Jim, if you have site/user data that would help inform some of these questions, can you share it? I appreciate if you can't, although in that case I'm not sure why it would be a state secret.

You are clearly in a position to know things that we don't.

ray

i am fully cognizant of the hazards of engaging you in any direct dialogue due to your powers of distorting and mangling any point being made not by yourself

that being stated my point is very clear

there is a small cadre of posters who live to post in threads with a political bent

they live for it. thirst for it. it is their lifes blood. without it their participation here would be all but nonexistent. i suspect that having been banned and/or ignored by every other sensible chat forum this is their last means of connecting with the outside world.

so if the administrator is going to make a change that threatens that which sustains them they are making a last stand making ever more empty claims of how the site will be harmed knowing all too well it is they who will be impacted

i find nothing in the above that is unclear so while you may well respond expect no further feedback from me as i deem it unnecessary

you (and others) are free to brand me as you deem appropriate

i know what i have read and i know what is needed

jim needs to put these bleating sheep down.

for good

Harvey, you are awesome. Preach on sir; you have these clowns pegged like a cribbage board. And every single last one of them knows exactly who they are, too.

Jim says this thread has gotten out of hand and he will be shutting it down.

Who knows how many actual baseball fans who could have been solid contributors have been driven from the site over the last several years by the endless barrage of garbage, about 90% of which is generated by a fairly small cadre of monomaniacs.

Quoted for the simple hilarity of the sentiment, given the source.

As a blogger that Repoz links to occasionally, I can say that my pieces get more hits from BBTF than comments here at BBTF. Anything that increases my chances to be read by the community - I'm grateful for that.

Having said that, I don't understand the need to clear threads from Hot Topics. If I see a thread has 600 posts, I know all I need to know to ignore that thread. Thinking fan and all, you know.

After years and years of freeloading, I finally made a donation to the site several months back. Many thanks to Jim and Repoz and Dan and everyone else who is responsible for keeping this site up and running.

morty

fine with me. i think jim is being too generous in even opening this up for discussion. my recommendation has always been to contact the known sensible posters like matt, get their feedback and move forward with the changes

maybe he sees value in letting folks vent and spew outrage but there are plenty of threads already in place that allows that to happen.

and no, i do not think i should be consulted. my view of bbtf is far different than most, i have no idea of what features appeal to the mainstream and i am clearly out of the loop on how to appeal to a younger audience

i am expressing support for his efforts and hope the output is what he has envisioned.

there is a small cadre of posters who live to post in threads with a political bent

they live for it. thirst for it. it is their lifes blood. without it their participation here would be all but nonexistent. i suspect that having been banned and/or ignored by every other sensible chat forum this is their last means of connecting with the outside world.

so if the administrator is going to make a change that threatens that which sustains them they are making a last stand making ever more empty claims of how the site will be harmed knowing all too well it is they who will be impacted

You can't be talking about me, since I post in plenty of baseball-related threads. I have thousands of posts in them.

So who are you talking about? I know it's not Snapper, or Andy, or David, or Sam, or Good Face, or robinred, or Lassus. All of these people post in plenty of baseball-related threads.

Harvey for President!

(Of North Korea)

(With Joey B as his media spokesman---what a 1-2 punch)

I am shocked to find that exactly the people one would expect to overreact to this news are overreacting to this news. Shocked!

I think Harveys is quite accurate in noting that they frequently end up with the same relatively small group of Primates making fairly predictable arguments, and it seems in many cases, rehashing old arguments, interspersed with considerable name-calling and insults. It's not surprising to hear that many people who come to a website devoted to baseball for the thinking fan aren't interested in these spats.

Yep.

As a ridiculously frequent lurker but very infrequent poster, particularly in any of the mega threads, let me say that I applaud any effort that will have more baseball content. I can -- and do -- just skip over threads when they pass 200 comments. But those are driving the stories I'm interested in off the hot topics bar and make them more difficult to follow. I am, however, hoping that most of the team centered talk remains on the main site rather than devolving into little team fiefdoms that will, over time, become echo chambers.

Nobody comes here to read what Davey and Ray Ray think about politics. It amuses me that anyone thinks that.

if any reasonable posters are reading i will point out posts 46 and 109 as the very hallmark of the political threads where counterpoints are tossed by the wayside as various smear tactics are employed in an effort to undermine the credibility of the poster being targeted or to entice the targeted poster to engage in retaliation

its garbage debating, its unworthy of this site and the folks who employ these techniques should be pushed off to hee haw at their own versus staining the larger populace

Since we're on a new page, I'll repeat what I said yesterday.

