By the way, where is the Dugout? Did it die for lack of participation?

There's something in the forums called the Bullpen but it looks pretty much dead since 2010.

So, if people come here for links (the majority of users) they 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.

Sorry, but I can't resist this:

Only under Communism will man be able to harmoniously combine spiritual wealth, moral purity, and a perfect physique.

----1961 CPSU program

I came here for the chicks.

Andy, I've sent some emails to HCO about moving the Wiki over to the main site. To this point he hasn't replied. Hopefully he will be amenable as I would like to build on what has been written while adding additional information.

I must get ready to pick up my wife at the airport. I then will take my son to a concert for his birthday. Although I may check out the thread on my phone (which is easier to do with the redesign), I probably won't be able to respond again until tomorrow.

If any of you wish to play a constructive part of the redesign, I invite you to send me an email so I can add you to the beta group. I am trying to make this the best baseball site that I can. I am limited by time and money in implementing my vision. I will appreciate whatever help people are willing to give me in completing the task.

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.

I don't know how the people complaining that there are off topic threads they don't want to read go through life. When they go to the movie theater, do they watch every single movie because the movie is listed there, or do they choose which movies they want to see? Do they write letters to the theaters complaining that there are movies they don't want to see?

By the way, where is the Dugout?

Today's dugout is here. Dan Lee posts them daily (on weekdays) along with quotes from 100-year-old papers and "all-star" teams of players celebrating a birthday.

I will appreciate whatever help people are willing to give me in completing the task.

I think Bernal is volunteering to pick up your wife at the airport.

I would too.

I should add that while I am naturally skeptical of change, Furtado has definitely earned the benefit of my doubt given his administration of my favorite website. So I am optimistic about the redesign. (Would like to volunteer for the beta, but trying to balance a newborn with work has me reluctant to volunteer for anything else...)

I should add that while I am naturally skeptical of change, Furtado has definitely earned the benefit of my doubt given his administration of my favorite website. So I am optimistic about the redesign. (Would like to volunteer for the beta, but trying to balance a newborn with work has me reluctant to volunteer for anything else...)

Seconded. Well, except for the part about having a newborn...

Any of you mooks been to Basilico Ristorante in Chicago out by the airport?

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.

That simply isn't true. It may work out very nicely for you, because you seem to love scrolling, whitespace, and nested quotes within quotes.

I used to love the lounge, but now I find it practically unreadable*, and I'm not the only one. The people who post most regularly there seem to like/prefer the format (even if I don't really understand why), and I'm disconnected enough from that area of the site that I think it would be wrong to make a big deal about changing things back.

I miss the lounge, and even if I could deal with the format, it would still be less enjoyable because other people who used to post aren't posting any more. My complaint is about 75% formatting and 25% people who no longer show up (or show up much less regularly) because of the formatting. It's not "fine" because it's fine for you.

*There's a post you made today in the Lounge, Bernal, that is literally one word ("Nevermind."), and takes up more than a quarter of the page with your avatar, your signature, and the formatting (and you didn't even quote anyone). If you look at the entire page, there are about 15 words of new content before you have to scroll, and about 20-25 if you turn off avatars and signatures. Post #53 is especially egregious: it takes up practically the whole page with avatars and signatures turned off to add literally one sentence.

Or any Italian or Swedish place near O'Hare?

Do they write letters to the theaters complaining that there are movies they don't want to see?

Aha! Having worked several years at various movie theaters, I can answer you by saying: yes, some do.

I once got a phone call by a woman who was very upset because we were playing Adam Sandler's LITTLE NICKY. Why would we play something so horrible, with the Satanic imagery and storyline, not to mention all of Sandler's general crudeness and vulgarity? Etc., etc. She was really angry about it.

The kicker is ... she only found out about LITTLE NICKY after she paid to see it. That's right, she walked up to the box office one day, bought a ticket for a random movie she knew nothing about, and then proceeded to get very upset that we were playing a movie that she found offensive.

I explained to her that we play a range of movies, not everything will appeal to everyone, etc., but I was getting nowhere. Finally I resolved the situation by saying that I'd be happy to provide her with complimentary tickets for 102 DALMATIANS, which was a family movie and rated G. She came a few days later to watch the movie, enjoyed it and was actually very friendly and appreciative afterwards.

Anyway, my point is that - and I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread - some people really do go through life that way.

I love the dugout, go through daily without fail.

As for the lounge - same as CrosbyBird, with the added bit that that part of the site is blocked in some locations where the mainland is not.

BBTF has evolved over the years that I've been coming here. It's a lot different than the place that I found thanks to a reference that Rob Neyer made in a column many, many years ago. I can't say if it's better or worse. Some things I like more, and some less. What I don't think has changed an iota is the hysterical over-reaction that's generated whenever Jim or Dan suggests that there will be changes.

The Lounge was created because baseball thinking fans hated that first Mets fans, and subsequently Wilco fans, would hijack threads about baseball and talk about all sorts of other stuff that wasn't baseball related. Later the Lounge was moved to the Forum in response to complaints about the non-baseball content and unsavory links found there. Many, including me most likely, prophesied doom to the community. It didn't happen.

