Just narrow this forum to 4 threads

[Brewer Fever]

All we apparently need is an in-game thread, a transactions thread, a vent thread, and a praise all that is Brewers thread. Seriously, every topic could fall under one of those 4 threads. Geebus, you try to start a relevant discussion of continued bullpen mismanagemt, provide the example that others have asked for, and declare your intent to give more and the darn thing gets locked. Would it be met well if I flooded the vent thread with 100's of posts of historical bullpen data. Wouldn't that turn that thread into a bullpen discussion. I guess we can't have a negative bullpen discussion without it being looped into a vent thread only topic. This is getting ridiculous and I would love to know how this locking of threads hasn't gone too far. I didn't post a one sentence rant about how horrible the bullpen is. That's a vent.

[IslandsAC]

now this would probably be a decent situation for the vent thread.

[Brewer Fever]

It probaly would be a decent situation for the forum issues board, but of course if it were there, no one would see it and the problem of locking WAY, WAY too many threads would remain hush, hush.

[wisconsinfan47]

The "Textbook Bullpen Management" thread seemed pretty legit to me...Do we really have to lump all comments about the bullpen into one thread? Is that just how the mods prefer to run the Fan Forum?

[Brewer Fever]

Management here is apparently concerned that having too many threads pointing out negatives will look bad. But doesn't a 115-page vent thread look far, far worse?

[Brian the Automator]

Management here has also closed threads with a positive angle as well. Saying we need 4 threads is simply an exaggeration out of frustration. If you would like me to point out many, many negative threads in the major league forum, I could do that.

[Blazer25]

I agree. I thought it was the start of a good discussion on bullpen management.

But...I'm not a mod so who knows?

[Brewer Fever]

Darn right I'm frustrated. You and I talked in the chat room the other day about situations just like today where 5-6 pitchers are used in 5+ run games and you asked for examples. I bring it up today and try to point out where fewer pitchers could have been used and it gets locked before the topic can be explored. I would love to here from rluzinksi regarding how often a team has a 5 run or more lead or deficit. The hight percentage of baseball is played with 4 run spreads or less. When you have 5 run leads or trail by 5, you just can't be using 6 pitchers if it can be avoided. And it defintely could have been avoided today. But an overzealous thread locking policy and trying to direct all negativity into one thread has created an embarrassing 115 page vent thread.

[Brian the Automator]

Darn right I'm frustrated. You and I talked in the chat room the other day about situations just like today where 5-6 pitchers are used in 5+ run games and you asked for examples. I bring it up today and try to point out where fewer pitchers could have been used and it gets locked before the topic can be explored. I would love to here from rluzinksi regarding how often a team has a 5 run or more lead or deficit. The hight percentage of baseball is played with 4 run spreads or less. When you have 5 run leads or trail by 5, you just can't be using 6 pitchers if it can be avoided. And it defintely could have been avoided today. But an overzealous thread locking policy and trying to direct all negativity into one thread has created an embarrassing 115 page vent thread.

Until you stop exaggerating about all negativity being in one thread, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye.

 

[brewers19]

It had the potential to be an overarching thread on bullpen management discussion, but the original post frankly made too many references to today's game and every single ensuing post was stuff that belonged in the In-Game Thread or the Vent Thread.

[Brewer Fever]

It's no exaggeration. There is a GENERAL attempt to focus negativity into 1 thread. Of course a few threads remain where negative spin is cast but I think you guys have made it pretty clear that posts or threads with a negative tone are best suited for the vent thread. It's 115 pages! How could I be accused of exaggeration with that readily apparent fact. Many negative threads are locked regardless of their level of substance and directed to the vent thread. That's why the vent thread is 115 pages. People feel as though if they have something negative to point out they should go to the vent thread. It's starting to throw off the balance of level debate. You guys are succeeding in condensing the space taken by the pessimistic but in my opinion have created a far more embarrasing, black mark for this site with a 115 page vent thread on page 1 of the message board that continually stares visitors in the face.

[Brian the Automator]

The Matt Wise thread is negative... The 2007 Brewers = 1995 Packers thread is negative... and those are just on the first page of the major league forum.

