn't find some obscure stat, no need to make it personal. Just "stick to the facts", state your opinion/stats and nothing more, and move on. And when in doubt, use blue font or add a smiley face/emoji to reinforce that you are joking.

[reillymcshane]

LouisEly, if you read this, I wasn't calling you a nerd! I promise you. My apologies if you took it that way. My bad!

I knew you were referring to Stearns, and I was not one of the people who complained about it. Thank you, though, for the apology and thank you to those who stood up for me.

 

There was a post - I thought it was from you, but maybe I'm not remembering correctly - when I questioned not having Thames in the lineup vs. Bailey (a RHP on the Reds), and was told to look up Braun's career numbers and "go back and edit (your) post". This is a good example - and I'm not bring it up to call anyone out, but to use it as an example and a teaching moment - of what the mods are referring to, as that last part was not necessary. Maybe it was in jest, but it's hard to tell that in writing as words on a screen don't have voice inflection, facial expressions, etc.

 

A better way to phrase that response could have been something like, "They all have crushed the Reds and Bailey - he's having a tough season, but Braun's likely in the lineup because he has a 1.100 career OPS vs. Bailey." Could have made the same point without the last comment. Again, not calling anyone out here, just showing an example of how the same point could be made without potentially offending anyone.

 

The point the mods are making is, take an extra second or two to think about your comments before hitting submit. No need to call anyone names, no need to call someone out because they didn't find some obscure stat, no need to make it personal. Just "stick to the facts", state your opinion/stats and nothing more, and move on. And when in doubt, use blue font or add a smiley face/emoji to reinforce that you are joking.

LouisEly, I totally agree with your sentiments.

 

Recently I saw this exchange:

 

Poster 1: "Player A is not doing well because Stat AB."

Poster 2: "If Stat AB is how you're judging a player you should scroll to the right and look at other statistics."

 

Why was that done? Why not say: "I don't agree that Stat AB is the best way to judge the player. I think there are other stats, such as Stat XY and Stat AZ reflect his abilities in this situation."

 

Instead it's a snarky dig at Poster A - as if they are too stupid to look at other stats.

 

That's the EXACT kind of stuff that kills a discussion. Poster A is potentially angry (and could reported Poster B). An exchange takes place that is sharp and argumentative instead of constructive.

 

This kind of thing happens all the time. The Mods post warnings asking people to stop. Post messages asking people to be aware. And then it happens again and again.

 

It boggles my mind people have to take shots at other people like this. You have to be correct - and denigrate the another person at the same time? Is that the point?

 

I can let you know that people are being watched - and there will be bans if some of the activity continues.

 

I don't think it's out of line for us to ask for this.

[pacopete4]

Oh man. Using batting average as your only assessment tool. Try scrolling a bit to the right to see those OPS numbers. And then check out those career numbers to support it even further.

 

Just wanted to put the actual post being called out because I believe Reilly’s post to be a bit misleading. Could the above post been worded differently? Probably. But it’s only asking a poster to not use BA as their only source of information. And in the context of the “argument” to not cherry pick stats to try to make a point in which the poster admitted doing after two posters discussed with him. And on top of that, when a mod said that’s enough, it stopped. I get that mods are using this thread to vent a bit too but this really wasn’t much of anything. Probably a better course of dialogue than the 15 other pages of “Brewers suck” this or that player sucks, yada yada yada.

[adambr2]

Oh man. Using batting average as your only assessment tool. Try scrolling a bit to the right to see those OPS numbers. And then check out those career numbers to support it even further.

 

Just wanted to put the actual post being called out because I believe Reilly’s post to be a bit misleading. Could the above post been worded differently? Probably. But it’s only asking a poster to not use BA as their only source of information. And in the context of the “argument” to not cherry pick stats to try to make a point in which the poster admitted doing after two posters discussed with him. And on top of that, when a mod said that’s enough, it stopped. I get that mods are using this thread to vent a bit too but this really wasn’t much of anything. Probably a better course of dialogue than the 15 other pages of “Brewers suck” this or that player sucks, yada yada yada.

 

I personally don't think Reilly's point was misleading or that mods are looking to vent here.

 

Just my opinion here Brew, but here's the way I look at that.

 

"Oh man" wasn't really needed at all, just shows exasperation with the poster. The rest of it could have been worded:

 

"His batting average may be low, but his OPS indicates he's doing just fine, and those numbers are in line with his career lows. I think OPS is a far more modern evaluation and better indicator of offensive performance."

 

Exact same message, but doesn't come across negatively and isn't likely to escalate things with another poster. I don't mean to single you out (heck I don't even know if the dialogue above is even yours), because I've been guilty of this stuff myself many times. We can all do better. I'm just pointing out how easy it generally is to get points across in a respectful way just by looking for a different way to say it.

