Flip Wilson.

The cesspool of BBTF is the lounge.

This thread has increased the number of people that go to the lounge. Congratulations.

1080:

Another who thrives on missing the point.

1102:

Why do you think we care if people go there? But I think that the Loungettes care that people engage with on Longthreads. Let's maintain the distinctions that make the difference, however much you flat-chested fan dancers would like to obfuscate them with sneers, hand-waving and dunderheaded intentional misinterpretations.

This thread has increased the number of people that go to the lounge. Congratulations.

Well, if Ray thinks the place is a cesspool that is probably a good thing in his mind. Afterall most people want the turds flushed down the toilet not floating at the top of the bowl.

Why do you think we care if people go there? But I think that the Loungettes care that people engage with on Longthreads. Let's maintain the distinctions that make the difference, however much you flat-chested fan dancers would like to obfuscate them with sneers, hand-waving and dunderheaded intentional misinterpretations.

I'll have you know we're all built like Josephine Baker.

Who's we? Does Ray speak for you?

I was pointing out to Ray that because of this thread the thing he is railing against has gained popularity and congratulating him for a job well done. To his face for those that care about such things.

Flat-chested fan dancers. Is that supposed to be a mild insult?

How many loungers would not survive this if their conduct were subject to a fair review?

Ray, Jim is not your babysitter. You're a grown man for God's sake.

What is the point of this comment? I was remarking that one of the reasons Jim is dissatisfied with the political threads is that they get acrimonious. (*) Jim also wants to foster a sense of community with this site. (**) It seems that the political posters have Jim's attention for causing acrimonious threads, and I am wondering if he was aware what is going on in the lounge -- which becomes immediately apparent from just a quick review.

What is going on in the lounge is, in part, a lot of insulting of people who aren't there to speak for themselves, which doesn't seem to foster a sense of community. Is this conduct ok simply because it occurs in the lounge?

----

(*, **) See, for example, some of Jim's comments from earlier in this thread:

1.

Ray, the value of the posts in the political threads is more than questionable. There is a value in having off-topic discussions in that it can help foster a sense of community. Of course, that's assuming a cordial discussion. Otherwise, there is only value to the people actively participating in the thread.

(FYI, there is no financial value to the threads. I know many of the people who participate think otherwise but they are wrong.)

2.

The basic nature of the discussion will not be changed. The main team and topic micros will have to comply with a moderation that we be as consistently applied as possible (which means some of our members will still not be happy). This policy will not be much different that what exists now. What will change is the way emotionally-charged, off-topic threads are handled. (Again, I am not talking about the harmless tangential discussions which don't get acrimonious.)

3.

He is against "overwrought, acrimonious discussions" -- but that is exactly what a Luke Scott thread posted by Repoz is sure to turn into.

I disagree 100%. The commenters are responsible for the nature of their comments. Saying it's the fault of the person posting the thread is putting forth the short skirt defense. (If she didn't want to get harassed she wouldn't have warn such a short skirt.) There are many, many controversial threads that don't get acrimonious. That some of you can't discern the difference between those threads and the bitterly contentious threads, and can't appreciate how the hostility contained within them impacts the site (especially for new users and people who are only looking for baseball content), is a problem.

----

By the way, Jim, as to this comment:


"(FYI, there is no financial value to the threads. I know many of the people who participate think otherwise but they are wrong.)"

I have at least one data point that there is financial value to the threads: me. I gave a decent-sized donation to you, and I did it solely because I enjoy the threads.

"....you just say your God don't like my God 'cause you don't like my friends....."

This thread has increased the number of people that go to the lounge. Congratulations.

It has increased the number of people who have gone to the lounge. Not necessarily "who go to the lounge."

The fact that I held my nose for a few minutes while lowering myself down there does not mean that I am going to be spending my time there going forward.

It has increased the number of people who have gone to the lounge. Not necessarily "who go to the lounge."

You're wrong, but don't let that stop you.

The fact that I held my nose for a few minutes while lowering myself down there does not mean that I am going to be spending my time there going forward.

LOL. Don't flatter yourself, I wasn't talking about you.

The comment threads used to be great.

Please, *do* continue ...

For the record, lest some lounger thinks I'm taking this very seriously, I am in this thread arguing because it amuses me and because I am stuck at work with nothing to do. I also happen to think, as I have stated previously, that most people who would be called "longthreaders" argue in those threads because it amuses them. Not because they think they are going to change the world or because Luke Scott's position is a very serious thing that requires a very serious discussion. For some oddball reason the loungers can't understand that thus acrimony and let's be clear here the acrimony is coming from you guys on this. You've been bvtching about this in your enclave for years and the whole time you've never really understood the "longthreaders".

Is this conduct ok simply because it occurs in the lounge?

Y
e
s

Hey, P.N., you going to any shows this summer?
I'm in for Long Beach and probably S.F.
I'm not overwhelmed with 3.0, but at least it's competent enough that I don't feel bad about spending the money to go see the shows ...