As long as the moderators use the tags correctly, there will hardly be any difference to your experience of the site. All the site users have to do is to choose their opt-ins judiciously.

Jim should make me a moderator. That would be awesome.

bernal

as the saying going if you want to know if a bear can perform surgery give him the knife and stand back

the results of making you a moderator would be similar

screams. a big mess. lawsuit

Are we going out for spaghetti or what?

Harvey for President!

(Of North Korea)

Ooooohhhhh, he's gonna have to fight Shooty for that one.
Now in a straight up fight, I'd take HW hands down. But Shooty's a shifty little ########, he'll use no end of dirty tricks...

fancy

my left is shot. i can make a fist but the reaction time is nothing.

i need at least another 3-5 months at this pace

if any reasonable posters are reading i will point out posts 46 and 109 as the very hallmark of the political threads where counterpoints are tossed by the wayside as various smear tactics are employed in an effort to undermine the credibility of the poster being targeted or to entice the targeted poster to engage in retaliation

its garbage debating, its unworthy of this site and the folks who employ these techniques should be pushed off to hee haw at their own versus staining the larger populace

Harvey, I know you see yourself as some sort of plain talking Ross Perot character, and for the most part I love to read your posts, but there are times when you can just be a bunghole. If you think that you can just write words like these....

edit: i vigorously defend free thought. and in almost any scenario i would be stating let them speak. but these crackpots are just screeching for screechings sake. can't put a bullet in them so go ahead and stick'em in a box somewhere and let them relish in the echo of their own voices

....and not be answered in kind, then I really would suggest that you take a chill pill. When the most notoriously inflammatory Primate BTF has ever known starts high-fiving you three times in a row, it might be time to consider where you're coming from.

Or, as has been suggested, you could just put all us horrible people on ignore and once again be able to sleep at night.

Say, Harv, what do you actually think about BBTF political threads? You are so ambivalent sometimes, I can't discern your attitude :)

I admit to being part of the cadre of monomaniacs, though oddly enough when this thread started yesterday I went to a baseball game. My thoughts are similar to those of MCoA and Andy (as so often), but it seems like Jim is more than open to open discussions continuing. We'll see how it goes.

As a potential mini-moderator on Rangers threads, I am a little apprehensive about what happens when I post a story on Roy Oswalt and it turns into a discussion of Lee Harvey Oswald. Am I deputized to shut it down or move it? Do I call for backup? If I let it run too long, am I one of the lunatics taking over the asylum? :) But I imagine it will be clear enough in practice.

I do think that this site is distinctive because of the cultural debate (not always narrowly political) that occurs here. There are lots of places to talk about whether Jeter will hit .400 this year; there's only this one to ask whether Jeter is the Herman Melville or the Edith Wharton of shortstops. From what you've said here, Jim, you quite agree, and I'm sure that "feature" will survive in robust fashion.

bob

if jim took my recommendation of just ridding himself of these irksome pests he would not need to do any re=design. the ignore feature would never have happened.

that others promote the ignore feature is inane.

free discourse is not any discourse. i told jim he has a value proposition and a vision and if some posters are not aligned you put them down

ain't hard

just gotta squeeeeeeze that trigger

I admit to being part of the cadre of monomaniacs, though oddly enough when this thread started yesterday I went to a baseball game. My thoughts are similar to those of MCoA and Andy (as so often), but it seems like Jim is more than open to open discussions continuing. We'll see how it goes.

I agree, and as I've said above, some of the reaction to these changes is based (at least for me) on not really being able to read between the lines of Jim's explanations and know exactly what's going to happen. And in spite of my reactions to Harvey's attempt to start a flame war (and let's not mince words here), I'm more than willing to wait and see before making any definitive judgments about these changes.

FWIW I completely disagree with Harveys. I rarely post in the political threads but I always read them, and they're the best political discussions I've seen. I've learned a lot from many different people on those threads (including Harveys). If those threads descend into namecalling garbage after 800 posts, so be it. That strikes me a bit like complaining about Willie Mays' 1973 season.

I also disagree about the "stagnation", recent political threads have seen fresh blood that contribute new perspectives. Rants Mulliniks is the only name that comes to mind offhand, but there are others. And I don't think any of the regular contributors are valueless, by a long shot.

If that's because I'm sheltered and don't get out enough, I would love love love to know where these sensible chat forums are, because I sure as hell haven't seen them.

That's my opinion. Jim can do what he wants.

Willie Mays 1973 season was crap btw.

Harvey's attempt to start a flame war (and let's not mince words here)

just gotta squeeeeeeze that trigger

Hmm, yes. I might not have believed it if not for those extra e's.