 

We could probably prevent 99% of the confrontations by doing this. I don't think the "batting average" dialogue was brought up because it was that bad or anything - we've all seen and many of us posted worse. I think it was just brought up because it's the kind of thing that often puts the other side on the defensive and snowballs and we can and should avoid -- and again, I know I personally can do better.

[82brewcrew82]

If this is snarky.........

 

Oh man. Using batting average as your only assessment tool. Try scrolling a bit to the right to see those OPS numbers. And then check out those career numbers to support it even further.

 

Then what is this..........

 

I did find it funny, though, that some of the posters that seemed "offended" were the ones who I see as the most combative here. I guess people in glass houses CAN throw stones.

 

It's snarky, it's unnecessary, it's not constructive, it's negatively repetitive in both substance and behavior, it literally fits every single criteria set forth in this thread with regard to what will not be tolerated. I understand, and applaud, what the MODs are trying to do here but in my opinion it's wrong to call out a specific poster publicly but let others ride. That cuts against the very grain of what you're trying to accomplish. For the record, I have no problem with either of the posts above or the people who made them. Just my .02 cents.

[homer]

If this is snarky.........

 

Oh man. Using batting average as your only assessment tool. Try scrolling a bit to the right to see those OPS numbers. And then check out those career numbers to support it even further.

 

Then what is this..........

 

I did find it funny, though, that some of the posters that seemed "offended" were the ones who I see as the most combative here. I guess people in glass houses CAN throw stones.

 

It's snarky, it's unnecessary, it's not constructive, it's negatively repetitive in both substance and behavior, it literally fits every single criteria set forth in this thread with regard to what will not be tolerated. I understand, and applaud, what the MODs are trying to do here but in my opinion it's wrong to call out a specific poster publicly but let others ride. That cuts against the very grain of what you're trying to accomplish. For the record, I have no problem with either of the posts above or the people who made them. Just my .02 cents.

 

To adambr's point above, if you remove the quotes around offended and leave out the last sentence that is a much better response. Most of the issue comes from escalation and little changes in posts can make all the difference in the world in that regard.

 

But to your point, 82brewcrew82 the difference, IMO, is that the one post was in direct response to another poster and the other one was a general statement more or less. It could have been worded differently though. Again, this stuff is subjective and we do our best but there's a big swath of gray area to traverse. It's rarely cut and dried.

[pacopete4]

adambr2 is right, (it is my post). It would've been a lot better if I had worded it the way he broke it down in his post and I know I need to work to get better at doing it. IGT's sometimes lead to more in the moment, off the cuff dialogue but that is no excuse.

 

Where I get frustrated is exactly what 82brewcrew82 pointed out. And Homer, I don't mean to call you out but you publicly tried to embarrass/shame me for a lot less than the post used in 82brewcrew82's example. That is where it gets frustrating as a poster to see this stuff but yet, you are targeted (now twice). And at no time has a mod ever reached out in a PM to discuss anything. This thread is great for communication with some of this stuff that has been happening around here but that is where it ends with communication.

[homer]

adambr2 is right, (it is my post). It would've been a lot better if I had worded it the way he broke it down in his post and I know I need to work to get better at doing it. IGT's sometimes lead to more in the moment, off the cuff dialogue but that is no excuse.

 

Where I get frustrated is exactly what 82brewcrew82 pointed out. And Homer, I don't mean to call you out but you publicly tried to embarrass/shame me for a lot less than the post used in 82brewcrew82's example. That is where it gets frustrating as a poster to see this stuff but yet, you are targeted (now twice). And at no time has a mod ever reached out in a PM to discuss anything. This thread is great for communication with some of this stuff that has been happening around here but that is where it ends with communication.

 

Sometimes Mods have bad days too. I probably shouldn't have called you out publicly in that thread. Sometimes we do things to make a larger point to other posters so they know what is and is not appropriate and once in a while I hit the gas too hard. I need to be better in that regard.

[reillymcshane]

Oh man. Using batting average as your only assessment tool. Try scrolling a bit to the right to see those OPS numbers. And then check out those career numbers to support it even further.

 

Just wanted to put the actual post being called out because I believe Reilly’s post to be a bit misleading. Could the above post been worded differently? Probably. But it’s only asking a poster to not use BA as their only source of information. And in the context of the “argument” to not cherry pick stats to try to make a point in which the poster admitted doing after two posters discussed with him. And on top of that, when a mod said that’s enough, it stopped. I get that mods are using this thread to vent a bit too but this really wasn’t much of anything. Probably a better course of dialogue than the 15 other pages of “Brewers suck” this or that player sucks, yada yada yada.

I would argue that this was far more than 'only asking a poster to not use BA as their only source of information."

 

Oh man. Using batting average as your only assessment tool. Try scrolling a bit to the right to see those OPS numbers. And then check out those career numbers to support it even further.