Y
e
s

So insulting people fosters a sense of community, and doesn't violate the TOS simply because it occurs in the lounge? Is that what you are saying? Or did I miss the sarcasm?

#1115 - Aiming for Long Beach....missed out on SF entirely....and anything outside of CA is tough for me due to work

Insulting people? No. Insulting you? Maybe.

(That was a joke, Ray. We do that in the lounge. It's fun, really. You probably wouldn't like it though. Most of it is people posting personal stuff, random observations, funny #### their kids said, etc. Nothing I could see you enjoying. And that's fine. It doesn't need you and you don't need it. But it was put there specifically to have an area that's not Googleable that Jim can sweep all the junk that he doesn't want on the mainsite, so yes, of course it's going to be more loose than here. That's the point.)

As far as people talking #### about you, well, get over it. If you're so bothered with people calling you a nuisance, maybe you can try being less of a nuisance. That would be the mature and admirable thing to do. Or you can keep crying and hoping that your babysitter will put the mean kids to bed so you can keep scattering your toys across the living room. Whatever.

Ray, can you give the people who like to insult you any guidelines as to how they can do so within the TOS? I suspect any violations of the TOS they may have committed were not done so intentionally, so your guidance in this respect would likely be welcomed. Note that I am being presumptuous in speaking for the people who insult you, but I tend to be good at bringing people together.

Substitute Bernal's name in place of Ray's.

It'll be like deep code.

(That was a joke, Ray. We do that in the lounge.)

Yes. I saw a lot of "joking" going on there, during my short visit.

Well, you can try reading the stuff that's not about you, difficult as it may be.

I did. And I found that I wasn't the only one being insulted there.

Yes, there is also plenty of polite conversation there. How is this a defense of anything? It's just the "look at how many people OJ didn't murder!" defense.

Calling you a nuisance is basically the same thing as murder.

I just don't see your problem. I really don't. You don't like the Lounge, okay, don't go. You don't like that people are talking about you and you can't read it. Except you can read it. You can even respond if you'd get down from that giant horse of yours. What is the problem here?

You don't like that people are talking about you and you can't read it.

No, it doesn't bother me if they are talking about me. I'm pointing out that some of these same people who are complaining about the insults and tone in the political threads are themselves busy in the lounge insulting people who aren't there.

1) The don't like the tone on the mainsite.
2) They complain about the people who are lowering the tone of the mainsite, in the dedicated section for lower-tone discussions.

This isn't hard.

And now they are coming back over to the main site to lower the tone of the mainsite.

Hakunah Matata

So they are so concerned with the tone that they are... insulting people who aren't there to hear their insults? And the justification for this ridiculous behavior is that it occurs in the lounge?

Ray, I hoped my post 1099 would explain it, so let's try again:

There is a woman I'm acquainted with. She's a magnificent <insert all the bad words here>. She is loud, cruel, insensitive, braggadocios, insecure, unfunny, demanding, impossible, stubborn, and also has many bad qualities. I do not like spending time with her, but every now and then, it comes to pass that I do.

I do not tell her how I feel about her, as no possible good would come from it. That does not stop me from sharing my views with other people I know who also know her, so that I can explain to them that I don't want to hang out with her.

Shock has a point if you look at it from his cabal's worldview and Ray has a point if you look at from his worldview (there is no Ray cabal).

Shock thinks he can go over to the lounge and say rude things, about anything really, thus keeping the integrity of the mainsite intact. The only problem with this view is that it only works just so long as the people on the mainsite don't know they are being trashed. Because when they do there is going to be a squabble as this thread is a perfect example of. Thus Ray has a point as well, the loungers being rude about mainlanders can lead to the lowering of the tone of the mainsite.

Finally, if everybody from the mainland were to head over to the forums the trashing of posters would end because I seriously doubt Jim would like what this place would look like during and after that. So basically you guys exist in a very precarious niche that only exists because people didn't know you existed. This week you've raised your visibility quite a bit. Kudos.

And let's make no mistake about it: The loungers knew full well that there was little chance anyone they insulted would ever see the insults. (That had to be the case, right? I mean, did anyone ever come up from the cesspool to announce that they had just insulted someone down there? I can't recall a single example of that - involving anyone - in half a decade here.)

And 99.99% of their insults will in fact never be seen by the person who was attacked.

Shock thinks he can go over to the lounge and say rude things, about anything really, thus keeping the integrity of the mainsite intact. The only problem with this view is that it only works just so long as the people on the mainsite don't know they are being trashed. Because when they do there is going to be a squabble as this thread is a perfect example of. Thus Ray has a point as well, the loungers being rude about mainlanders can lead to the lowering of the tone of the mainsite.

And don't forget the other way it has an impact: People down there, knowing that X was called an idiot but not really knowing why, will often nevertheless join the mob and conclude that X was an idiot. Some of the people down there post up here, so the "knowledge" that X is an idiot that people don't like permeates any interaction with X up here.