As for the changes ... I'll reserve judgment until I see them, because it's hard to see exactly what Jim has in mind. As an occasional participant in the politics thread myself, I admit that I get really annoyed when those threads are shut down. If the new setup actually does allow them to continue without the heavy hand of moderation, then I'll be cool. But if it "improves" the experience in the Orwellian way that my bank frequently likes to "improve" their services, then that will be unfortunate. I'll probably stay for the Cubs talk but I won't visit as much.

I don't know much about this business in particular, but the political discussions and almost all of the "off-topic" discussions -- music, military, mayonnaise, movies, basketball, Vera Farmiga -- are among the best to be found anywhere on the internet.(*) They're the value-add of this website, even more than the baseball -- which is also very good. Aggregating and collating material from elsewhere on the net is an overbuilt, meh business.

A business fools with its core strengths and core value-adds at its peril.

(*) And the work-around for people who don't want to get involved in that stuff is comically simple and everyone knows it -- if a thread has a certain number of posts, it's "devolved."

brian

it's not your participation that generates shut down. or kurt's. or bob's.

again, it's the classic bad apples spoiling the barrel

why others are defending this miscreant behavior puzzles me

there is a small cadre of posters who live to post in threads with a political bent

they live for it. thirst for it. it is their lifes blood. without it their participation here would be all but nonexistent. i suspect that having been banned and/or ignored by every other sensible chat forum this is their last means of connecting with the outside world.

so if the administrator is going to make a change that threatens that which sustains them they are making a last stand making ever more empty claims of how the site will be harmed knowing all too well it is they who will be impacted

Harveys is ignoring me (fine), but if anyone can point out the posters he was referring to, who only post in political threads, I would be interested to learn who they are.

As to his notion that the political posters are "making a last stand," well, first, other people have registered their skepticism over Jim's changes here, and, second, the comment is odd. Jim specifically called out politics in the topic heading of this thread, so it's not exactly shocking that some political posters have shown up to register their comments. I don't know why Harveys finds that telling. If Jim had made the thread about the basketball posts, I'm sure plenty of people who post in those threads would have shown up here as well.

I also find it a bit bizarre, as far as the site admins go, to post threads like the Luke Scott threads, invite people to comment on them, and then take the position that maybe the people you invited to comment on them shouldn't be commenting on them. That seems a bit unfair. It's never been explained why Repoz posts Luke Scott-type threads if commenting in those threads is frowned upon.

I've posted 1500 times in the 8 years since new primer, that's 190 a year.

I stop reading as soon as political threads are obviously off-the-rails. But I love the off-topic sports threads. I've been coming to this site for a decade to read about and talk about baseball at a level that rises above the water cooler, and I love being able to do that about other sports occassionaly. There's no other site like this one.

Why not just have a system like this: any thread that has gone off-the-rails is tagged as past the point of no return. The off-topic sports threads can be no-return'd from inception. Users can opt-in to having no-return threads visable on their sidebars. Doesn't that satisfy everyone?

and i am solely focused on political based threads

i have no issue with other topics however removed from my life such as indie bands

edit:

the primary distinction is tone/tenor. the intelligent discussions don't involve scathing, fevered pitch back and forth.

there is a small cadre of posters who live to post in threads with a political bent

they live for it. thirst for it. it is their lifes blood. without it their participation here would be all but nonexistent. i suspect that having been banned and/or ignored by every other sensible chat forum this is their last means of connecting with the outside world.

so if the administrator is going to make a change that threatens that which sustains them they are making a last stand making ever more empty claims of how the site will be harmed knowing all too well it is they who will be impacted

Harvey, have you been on the rest of the internet? Even when it gets "bad" here, it's fairly mild.

The political (and other OT) threads are the most valuable community-building tools the site has. You grow somewhat fond of your adversaries after a while. It is probably true that they wind up in a sort of pointless equilibrium after a while, but the journey to that point can be truly enlightening. I find it very hard to believe that people are *scared off* by these threads. If they are, maybe they aren't the type of posters you'd want around. It's extremely easy to ignore a thread as it stands.
As for the Hot Topics sidebar, it seems that you could make it larger and address the problem in that fashion. Considering that there's only four or five OT threads active at any given time, lengthening the sidebar could still give you plenty of active baseball related discussions.

I'd rather see an opt-out rather than an opt-in. Imagine a new member behind the veil of ignorance. You'd hope that they'd prefer more information to less, so let them experience the site as it has been. If they find that the few active threads which stray from baseball damage their enjoyment of the site, then allow them the opportunity to escape with an opt-out.

