New Dir of Public Relations: brewerjamie15

[Brian the Automator]

Just wanted to give everyone here a heads up that brewerjamie15 is now "employed" as the Dir of Public Relations. He will be officially in charge of coordinating events and pimping us out to the public.

[rluzinski]

Is the chance of brewerfan.net being recognized as a media outlet in any way by the Brewers still zero? Meanwhile a newspaper in the upper NW of wisconsin with a circulation of 14 can get a press pass?

 

BTW, gratz, brewerjamie15 http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[brettac1]

Yeah, it'd be sweet if you could get access to the stats at MLB Press Box, so people who actually have a use for them could see them.

 

Way to go Jamie.

[brewerjamie15]

Thank you very much for the well wishes. I am anxious to get some things started so we can gain more positive public exposure. Also, I am open to suggestions for social gatherings, or other ideas creating public awarness for this fine site.

[ja002h]

Congrats and good luck!

 

Now to procure that rotating press pass... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[pogokat]

don't we need a full time paid employee???

[BillScottCanRake]

don't we need a full time paid employee???

 

I guess I never understood why that is necessary to get a press pass from the Brewers. Maybe I don't understand that business, but I'd think quality work, whether it's done by someone who is or isn't getting paid is all that counts.

 

It seems like we are good enough for everyone except Indy and Milwaukee...

[dadofandrew]

I think the criteria for a MLB press pass is you have to have people paying for your product. That's how BP gets them, now that they have premium content.

[mothershipconnection]

I think the criteria for a MLB press pass is you have to have people paying for your product

So Brian creates "brewerfan: uncut and uncensored", which is nothing more than a link to the cheese sandwhiches thread, and "sells" subscriptions to the guys who will use the press pass.

[ja002h]

If you think about it, a lot of people *do* pay for this product, it's just not coerced. But I like motherships idea.

[hawing]

Whoa! I guess I missed the big news today. That'll teach me to spend part of the work day at a mandatory program on "Customer Service - Disney Style." (Don't ask.)

 

Wow, Jamie, I remember when you were just starting out posting. You're a good choice for PR, though. Congratulations and don't forget us little people next weekend. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[bjkrautk]

Congrats to Jamie...I guess we now have a new person to congratulate whenever Powell, Sutton, or Schroeder give the site a plug. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[ccbrew]

I think the criteria for a MLB press pass is you have to have people paying for your product.

 

I'm sure that proceeds from those robust sales of coffee mugs and classic thongs can go toward press box access http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif .

[bork]

Congrats.

 

How about an ad campaign involving squirrels?

[brewerjamie15]

lol. Oddly enough, our power went out on our block the other day. I called to find out why and they told me it was a squirrell trying to eat some wire. There wasn't much left of the squirrell. HAHAhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif

[jwaltz]

Must have been Dusty's dumb cousin.

 

Congrats Jamie.

[gregmag]

Congrats to Jamie. I have to say, though, that locking the Drew Olson thread was not exactly an auspicious beginning to your career in your new position. Most of the posts in that thread were substantive, and I found the discussion of Drew, the importance of baseball journalism, and the appropriateness of criticizing baseball journalists very interesting. If the site is more than an autocracy -- and it has always been run very openly in the past -- then I think you owed us a much better explanation for locking the thread than you provided. Based on what you did write in your locking post, I respectfully suggest that your decision was unjustified.

 

Greg.

[brewerjamie15]

Greg- Fair enough. I understand your point. I was going to throw the following up there, but I was hoping that the issue would die down first. I think that if you read this, you'll see that my locking of the thread was purely in the intrest of sropping further insults, and attempting to salvage Olsen's opinion of the site. (see below)

 

Recently we had a Drew Olsen chat thread on the Major League board that quite frankly, got out of hand. Regardless if the comments were supposed to be "poking fun" of Olsen or intentionally mean spirited, I can honestly say it was embarrassing.

From a Public Relations stand point, I'm in a unique situation and I'd hope that you can all understand my dilemma. Yes, we do want everyone to have freedom of speech here on Brewerfan.net but at the same point, we can not tolerate the belittling of fellow posters or reporters and broadcasters. How can I possibly serve YOU as Brewerfan.net readers if the site itself is causing animosity towards the very people I am trying to attract?

I realize that from time to time we will disagree with comments made by the media; they are subjecting themselves to it by the very nature of their jobs. Pointing out errors or critiquing one's work is completely acceptable. Flat out insulting individuals is not what we are about here at Brewerfan.net. So in the future, please think about your post before you hit the reply button. If you can honestly say that what you typed would not be an insult if directed at you, then go ahead and post it.

[berniebrewer4life]

Jamie, welcome. I would like to say, i agree with your reasoning for closing that thread. Granted, it might look a little better if you didn't have to do it this early into your "career", but the reasoning was there.