All of this cuts against "fostering a community." Well, granted the community down in the cesspool is being fostered. But that is at the expense of the community and the site overall.

And let's make no mistake about it: The loungers knew full well that there was little chance anyone they insulted would ever see the insults. (That had to be the case, right? I mean, did anyone ever come up from the cesspool to announce that they had just insulted someone down there? I can't recall a single example of that - involving anyone - in half a decade here.)

And 99.99% of their insults will in fact never be seen by the person who was attacked.

So what? No one they were insulting was being insulted for the benefited of the insulted. They were talking to their friends about something they didn't like about something. We ##### to each other about our co-workers, our bosses, our friends, articles we see, websites we read, our significant others (for the unfortunates amongst us to have same), etc. So some people ##### about posts they read here. SO WHAT?

SO WHAT?

Does this question need to be asked over and over again. Obviously X saying something insulting about Y might rub Y the wrong way. Yes, an argument can be made that Y should say "oh well" (which I have been doing for years. I've been fully aware that I have been getting trashed in the lounge since almost its inception and I don't care) but it should be plainly obvious that Y might also and will likely say "Hey, I don't like that" as has happened from time to time in the lounge. This shouldn't be a mystery and I'm not sure why you are acting like this is a mystery.

If Jim designed the lounge with the intent that people could (among the lounge's more legitimate uses) go there to insult and make personal attacks against people on the mainland, he is free to declare that right now.

If Jim thinks it's ok that people down in the lounge are insulting people and making personal attacks against them and cultivating animosity against them, he is free to declare that right now.

McCoy, is there anyone in your life that you have encountered who you find distasteful, and then you tell other people how that person is distasteful, but not tell that person to his/her face?

If Jim thinks it's ok that people down in the lounge are insulting people and making personal attacks against them and cultivating animosity against them, he is free to declare that right now.

Why are you acting like this is something "The Lounge" does, as opposed to it being less than 1% of Lounge posts made by less than 5% of Lounge posters?

Here is a tip for everyone. If you are in a discussion and a lounger appears and disagrees with you you might be getting trashed (but doubtful) in the lounge. If after a while numerous more loungers appear and disagree with you then you are most certainly getting trashed in the lounge.

Shock thinks he can go over to the lounge and say rude things, about anything really, thus keeping the integrity of the mainsite intact. The only problem with this view is that it only works just so long as the people on the mainsite don't know they are being trashed. Because when they do there is going to be a squabble as this thread is a perfect example of.

To be clear, I would rather there be no trashing of posters in the Lounge. It's fairly boring and not the reason I go there. But if you need to vent about what a toolbelt someone is, it's probably better to do it there than here. And the problem with the point you are making here is that there doesn't NEED to be a squabble here. Ray could respond to people insulting him directly in the Lounge. But of course he is too high and mighty to post there, so he chooses to squabble about it here. Thus we are back to square one.

And let's make no mistake about it: The loungers knew full well that there was little chance anyone they insulted would ever see the insults. (That had to be the case, right? I mean, did anyone ever come up from the cesspool to announce that they had just insulted someone down there? I can't recall a single example of that - involving anyone - in half a decade here.)

If I were to trash you, say, I would expect that someone would probably alert you to my post, yeah, and expect that you'd respond to it, yeah. Preferably in the same forum and not on here. I can't say when I'm posting that a concept of anonymity (in the context of mainland) ever occurs to me. I know full well that anything I post can be read by anyone. I don't care.

And 99.99% of their insults will in fact never be seen by the person who was attacked.

Ray, 99.999999999% of insults about you in life, you will never hear. Welcome to Earth. If I don't like pickles, I will likely mention that to someone. If I don't like RDP*, I might well mention that to someone too. Oddly enough, it's not really about you. We discuss hundreds of thousands of topics in the lounge. Since we all spawned from the same area, it's damned likely that we will occasionally talk about our spawning grounds, and the things we like and don't like about it. That might include posters we don't like. Again, it's not really about you. I don't understnad what is so difficult to grasp about this.

* I don't dislike you, ftr.

Why are you acting like this is something "The Lounge" does, as opposed to it being less than 1% of Lounge posts made by less than 5% of Lounge posters?

I am "acting like" Shock said that this was a legitimate use of the lounge. Because he did say that, in posts 1114 and 1126.

And I would like to know if Jim agrees.

If I were to trash you, say, I would expect that someone would probably alert you to my post, yeah, and expect that you'd respond to it, yeah.

And yet, in half a decade, nobody from the lounge ever alerted me to the fact that I was being trashed (by anyone) down there.

So just how rational is your "expectation"?

McCoy, is there anyone in your life that you have encountered who you find distasteful, and then you tell other people how that person is distasteful, but not tell that person to his/her face?

I think your arguing this line of logic to the wrong person. I'm not the guy railing against the loungers for this. Like I said I knew this was going for on years and years and never said anything about it on the mainsite.

What they did (loungers besides yourself) was rude. It's rude out in the real world, it's rude on the internet. Yes I've done it and I don't kid myself about it when I do it. Because I don't kid myself about it and know it is rude I tend not to do it a lot.