I may have an idealistic view of this, but I think there's been change in posting tone from interrogatory-understanding to interrogatory-debating to declarative-asserting over the years. I think this has been the least desirable change to have happened at BBTF. Whether this is due to general internet changes, changes to the BBTF community, or the mainstreaming of sabermetrics, the implementation of new BBTF site design is an interesting question that I can't answer.

My objection to the political threads and others is that I can see virtually no interest among participants in trying to understand why someone thinks and believes as they do. Plus the conversation has become so in-bred that it's almost incomprehensible. The political threads are simply another internet dick-measuring contest. You can claim that it's all in good fun and that there's mutual respect and all that all you want. As a casual observer I'm not buying it. I see a bunch of blowhards talking past each other, incomprehensibly. So I ignore them. I think it's telling that those yelling the loudest for the status quo aren't really involved in beta testing the new design. I think there's a belief that they are the community, in a very Louis Quatorze kind of way. But I don't think they are, and I suspect that their amour fou for their voice will be diminished not an iota.

All this being said, I keep coming back because for all the nonsense that this site generates there is valuable stuff to be found. Community, as others have said. I find articles like that awesome Bob Ojeda piece. I learn more about new music here than I do from anywhere else. I never thought it would supplant the Pazz and Jop poll, but I never thought Christgau would no longer helm that either. I see posters like Matt Clement of Alexandria, HW, Brock Hanke, fra paolo, Foghorn Leghorn, and CW providing information that I haven't seen elsewhere. I don't think that'll stop with the new changes. It may even encourage some of the quieter, more bashful voices that are drowned out by the cacaphony to be heard.

Or it may not. I see no point in prejudging it. And for those whose defense of the political threads are that it's better than 99% of the rest of the internet, I can only say that's like being the comeliest $5 hooker. I wouldn't really be bragging about it.

Today's dugout is here. Dan Lee posts them daily (on weekdays) along with quotes from 100-year-old papers and "all-star" teams of players celebrating a birthday.

Wow. Those fall off of Hot Topics really quickly. I assumed they were buried in the forums somewhere.

The kicker is ... she only found out about LITTLE NICKY after she paid to see it. That's right, she walked up to the box office one day, bought a ticket for a random movie she knew nothing about, and then proceeded to get very upset that we were playing a movie that she found offensive.

I actually don't find anything wrong with this.

Wow. Those fall off of Hot Topics really quickly. I assumed they were buried in the forums somewhere.

They fall off because of all the rambling on about Politics and stupid ####.

I love the dugout, go through daily without fail.

Same here. It's always about baseball. The Birthday Team, good trivia (from Dag or others), the new Game of the Day feature from Eric and, on occasion, Tiboreau's really great posts on the old PCL, plus random baseball thought that occasionally take off into good discussions.

They fall off because people who comment are not interested in commenting in the dugout thread. Plain and simple. There is no value in having a small amount of links on the side of the page and setting it up so that something that hasn't been commented on for 4 or 5 hours or more gets top billing.

I'm also not really understanding how people find it so difficult to use the newstand.

I actually don't find anything wrong with this.

I didn't and never did have any problem with people going into a movie, and deciding that it's just not for them. Everywhere I worked - I worked for just about every major chain - was accomodating of people that just goofed up their choice. I would never ask for a refund just because I don't like a movie, and I see a lot of movies, but it happens and businesses have an interest in making their customers happy. Which is why I tried to understand her point of view and offered her tickets to another movie that I thought was more to her liking.

But it's extremely annoying when people take it upon themselves to decide what "should" and "shouldn't" be played at the theater. And doubly so when people of that mindset take no responsibility upon themselves to educate themselves before making a choice as a consumer. People have every right to vote with their wallets, as the saying goes, but the rest of us have every right to do the same. And I would have never paid to see a piece of #### like LITTLE NICKY.

They fall off because people who comment are not interested in commenting in the dugout thread. Plain and simple. There is no value in having a small amount of links on the side of the page and setting it up so that something that hasn't been commented on for 4 or 5 hours or more gets top billing.

As much as I wish more people would participate in the Dugout, I have to agree with this.

Frankly, my biggest gripe was that some of the baseball-related threads were getting pushed off Hot Topics too quickly, and that multiple active OT threads were part of the problem. But now that Hot Topics menu has been lengthened considerably, I don't see much of an issue.

brian

supposedly the tree of life had a significant demand of viewers who wanted refunds.

go figure

brian

supposedly the tree of life had a significant demand of viewers who wanted refunds.

go figure

Probably because of the compassionate dinosaur.

chicago

it was a different kind of film but i was entertained

of course it struck a deeper chord with me because the actress who played the mom was a dead ringer for my wife when she was young.

as i stated previously it was like having a webcam into the past seeing the wife play with the boys.

i was mesmorized

Isn't it... ironic?... that Harveys complains about the tone of the political threads while he is spewing insults here.

Sorry about the double post. I think there's either a glitch in the Edit function or in the poster comprehension function.