Two comments:

First, I like the freewheeling nature of discussion on this site, and hope that whatever changes are made don't fundamentally alter that dynamic. Imagine if you are at a party talking to a bunch of friends, and every time the subject changed the host asked you to move into a different room. "Oh, you're talking about movies now? You'll have to go to the bedroom to talk about that. What? Now you're discussing history? Walk over to the gazebo, please. That's the history area." That said, I have no problem allowing people to control what appears in their personal Hot Topics bar.

Second, it seems that the blog-like structuring of the site around web links creates limitations. If I have a question on, say, Mickey Mantle's batting stance, I either have to wait for an article mentioning Mantle to crop up, wait for the conversation in a thread I am monitoring to shift to Mantle, or find some unrelated Mantle story. It would be cool if I could post a "Hey, did Mantle change his stance in 1958?" question with a Yankees tag (maybe a history of baseball tag?) and tap directly into the knowledgeable baseball people on the site. Who knows, a baseball discussion might just break out.

It would be cool if I could post a "Hey, did Mantle change his stance in 1958?" question with a Yankees tag (maybe a history of baseball tag?) and tap directly into the knowledgeable baseball people on the site. Who knows, a baseball discussion might just break out.

That was the format of usenet, and it worked quite well. I think structuring the site around links works fine also, but, yes, you've pointed out a drawback to only structuring the site around links.

One could pose the question in the Dugout or the Lounge now and get an answer toot suite.

But someone trolling through usenet would see a thread entitled "Did Mickey Mantle Change his Batting Stance in 1958" and join in as they saw fit. The world's foremost Mickey Mantle Stance expert would only see "Dugout" here, and have no idea what was in the thread.

why others are defending this miscreant behavior puzzles me

I just don't see it as miscreant, I guess. For example, I'm not a huge fan of either Ray's political stance or the way he goes about arguing it, but there's nothing "miscreant" about offering an opinion in a conversation, even when done persistently and forcefully.

I respect you, Harv, but your complaints here seem to be mostly about your inability to deal with a handful of people you don't like. Which is your prerogative, of course, but it's not all that "puzzling" that not everyone shares your personal preferences.

I don't look at anything except the Newsstand links, the hot topics, and my bookmarks. (And Transaction Oracle when there is a significant deal or a lot of activity.) I'm not making any editorial comment about this, just stating what I personally do. I don't check the lounge/forum topics. To this moment I have no idea what the Dugout is, and that's after checking the main page for a "Dugout" link and failing to find one.

One could pose the question in the Dugout or the Lounge now and get an answer toot suite.

I never go there. Hard to find and conversation tends to focus on personal banter between posters who know each other. Which is fine, but not what I am looking for. Moreover, I have posted such questions a couple of times in the Dugout and did not get an answer.

I also find it a bit bizarre, as far as the site admins go, to post threads like the Luke Scott threads, invite people to comment on them, and then take the position that maybe the people you invited to comment on them shouldn't be commenting on them. That seems a bit unfair. It's never been explained why Repoz posts Luke Scott-type threads if commenting in those threads is frowned upon.

You can ask this question one thousand times, and it will continue to get ignored. This is the most baffling thing about the site-- and no one can ever explain why, if Jim hates the politics threads with such a fury, he keeps letting threads that are obviously political get posted.

Putting so much effort and time into discussions based entirely on fears, rumor, and speculation is not great use of time. That some of you expend so much energy in such a manner amuses me. I am also amused that all the people worrying have not volunteered to be part of the beta test. They haven't volunteered I suppose because they enjoy playing the martyr's role.

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.) The controversial off-topic threads will be viewable within Hot Topics only if you opt to view them. Other completely off-topic stuff (like the other sports threads) will handled in an opt-in manner. People who wish to see them on their customized homepage and Hot Topics will only have to choose to see them.

The site will not be balkanized. The micros are integrated within the framework of the entire site. Having said that, if people wish to create a micro with a different moderation policy they will be free to do so. Members will be free to either join that micro or not.

The addition of more quality links will not hurt the site in any way. Anyone who believes they will is not thinking logically. If Repoz and I find 15-20 links a day ourselves and other members find 100-1000 links a day, it will only make it easier for use to choice the best ones to display on the front page. Even when we don't choose them for the front page, the addition of more links will only make finding useful information for your particular interest easier.

Case in point, the Red Sox: I often see 5-20 Red Sox links a day which I find interesting. Within the current set-up it is not workable to post them all to Primer. With the change I can post the best 2-4 links to the front page while making all of them available on the Red Sox Think Factory.