Quick boring anecdote.
After a hard day's work myself and a bunch of fellow employees headed over to the local watering hole to unwind. What followed was about an hour of bvtching about pretty much every coworker that wasn't present. Near the end of it someone noticed that I wasn't contributing anything to the discussion and asked me why I was so silent. I just shrugged and said I was here to drink some beers and unwind and left it at that.
End of boring anecdote.


There are people on this site I don't like and despite being here for over 10 years I've never felt the urge to tell anyone that or to insult them either to their face or behind their back.

The only person I've said anything to was to Bernal because I thought he was acting like a troll and as it turns out he was purposefully acting like a troll.

And yet, in half a decade, nobody from the lounge ever alerted me to the fact that I was being trashed (by anyone) down there.

Well, I guess you don't have any friends, Ray.

McCoy, is there anyone in your life that you have encountered who you find distasteful, and then you tell other people how that person is distasteful, but not tell that person to his/her face?

So you agree that "behind the person's back" was not so far off the mark?

The Lounge is conversation. Is "insulting" someone who's not around a "legitimate" use of conversation? I don't know, but it sure happens a lot in all conversations everywhere in the world.

I mean, I insult George Lucas in The Lounge. Should I be sending his office fax copies of my posts every time I do so?

Some posters insult Ray from time to time in The Lounge. The rest of us aren't such sheep as we say, "Well, if this guy says Ray sucks, Ray must suck." I have no opinion on Ray, really. I agree with him on Ichiro!, I disagree with him on Pixar. That's about all I know about Ray. I'm not some helpless lemming waiting for someone to tell me how to feel about people posting over here. And it's not like I'm some special snowflake.

This all reminds me of a sexual harassment case I had to deal with. What happened, or I should say the harasser's excuse, was quite common. Basically a young man said and did something rather stupid in front of a woman and she objected to it. When he was confronted with it his excuse was that he did it all the time and never got in trouble for it before. As they say, it only takes one time to ruin your day.

I mean, I insult George Lucas in The Lounge. Should I be sending his office fax copies of my posts every time I do so

I volunteer to arrange this.

I think your arguing this line of logic to the wrong person.

Fair enough. I just don't think that people venting to their friends about things that aggravate them is some heinous crime. The people who frequent The Lounge tend to consider each other friends, and as such we vent to each other about things that aggravate us. Some who post are aggravated by posts they see here.

Of course, it's not all kvetching. There's a lot of sharing of good news, of progress children are making, a lot of asking for advice. Some of the "complainers" being excoriated against are people who have shared a lot of good things with the rest of us, have given meaningful guidance to some of us, and have been, in short, good friends. Yes, sometimes they vent to us about things they don't like. I'm not going to toss aside a friendship because someone complained to me about something they read or a poster that annoys them.

I'll use a personal example. A few years ago, I was very down on myself about something, and posted a rant against myself in The Lounge. One of the posters accused of this "anti-Longthreader" ######## was around, and gave words of support, and even put forward a way for me to contact him if I wanted to talk. I didn't need to avail myself of that, but this is a good, supportive, kind person. And yeah, he's a person, so he gets annoyed by things, and vents about them to us, and sometimes those things are posts and posters here. I'm not going to toss aside my feelings on that person or the value he brings because he doesn't like something over here. I certainly do disagree with him (and everyone else over there) quite a bit, but friends disagree.

I find all this business about The Lounge being a "cesspool" and this and that to be smallminded, reductive, and completely unhinged from reality. Yeah, we might seem like an insular community, and it's true that many of us have built up relationships over the years, and we have plenty of in-jokes and references that are hard for others to keep up with. So "we" get defensive when unjustly attacked. But our sense of community and relationships should not be mistaken for unanimity or even consensus on anything (esp. not Peter Gabriel of all things, JC, goodness), and the constant grouping together of everybody in The Lounge exhibited from time to time in this thread strikes me as disgraceful and off-point.

So you agree that "behind the person's back" was not so far off the mark?

I think it's a meaningless statement, a loaded phrase being used to stigmatize a common form of communication and human interaction, which you're using to make it look like you're an aggrieved party when in fact no harm has been done to you.

forget it.

re 1148.

I'm not saying anything you said is wrong in terms of beliefs and behavior towards your friends but that has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. I know I'm not, and I don't think Ray is either, suggesting that you dump your friends because they insult a poster.

People are complicated three dimensional beings. It's quite possible to be rude at times or to a person and still be a wonderful human being. There is this weird need to have stated that what happened wasn't rude. As if acknowledging that what they did was even the merest hint of wrong it will destroy the whole thing. That really isn't true.