[Brewer Fever]

A thread drawing a parallel of the Brewers to a near dynasty, one that went to two consecutive world championships, and predicting playoff appearances for the next 2 years is far from negative.

[1992casey]

I think the mods here bend over backwards to try to keep threads open. The Ned Yost … Possible replacement? thread is a prime example of mods trying to keep the discussion on track.

 

I see Brian reopened the thread with very explicit directions as to how discussion should proceed. I might have been inclined to do that with a polite request in the right forum. It wouldn't have been the first time I've reopened a thread on that basis.

 

Let me tell you, though… thread-starters that say "This is not a today only trend or rant" in the second sentence send up a big yellow flag. Ironically, posts that say something like "Sorry if this is better placed in the vent thread" tend not to be vents at all.

 

Another hint: maybe I'd have gotten a better idea of what you were talking about had you broken your thoughts into more paragraphs. I just pasted your three-paragraph post into a text editor and divided it up into eight (meaning there probably should have been at least six).

 

It's the writer's burden to be clear, not the reader's burden to figure out what's being said. You would have read about paragraphing (not as a rule, but as a politeness guideline) in the Rules of Conduct language section:

Try to avoid long paragraphs. Starting a new paragraph every five lines or so (hit enter twice to start anew) makes your post easier to read.

The only other thing I'd suggest to make your points/intentions clearer would be to use an inverted pyramid structure, with the general stuff coming first and the specifics later.

[PeaveyFury]

On the just first page of the ML forum, I see your thread about bullpen mismanagement, a thread about firing Yost at the end of the season and his possible replacements, a thread about Matt Wise being totally useless going forward, a thread ripping on Miller Park, a thread saying that being in a pennant race is supposed to be fun but hasn't been, a thread saying we have no possible script for success in the Colorado series, and the vent thread.

 

Are you basing your assertion off actual fact, or are you just pissed because your thread was locked?

[JoeHova]

I agree that there sometimes seem to be very few active threads, and I surmise that that may be because many of the threads are so long as to become kind of unmanageable. On the other hand, maybe there weren't as many active threads back in the day (by which I mean a couple years ago) as I remember.

[imaji]

/start sarcasm

 

I kinda like the unexpected Gestapo management style.

 

/end sarcasm

 

 

 

I'm very new here, I'm just teasing ( a bit ), I just have a bit of trouble recognizing a rhyme or reason as to which threads get locked. I post similar comments in many threads that are somewhat related (in my mind) just because I'm not sure which will become "popular". In the back of my mind, I'm always waiting for a reprimand for "posting the same thing in multiple threads", as I've seen others reproved for. Perhaps not the feeling you want new contributors to have...

[BillScottCanRake]

The primary reason for trying to keep similar discussion in a single thread is so that all the discussion that has taken place in the recent past can be included in a thread. It makes for easier reading (especially for those who only visit here once or twice a day- no one wants to read multiple threads about the same thing when they can read one), and it ensures that good discussion won't be lost in multiple threads or repeated multiple times.

 

The tough part from a moderators point of view is deciding when two threads are better off being combined into one discussion. The true duplicates are easy; it's that grey area when there is a Yost thread and a bullpen management thread that becomes harder. And, I don't really think it has anything to do with whether a thread is positive or negative.

 

My best advice is try to make use of the search feature before posting a new topic. I haven't really tried it too much since the Yuku switch over, so I am not sure how well it works, but if it works well that should help you find threads that may talk about what you want to talk about. And, if you do post a new thread that gets locked, try not to take it personally. Everyone, from the newest new contributer to the poster with the most posts, will get a thread locked because it's already being discussed.

 

If you do get a thread locked, just blame it on the search feature not finding the thread. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[imaji]

Well said, imo. I'm not a new-thread-startin' kind of guy, I'm more reactionary, commenting on/discussing the things that other people have been compelled to start. I'm very pleased to have found BF.net, and hope to have discussions here WELL into the postseason. I've lived in the area since '91, and this is the first time (IMO) the local team has been relevant and worth discussing, even though I have bought 20 game ticket packs and such in several of the years I've lived here.