On top of that, there is currently no easy way for members to submit their analysis, commentary, and research to the site. With the redesign, members will be able to directly submit this stuff into the system and into the appropriate micros. Other members will be able to mark these submissions as interesting so that the moderators and admins can promote the best stuff from our members to the site's other visitors.

brian

i can 'deal' with anyone. i don't know why the standard here is 'not as bad as elsewhere' versus having a place where you engage in real dialogue devoid of silliness.

i am fine with disagreements as i am inherently disagreeable

it's the noise. why do we as a group need to tolerate all this noise?

as the administrators can attest i do not use the ignore feature on the site

i use what is called free will and choose which posts are worthy of response and which are not. i only have os much energy left in the old tank

I rarely post in the political threads but I always read them, and they're the best political discussions I've seen. I've learned a lot from many different people on those threads (including Harveys). If those threads descend into namecalling garbage after 800 posts, so be it. That strikes me a bit like complaining about Willie Mays' 1973 season.

This is basically how I feel. I've always found the tone of political threads, while harsher than 99% of all other BTF threads, to be several levels above standard internet discourse.

I almost never post in political threads, but I do frequently post in other off-topic threads. Probably about as much as I post in baseball-specific threads. Generally, I use the baseball threads to learn more about other teams and historical players from posters who are more knowledgeable than I. I feel like I can give better input in movie threads, or threads about pizza, or whatever.

That said, as long as when I log into BTF, all those threads are still there for me to read, I'll be happy.

Of course if the forums were used as intended this wouldn't be a huge issue. But the ####### nancyboys don't like the format. Waaaaa. I don't know why Jim even slightly panders to these people. The lounge was moved and everyting is fine.

This is basically how I feel. I've always found the tone of political threads, while harsher than 99% of all other BTF threads, to be several levels above standard internet discourse.

And most of the "tone" is just people having fun with each other. I've hung out with Lassus, Andy, and Sam in real life, and we've had a very pleasant time. I've even witnessed Sam and Snapper raise a beer together in good cheer. And the libs and David get along just fine also.

That said, as long as when I log into BTF, all those threads are still there for me to read, I'll be happy.

Yes, but whether the discussions will exist in the same form is the question. And it's pretty clear they won't, given the opt-in structure. What remains to be seen, I suppose, is whether they will be better or worse overall.

Putting so much effort and time into discussions based entirely on fears, rumor, and speculation is not great use of time. That some of you expend so much energy in such a manner amuses me. I am also amused that all the people worrying have not volunteered to be part of the beta test. They haven't volunteered I suppose because they enjoy playing the martyr's role.

Or maybe it's because not all of us understand exactly what this would entail. Hell, if it weren't for my wife's ability to figure out how to set up my DVD recorder I'd be forced to bankrupt myself buying DVDs. The existing "submit news item" feature, OTOH, is relatively simple to figure out.

As as a more general point, once you actually put these new features in place, along with some easily understandable Guide For Dummies as to how to use them, I'm pretty sure that a lot of these complaints will wind down. But I'd definitely recommend that in the first week or so of the switch, you stick around to answer the inevitable questions.

it's the noise. why do we as a group need to tolerate all this noise?

That's my point, noise is in the eye of the beholder. Some conversations, even sometimes the tedious ones, I feel like jumping in on. Some I don't want to go anywhere near. The system works for me. I choose. I don't need a special way to ignore the stuff I don't care about because I already do it anyway.

Jim says that his goal is to encourage more conversation, not less. That's a noble goal. And I also agree with The Miscreants that it's worth keeping all topics open to discussion. Jim seems to agree, in theory. So I'm happy to reserve judgment to see how it works.

If the new setup actually does allow them to continue without the heavy hand of moderation, then I'll be cool.

You will be cool.

For the record, and for the thousandth time, I can easily get rid of anything that I wish too. That I haven't gotten rid of all off-topic stuff (and I have a record of over 10 years to fall back on) is an indication that I am not against the off-topic stuff. I am against, however, overwrought, acrimonious discussions, whether they are politics-related, steroid-related, sabermetrics-related or whatever.

I am also all for giving people what they want. Most people come to the site for baseball. That anyone would dispute this fact is beyond me. Since many of those people have complained over the years about the off-topic stuff distracting them from that purpose, I have worked to manage that content in such a way to impact them as little as possible while still allowing those who feel differently to continue to engage in the off-topic stuff (and again, I am talking about the more controversial discussions and clearly off-topic threads). With the redesign I will be able to better satisfy the desires of as many people as possible as users will be able to customize their experience to their liking.

So, if people come here for links (the majority of users) they will find the best links. If they come here for the baseball discussions, they will find the best baseball discussions. If they come here for a bigger community-driven experience, they will find that as well.