Lastly I'll add that the lounge wasn't being unjustly attacked. The lounge brought this onto itself. Harvey got it rolling by badmouthing mainland posters and then for whatever reason a bunch of loungers came out of the woodwork to pick a fight. If you look at the first couple of hundred posts on this thread the only thing about the lounge that was brought up was I believe Ray saying he didn't like the format. From the very beginning this thread was about loungers misunderstanding or bashing longthreaders. That isn't to say that posters on the other side of this little squabble acted like choir boys. They most certainly did but I do want to make it clear that the lounge was in no way a victim in this thread that needed a vigorous defense for them.

Lastly I'll add that the lounge wasn't being unjustly attacked.

I think the lumping together of everyone in The Lounge was unjust, and the "cesspool" comment (which I know wasn't you) and those related to it were unjust.

Sure, but that was post 1000+. Worrying about what is just and unjust at that point is rather moot.

The lounge: your daily bbtf cesspool (6/4/12)

1150, good times.

It's not unusual at all for a random non-Lounginista to suddenly jump into a conversation in the Lounge; in fact, it's normal. So I've always assumed lots of people lurk from time to time, and I've had this assumption if/when I've ever bashed anyone. I'd have to think other Lounginista have the same assumption. They'd be crazy not to.

So, I'm not defending the practice, but my only point is that it's unlikely that any bashing of "longthreaders," or any other primates there* is done with the assumption that person will never see it.

*Which, as already mentioned, is not even remotely a daily occurrence, so less than 1 per thousands of posts.

Fair enough. I just don't think that people venting to their friends about things that aggravate them is some heinous crime. The people who frequent The Lounge tend to consider each other friends, and as such we vent to each other about things that aggravate us. Some who post are aggravated by posts they see here.

Of course, it's not all kvetching. There's a lot of sharing of good news, of progress children are making, a lot of asking for advice. Some of the "complainers" being excoriated against are people who have shared a lot of good things with the rest of us, have given meaningful guidance to some of us, and have been, in short, good friends. Yes, sometimes they vent to us about things they don't like. I'm not going to toss aside a friendship because someone complained to me about something they read or a poster that annoys them.

I'll use a personal example. A few years ago, I was very down on myself about something, and posted a rant against myself in The Lounge. One of the posters accused of this "anti-Longthreader" ######## was around, and gave words of support, and even put forward a way for me to contact him if I wanted to talk. I didn't need to avail myself of that, but this is a good, supportive, kind person. And yeah, he's a person, so he gets annoyed by things, and vents about them to us, and sometimes those things are posts and posters here. I'm not going to toss aside my feelings on that person or the value he brings because he doesn't like something over here. I certainly do disagree with him (and everyone else over there) quite a bit, but friends disagree.

I find all this business about The Lounge being a "cesspool" and this and that to be smallminded, reductive, and completely unhinged from reality. Yeah, we might seem like an insular community, and it's true that many of us have built up relationships over the years, and we have plenty of in-jokes and references that are hard for others to keep up with. So "we" get defensive when unjustly attacked. But our sense of community and relationships should not be mistaken for unanimity or even consensus on anything (esp. not Peter Gabriel of all things, JC, goodness), and the constant grouping together of everybody in The Lounge exhibited from time to time in this thread strikes me as disgraceful and off-point.

Very well said, BWV. I apologize for quoting such a long post, but there was really nothing worth cutting.

If Jim designed the lounge with the intent that people could (among the lounge's more legitimate uses) go there to insult and make personal attacks against people on the mainland, he is free to declare that right now.

If Jim thinks it's ok that people down in the lounge are insulting people and making personal attacks against them and cultivating animosity against them, he is free to declare that right now.

I don't really like agreeing with Ray, but if the site changes to where thread derails will be heavily moderated and Jim thinks this is OK, I'm done with this site.

if the site changes to where thread derails will be heavily moderated and Jim thinks this is OK, I'm done with this site.

I am mostly a lounger (although I don't recall secretly insulting anyone or developing antipathy towards anyone because Harveys said something mean about them once) but this does worry me as well. I don't really like the politics threads, although I don't really care if they exist, but the long threads on world wars, food, comic books, etc, are by far my favorite thing about the site.

I'm not really clear on how this system will work- if a thread starts out about baseball, but then the conversation moves as it often does, it'll then be marked off-topic and people will no longer be able to see it unless they've opted in? How many off-topic posts does it take for a thread to get moved?

I just don't see your problem. I really don't. You don't like the Lounge, okay, don't go.

I don't "like" or "dislike" the lounge, but I spend too much time online as it it. From the comments I've seen here, everyone down there seems to like it, so it seems to serve its purpose.

OTOH the people who engage in political discussions, trash talk and ramblings up here sometimes enjoy it, too, and the format is far more conducive to the occasional intelligent discussion. Of course the political threads get tiresome and stupid and so's-yer-momma sometimes, but every once in a while they actually are worth reading and engaging in. If some of you find that oh-so-horribly elitist / pretentious, why not just avoid it yourself? IOW why not just take the same advice Shock gave Ray back in 1124?