 

As noted, this could have been worded in a fashion that was constructive. Instead, it is showing exasperation (oh man) at the poster, then it's condescending ('Try scrolling a bit to the right..."). Depending on how a person reacts, this could really go sideways.

 

The post was used not to call out a specific person, but a specific type of post that comes up repeatedly. The original post was not included, but altered so no names and some of the specifics were removed to avoid naming people. I fully understood the people involved would potentially recognize themselves in the exchange, but I was okay with that. It was a public exchange on the board, and the post worked well for what I believed was a good example for this thread. If that caused distress, then my apologies.

 

In the end, Brew4U took ownership of the example. The original post was not held against him. It fact, I specifically noted to the other mods I was NOT sending him a warning, but instead using it as an example for this thread.

 

In many of the threads, we delete similar posts, or tell people to stop. Perhaps that is not 'warning' enough, so we will try and send warnings via PM in the future.

 

Thanks.

[pacopete4]

Thanks for the clarification Reilly. It is appreciated.

[reillymcshane]

Thanks for the clarification Reilly. It is appreciated.

You're welcome.

[xisxisxis]

Not calling anyone out but how is this for a reply to another poster:

 

Wow, is this real life. Thames has a 507 OPS since the all-star break. End of discussion. There's a lot of pitchers you'd rather have hit than him right now...to point at season stats is wildly lazy.

clarification from the uber mods about whether this fits into the posting guidelines and general intent of this thread would be great...

[bigredrobbo]

Uber mods? Way to prove the thread's point!

[xisxisxis]

Uber mods? Way to prove the thread's point!

I apologize to the mods who didn't know that in some contexts (as was my intent here) the German word Uber can be translated as "Super". Maybe asking for a clarification is more in the intent of the thread ...

[yfinn6]

Uber mods? Way to prove the thread's point!

I apologize to the mods who didn't know that in some contexts (as was my intent here) the German word Uber can be translated as "Super". Maybe asking for a clarification is more in the intent of the thread ...

 

Your contined abuse of the ellipsis is almost as troubling as any crazy view point.

 

The combative style that has driven posters away has been happening for a while and it's usually the same posters over and over again; even since the start of this thread there have been the same posters doing the same thing even after admitting they may be "over the top."

 

This isn't the only forum I post in and the other one is way more cut-throat so I can handle the snark and sometimes welcome it (when done properly) but the board had been getting more difficult to read over the last few years and while the in-game threads can be annoying, I noticed it in threads on all the various 'forums' within this board. I know I should report posts, but it's easier just to combat them real-time. I'll quit that now.

[reillymcshane]

Not calling anyone out but how is this for a reply to another poster:

 

Wow, is this real life. Thames has a 507 OPS since the all-star break. End of discussion. There's a lot of pitchers you'd rather have hit than him right now...to point at season stats is wildly lazy.

clarification from the uber mods about whether this fits into the posting guidelines and general intent of this thread would be great...

I will say that it is difficult to make a judgement on something like this without context.

 

First, it says it was in response to another poster - but I'd want to be sure it wasn't really just a general comment aimed at a general idea. There could be a bunch of posts debating the merit of playing Thames, and someone could reply to one person - but really be referring to the general theme.

 

A more general comment - not aimed at a person - probably comes across as less offensive. Is it done well? No. It pushes the sarcasm buttons and challenges others - at least to a degree.

 

Second, has the poster been baited or goaded? Is the post really part of a more contentious thread, where people are getting edgy. All this puts a different spin on the situation. So again, context.

 

However, if the post was directed at a specific person without any real reason, I'd probably say it isn't a particularly nice quote. 'Wow, is this real life' could be showing some exasperation. Then saying someone is 'wildly lazy' is kind of jerkish. The 'End of discussion' isn't of itself offensive, but it can have a 'this is the answer and there's no other answer' pronouncement - which is just kind of arrogant.

 

No matter what, I'd rather have had a post such as, "Thames has a .507 OPS since the all star break. I don't think looking at his early season numbers really is very relevant, and focusing on his entire season isn't a smart move. I feel so strongly about this, I'd rather have some of our pitchers hit rather than Thames."

 

Nicer, less contentious - no matter the context.

 

In the end, other things can affect the view of a post like this. One of the biggest factors is a person's posting history. A person who posts a lot of stuff like this is going to have less rope than someone who doesn't.

 

The Mods can't police every post on the site. If someone genuinely got the above post, and felt it was really offensive, report it. We will look at it. How we will respond depends on the context of the entire thing.

 

I do want to say that we have to understand that everyone is human - and we all do and say some dumb things. Probably every person on this board has made a snarky or challenging post that came across more harshly than they intended.

 

I think we often know that, and we let a lot of stuff slide - just chalk it up to us being human - and move on.

 

Ultimately, we'll look at each situation and react. Every situation is a little different. And each response is a little different.

 

I hope this helps with things.