[SenatorShriv]

Congrats Jamie. I really appreciate your dedication to the site. There are a lot of us out there who don't contribute much of substance, but certainly benefit from everyone else's hard work. I'm sure that you'll do a great job bringing the site new and beneficial exposure.

[gregmag]

Jamie, I'm grateful for your elaboration, and I appreciate that you took this issue very seriously. Even so, I have to express my strong disagreement with your decision. What I get from your explanation here is that you shut down the thread because (a) people were ripping each other, (b) people were ripping Drew, and © both of those things, especially (b), make the site look bad to the outside world.

 

If we start basing allowable standards of speech on how we look to the outside world, then we can't have free, frank discussions. We just can't. I can understand enforcing basic standards of civility (no swearing, no personal insults, some measure of sensitivity to minor leaguers' feelings), but I didn't see any posts in that thread stoop to profanity, name-calling, or unsupported attacks. Yes, some of the comments about Drew were harsh. Well, this is a Brewers fan Web site, and Drew Olson is a public figure of great importance to Brewers fans. People are going to say strongly negative things about him, and Ned Yost, and Geoff Jenkins. That has to be okay -- even if some of the negative comments would strike most reasonable people as one-sided or exaggerated -- for open discussion to happen. If you're really trying to make this a site that will never offend Drew Olson, because he might think badly of us if we denigrate him, then we probably shouldn't pretend to have a fan forum at all.

 

Even if a thread contains posts that violate standards of civility, I think the threshold for locking threads should be extremely high. (I'm not thinking about cases in which threads are irrelevant or redundant, which happens fairly often.) Moderators here have occasionally warned particular posters or even removed offensive posts. Those steps seem to me far preferable to locking a thread that includes even a substantial number, let alone a majority, of valid posts. For whatever my opinion is worth, I think the moderators should only shut down a thread for content reasons when the thread has completely degenerated into a shouting match or exchange of insults. The Olson thread didn't get to that point. Not even close. It was a somewhat impassioned exchange about how good a job Drew Olson does and whether and why we should care or comment. That's a substantive, mostly constructive discussion.

 

I hope you'll forgive the length of this diatribe, and I say everything with respect for the fact that you've undertaken a difficult job that I don't have to do. I just value the standards of frank, wide-ranging discussion this site has established, and I don't want to see it sterilized. Thanks for listening.

 

Greg.

[brewerjamie15]

Greg-

I've read what you said and I understand your feelings. Your opinion and the opinion of -all- posters on BF.Net are all worth quite a bit. I'm here for all of you and I hope that I'll be able to represent this fine community the way it deserves. As I said, it's kind of an odd situation I'm in here, trying to speak with the very same people we hold under a magnifying glass. I too, have and will continue to disect articles, etc about the Brewers.

I need to make sure that once talking about announcers, etc. that there are no callus attacks made. I'll be sure that in the future I have a bit more tolerance,but I also hope that ultimately, the decision I made was with best intentions.

I appreciate everyone's well wishes, and the ability to speak about this issue in a mature and productive manner.

I'd also like to invite everyone to hold on to their socks, because in the near future I will be unveiling some really cool ideas that I'm working on. I think some of them will really blow you away.

 

Jamie

[madbad2000]

Just so Jamie doesn't feel like he is alone in his decision. What was done wasn't Jamie acting alone and the action was supported by others behind the scenes. The thread was to the point of providing no substantial dialogue/information and was closed. If people wished to talk about the chat in a manner better suited for discussion, then start a new thread. Closing of threads is a serious issue here and not done lightly by any means. It's important to remember that censorship is a necessary evil, but we don't censor viewpoints/ideas. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and BF.net would suck without differing viewpoints/discussion. We try to maintain the highest level of discussion and range, but a pet peeve of most is the way threads/topics can quickly degenerate to the low levels that other boards may possess. The Olsen thread is a pretty volatile topic because most dislike his coverage of the Brewers. I think he could do a better job, sure. He's a public figure and is open to criticism for his ideas. Having 100 posts saying "Olsen sucks" does nothing for anyone. The two biggest problems that most had with that thread was that BF.net was used by a non-staff member in a derogatory fashion. We attempt to have nice relationships with all media factions and that was some pretty bad pr. The nice/bad thing about the internet is that anyone can read this information. Places like Brewerfan can get their info out to anyone. The bad is that you don't know who is reading. What if: Doug Melvin reads the chat and sees someone from BF.net asking a question like what was asked? Secondly, the thread was degrading fast. Debating a chat is fun and interesting, just repeating that the "chatter" sucks and does a bad job brings nothing to the table. Especially when most agree. Also the level of some of the questions asked was pretty low.

 

Greg makes a valid point and one that is often brought up by posters. My suggestion is that someone start up a new thread discussing the chat in the manner it deserves.

 

Michael

[DHonks]

just was curious what happened to Don. Was something said to him? He wasn't removed, was he? I haven't seen any posts by him since the backlash at his comments, and I haven't seen his username as being logged in

[pogokat]

he wasn't removed or banned..