Jim's problem seems to be only with searchable insults, not with the insults themselves. He could simply steer all political "hijacks" to the lounge, but he wants to deal with them instead by making sure that the people who view them are self-selected. It may be a crude way of achieving that goal, but it seems his heart is in the right place. The main irony here is that if this thread had been "political" in the conventional sense**, it would've been shut down about 700 or 800 posts ago, since the level of both sincere and comic personal insults here has set a career value mark that will likely never be equaled.

**Of course it's every bit as political in any real sense of the word, if you think of politics as being a clash of worldviews, which is pretty much all the last 700 or 800 posts amount to underneath it all.

I can't tell if Ray's serious or if he's just trying to pad his "whiniest whiner on BTF" stats. Ray, like Sam's lead in thread-closings, you're safe dude. No one's close. You can stop now. You're holding the base over your head, but no one's trying to steal it.

What is the problem here?

Same as it's been since the start of the thread -- Jim wants to dilute the quality of the adult part of the site, in whole or in part because of complaints from the kiddie table harpies.

The new information, at least to some of us, is the shadow political threads on the cesspool and the jealousies and resentments that have taken root there. Which is fine -- bilious cesspools fester all over the internet -- but they've been transcended by the adult part of BTF, at least to date. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll be cueing Sinatra's "There Used to Be a Ballpark" in its honor quite soon.

Here is a tip for everyone. If you are in a discussion and a lounger appears and disagrees with you you might be getting trashed (but doubtful) in the lounge. If after a while numerous more loungers appear and disagree with you then you are most certainly getting trashed in the lounge.

How would you know that person is a lounger? You'd have to visit the lounge to be sure. And then it's all moot.

OTOH the people who engage in political discussions, trash talk and ramblings up here sometimes enjoy it, too, and the format is far more conducive to the occasional intelligent discussion. Of course the political threads get tiresome and stupid and so's-yer-momma sometimes, but every once in a while they actually are worth reading and engaging in. If some of you find that oh-so-horribly elitist / pretentious, why not just avoid it yourself? IOW why not just take the same advice Shock gave Ray back in 1124?

That's exactly what I, and the vast majority of people in the lounge, do. but it isn't our website.

I just want to know what the threshold will be for a thread to be designated "OT" going forward.

I just want to know what the threshold will be for a thread to be designated "OT" going forward.

I don't think anyone here will know that until it happens, but I think everyone would agree that under normal circumstances this one would have gone down under about 700 or 800 posts ago.

I'm not really clear on how this system will work- if a thread starts out about baseball, but then the conversation moves as it often does, it'll then be marked off-topic and people will no longer be able to see it unless they've opted in?

As I understand it, Jim wants baseball content to dominate the site, not just in terms of thread topics but in terms of what is readily visible to the casual visitor

He also wants to maintain the strong community that the site already has.

The Beta solution will do that by introducing an element of personalisation to Hot Topics that doesn't currently exist. The system will demand a heavier degree of moderation than previously has existed, in that the tags one already uses when suggesting a thread to BBTF are going to be the basis for personalising Hot Topics. One selects tags one wants to follow, while moderators assign tags and can alter the tags as the thread's conversation develops. One indeed has to be proactive to get the content one wants, but it is very simple and only has to be done once, provided the moderators get the tagging right.

How many off-topic posts does it take for a thread to get moved?

We don't know the answer yet. Trial and error is going to be involved. What we do know is that the system strives to keep the Off-Topic threads visible in Hot Topics to those who have selected the appropriate tags.

I think the lumping together of everyone in The Lounge was unjust, and the "cesspool" comment (which I know wasn't you) and those related to it were unjust.

It was as unjust as the grouping (by Harveys et al - see the first couple pages of this thread) of all of the political posters together as one.

SugarBear Blank, you have no idea what your are talking about. At this point you've only further exposed just what a difficult personality that you are. You've also demonstrated a slim understanding of human behavior. Your description of the adult part of BBTF is quite funny, as you've proven to me in this thread that you have the emotional maturity of a five year old. (BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I take full ownership of my opinion!!)

The changes to the way political threads are handled has nothing at all to do with some Lounge conspiracy. It has to do with me trying to keep the main purpose of this site (baseball news and discussion of that news) prominent. It has never been, and is not now, my intention to be the best site to discuss politics. Rather than banning political discussions I choose, because I realize some of you enjoy discussing the topic with other site members, to reduce it's prominence while still providing an easy way for people to continue to find it easily. It's only because you seem to have a persecution complex that you find this plan offensive.

Look, I am a Red Sox fan. I often search out Red Sox news on the web. Because I know a lot of places to find Red Sox news, I find it. When I do, I post the links to the site. When I post a lot of them on a given day, I get complaints because not everyone who visits the site is a Red Sox fan. And that's just fine. Unfortunately, the way the site is currently structured, I have no other alternative. This means I can't share all the good stuff I find. I also can't discuss this good stuff with the other Red Sox fans on the site. I have never liked this limitation.

With the redesign, I will be able to post as many Red Sox links as I wish. The best will show up on the frontpage. The rest will go into the Red Sox micro. People interested in Red Sox news can then subscribe to the Red Sox micro. When they do, the Red Sox news will show up on the customized view of their homepage, along with the links from their other subscriptions. A link to the Red Sox micro will also appear at the top of every page of the site to make it easy for them to view only Red Sox news if they like. All the extra Red Sox news will not be seen by a random passerby. By your viewpoint, this means Red Sox fans are being singled out in some type of unfair manner. Like the people who like political talk, they are not. That some of the Loungers might have complained about too much Red Sox news does not mean they have brought about some type of persecution of Red Sox fans.

---------------------------------------------
As for the whole "talking about someone behind his back"...

I had a long comment written but I deleted it because this whole conversation has been tedious from the first page. I realize that it doesn't matter what I write about this issue because some of you just won't get it. That this topic is still being discussed at all after I scolded people like I would scold a five-year old tells me all I need to know about the participants.

I will suggest again: let it go! Ignore the people/topics you don't like, which I promise will be much easier after the redesign is finished.

It was as unjust as the grouping (by Harveys et al - see the first couple pages of this thread) of all of the political posters together as one.

Still padding that record, eh?

I rarely say nice things about anyone, but imagonna praise Jim behind his back for that level-headed post.

Thanks Jim, for the clarification and for dealing with all the noise.

I always thought it would be cool to have something like a 20-post max per poster on those political ones, with a limit on total typed characters as well.
:)

Impractical, but maybe would lead to more pithy and less pissy.

The last two pages have been less entertaining and more "seriously?!"

How would you know that person is a lounger? You'd have to visit the lounge to be sure. And then it's all moot.

Not at all. All one has to do is click on the poster's handle. For example, click on BVW... and you find he has 674 lifetime comments, and nearly 36,000 forum posts.

To the point of the micros and the redesign: recently I've posted a link to the call up of Andrelton Simmons to replace Tyler Pastornicky, and a link to Cutter the Saw 'injuring' himself in the Home Depot Tool Race at Turner Field. One of those might make the main site in the new design. The other would rightly be a Braves micro only link. It's actually quite simple.

With the redesign, I will be able to post as many Red Sox links as I wish. The best will show up on the frontpage. The rest will go into the Red Sox micro. People interested in Red Sox news can then subscribe to the Red Sox micro. When they do, the Red Sox news will show up on the customized view of their homepage, along with the links from their other subscriptions. A link to the Red Sox micro will also appear at the top of every page of the site to make it easy for them to view only Red Sox news if they like. All the extra Red Sox news will not be seen by a random passerby. By your viewpoint, this means Red Sox fans are being singled out in some type of unfair manner. Like the people who like political talk, they are not. That some of the Loungers might have complained about too much Red Sox news does not mean they have brought about some type of persecution of Red Sox fans.

Jim, that's the best explanation you've given up to now for the change. The Red Sox analogy makes perfect sense to me.

Stupid question: If I subscribe to Red Sox micro, would that mean that all the "extra" Red Sox news would show up on my Hot Topics page, as long as the comments on them were current enough to make the usual Hot Topics cutoff? Or would I have to go to the Red Sox micro page to see anything other than what you call the "best" stories?

The changes to the way political threads are handled has nothing at all to do with some Lounge conspiracy. It has to do with me trying to keep the main purpose of this site (baseball news and discussion of that news) prominent. It has never been, and is not now, my intention to be the best site to discuss politics. Rather than banning political discussions I choose, because I realize some of you enjoy discussing the topic with other site members, to reduce it's prominence while still providing an easy way for people to continue to find it easily. It's only because you seem to have a persecution complex that you find this plan offensive.

Whatever and fine. That wasn't the motivation as first described; instead, it was that the political threads were "nasty," "contentious," and all the rest -- all of which turned out, particularly upon discovery of the Lounge, to be comically ridiculous.

How would you know that person is a lounger? You'd have to visit the lounge to be sure. And then it's all moot.

Not at all. All one has to do is click on the poster's handle. For example, click on BVW... and you find he has 674 lifetime comments, and nearly 36,000 forum posts.

Never tried that sort of lookup before, but now I'm in total awe of Lounge God Sam, who's ascended to his Buddha throne with a mere 631 lounge posts, as opposed to the 9566 comments he's made on the mainland. That's some mighty powerful kavorka you've got going for you, Mr. Neck Man, but just be careful about misusing it, because those Orthodox husbands play a mean game of Murderball.

To the point of the micros and the redesign: recently I've posted a link to the call up of Andrelton Simmons to replace Tyler Pastornicky, and a link to Cutter the Saw 'injuring' himself in the Home Depot Tool Race at Turner Field. One of those might make the main site in the new design. The other would rightly be a Braves micro only link

I assume Cutter the Saw is the one that would make the main site. The entire world is still waiting to see if he can be repaired.

Not at all. All one has to do is click on the poster's handle. For example, click on BVW... and you find he has 674 lifetime comments, and nearly 36,000 forum posts.

That's lazy. At that point you're just one more click away from the lounge.

I assume Cutter the Saw is the one that would make the main site. The entire world is still waiting to see if he can be repaired.

You might want to sit down for this, it was a career ending injury.

Never tried that sort of lookup before, but now I'm in total awe of Lounge God Sam, who's ascended to his Buddha throne with a mere 631 lounge posts, as opposed to the 9566 comments he's made on the mainland.

Quality over quantity, a notion a good number of you could learn for Longthreading purposes too. I'm looking at you, Andy. You'd be sad how often I just skip your stuff with an internal tldr.

Thank you Jim. Looking forward to giving this a spin.

I want this out there, in public, so no one can accuse me of being a behind the back talkerer, okay?

The fact that someone actually *read* the Terms of Service absolutely terrifies me.

My thanks to Jim for his efforts to improve the site and his clear and patient explanations of what he's trying to accomplish.

While we're in group hug, I'd like to ask Repoz to marry me.

he entire point of the Lounge, and in fact the Forums in general, is to keep large swaths of non-baseball conversation out of the baseball threads. The effort has had some successes (the "Lounginista") and some failures (the "Longthreaders"). This isn't because the Loungers have kept the Longthreaders out of the Forums, but (at least, from what is being claimed) because the "Longthreaders" dislike the Forum interface.

I'm way late to this party, apparently, but I don't think the quoted text above is particularly accurate. I don't think the problem is that people dislike the interface (though they may actually dislike it), but as has been mentioned numerous times, the kind of off-topic threads in which it's fun to participate grow organically. I take part in off-topic threads all the time, but I don't click on the newsstand with the mindset of "boy, I wonder what cool off-topic threads have popped up today?!" I pop into the music thread in the lounge forum occasionally, but that's when I want to specifically talk about music. The Lounge itself, last time I checked anyway, always kind of seemed like trying to watch a soap opera from some middle point of entry. 95% of the participants know what everyone else is talking about. If you're in the 5%, you kind of have to hang in for a while before it starts to make sense. It's cool that it exists and gets a lot of action, but I'm not sure accomplishes its original mission anymore. It worked to some extent when it was on the main board, but now the only people that check it are the regulars for the most part.

As it is, I almost never know a thread has gone off topic until I see Hot Topics telling me that there are 553 posts in an item that should have generated about 15 responses. Though I do think the "On-topic off-topic" threads, like the NBA thread have probably helped.

To be clear, I would rather there be no trashing of posters in the Lounge. It's fairly boring and not the reason I go there. But if you need to vent about what a toolbelt someone is, it's probably better to do it there than here. And the problem with the point you are making here is that there doesn't NEED to be a squabble here. Ray could respond to people insulting him directly in the Lounge.

He could if he knew about it. If someone posted, "You know, this thread is getting too heated; I'm going to respond further in the Lounge," that would be a different story. But that's not what happened, is it?

Bernal is Susan Lucci.

He could if he knew about it

I don't know that it's anyone else's job to give you boys a tour of the deeper sub-systems of the BBTF machine. There's a big link that says "FORUMS" on the home page, ya know.

Never tried that sort of lookup before, but now I'm in total awe of Lounge God Sam, who's ascended to his Buddha throne with a mere 631 lounge posts, as opposed to the 9566 comments he's made on the mainland.

Quality over quantity, a notion a good number of you could learn for Longthreading purposes too.

Hmmm, if your point is quality over quantity, then what brings you up here for 94% of your posts?

I'm looking at you, Andy. You'd be sad how often I just skip your stuff with an internal tldr.

I haven't been so saddened since the Twin Towers got blown up. You really know how to hurt a guy.

I haven't been so saddened since the Twin Towers got blown up. You really know how to hurt a guy.

Ralph Sampson and Akeem Olajuwon got blown up???

What Shredder said in post 1187. (Except that I think that the interface plays a bigger role than Shredder does. It's not just that the interface is unpleasant on its own (though I think it is), but that it's particularly ill-suited to someone trying to catch up and join the conversation.) The soap opera analogy is pretty good.

Ralph Sampson and Akeem Olajuwon got blown up???

In 1986, yes.

Sam, I gotta give you props; you've been awesome in this thread. I rarely post in the political threads, but I often read them for the same reason I tend to slow down and rubberneck when I pass particularly grisly car accidents. But your comments here have kept this discussion amusing for reasons that go beyond mere morbid curiosity.

Kudos.

(not being sarcastic)

I haven't been so saddened since the Twin Towers got blown up. You really know how to hurt a guy.

Ralph Sampson and Akeem Olajuwon got blown up???

No, that would've only half-saddened me. Never did care much for folding chairs.

You'd be sad how often I just skip your stuff with an internal tldr.

Not as sad as I am that you somehow took #1182 as a positive.

Ralph Sampson and Akeem Olajuwon got blown up???

RDF.

flip.

#1182 was my very own post. As it is the case that everything about me is made of pure awesome, I fail to see how else I could have taken it.