I once got a phone call by a woman who was very upset because we were playing Adam Sandler's LITTLE NICKY. Why would we play something so horrible, with the Satanic imagery and storyline, not to mention all of Sandler's general crudeness and vulgarity? Etc., etc. She was really angry about it.

The kicker is ... she only found out about LITTLE NICKY after she paid to see it. That's right, she walked up to the box office one day, bought a ticket for a random movie she knew nothing about, and then proceeded to get very upset that we were playing a movie that she found offensive.

In the early 70's my GF and I used to take a collection of vintage cartoons around to college towns, everything from Melies' Trip to the Moon to early Donald Duck to Lenny Bruce's Thank You Mask Man. For marketing reasons our flyer billed it as "An Orgy of Cartoons---69 years of sex, violence, and general bad taste in cinema", but anyone who saw the playlist would know immediately that the title was mostly tongue in cheek. As did 99% of our customers, who could guess that our description of Bugs Bunny's What's Opera, Doc? as "An Academy Award cartoon featuring Bugs in drag, with Elmer as his lover" wasn't necessarily a statement about transgendering bunny rabbits and animal fetishists.

But when we took this show to the old Paramount Theater in Charlottesville, after about the third cartoon a bunch of geezers rushed the cashier and demanded a refund. Why?

Well, the theater manager explained to us that the group in question was commonly known as "the old men with newspapers", who used to come to the porno movies and jack off in the dark. They apparently didn't quite catch onto the idea that our descriptions weren't meant to be literal, and got very indignant when Gertie the Dinosauer wasn't humped by Winsor McCay. He said it with a smile, and we couldn't stop laughing for the rest of the weekend. You can't please everybody.

Isn't it... ironic?... that Harveys complains about the tone of the political threads while he is spewing insults here.

Same thing happened to me on BBO this morning; I think it's pretty commonplace that people who compain loudest about tone and manners are the worst offenders.

kurt

now wait a minute

where i have called out an individual poster

name a post here. name any post by me on bbtf

i will wait patiently as you bring forward a post where i directed a personal attack at an individual poster

i know it will be a long wait because i have not nor will not

and yes, i see a difference between an attack directed at people by name versus a generic branding of the group

if folks want to take ownership of the branding that is their choice.

kurt

i will also point out that intentional or not you are now complicit in the posters intent to distract from the actual discussion by creating a referendum on another poster

it's an old debate ploy.

i am surprised you fell for it

Isn't it... ironic?... that Harveys complains about the tone of the political threads while he is spewing insults here.

It's a Flying Hellfish Soylent Green moment.

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

There are too many leaves in your walkway.

Does my withered face remind you of the grim specter of death?

Isn't it kind of meta that this thread is nearing the generally accepted 200-post cutoff that marks one of those Bad Threads That Clog Up Hot Topics?

kurt

see post 185. that is a direct, pointed comment that has the single purpose of being insulting.

i see distinction between that and voicing displeasure at a "small cadre of posters"

my guess is that some will see that as wordsmithing of some kind

i do not.

some of what i read here has the undertone of 'it's the internet. this is better than most. deal old man'.

why do we have to settle? why is the childish and the snide and the sneer accepted as the 'cost of doing business'?

i don't know if this was fra's goal but in the interests of avoiding being part of the problem versus the solution i will end posting in this thread

some of what i read here has the undertone of 'it's the internet. this is better than most. deal old man'.

why do we have to settle? why is the childish and the snide and the sneer accepted as the 'cost of doing business'?

It's the comeliest $5 hooker defense, HW. Or should I say, "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."

where i have called out an individual poster

Never. Though, to be fair, you did drive Ned Yost to Kansas City. He still curls up in the fœtal position and starts sobbing when he thinks about your comments on his bullpen management.

Harveys, you lost all credibility when you made it clear that you are in the thrall of the political threads, even though the means of circumventing their is plainly at your disposal. As a judge would say, you clearly now have your remedy. Having clicked on a thread, it doesn't take me two seconds to determine if I want to follow it, and I can't believe you don't have the same wherewithal. Use it and stop tormenting yourself.

Harveys, 182 was meant to be a general observation, not specifically directed at you, though I can see how it reads that way.

I will say that I've read thousands of comments in political threads, and never seen a poster suggest, either literally or metaphorically, that another poster needs to be put down or that a trigger pointed at another poster needs to be squeezed.

I don't find you to generally be an insulting poster at all. IMO your behavior in this thread is uncharacteristic.

kurt

see post 185. that is a direct, pointed comment that has the single purpose of being insulting.

i see distinction between that and voicing displeasure at a "small cadre of posters"

my guess is that some will see that as wordsmithing of some kind

i do not.

And some of us see a difference between "voicing displeasure" and

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

All Morty gave you with that Simpsons link was a much wittier version of what you've been dishing out for most of this thread, and then pretending that it wasn't directed against any individuals in particular. Talk about an "old debate ploy"---you could be giving Karl Rove and David Axelrod lessons. You're a tough old buzzard and we all love you, but if you want to dish it out like you've been dishing it out, you can't hide behind that "small cadre of posters" line and expect that nobody's going to see right through it.

where i have called out an individual poster

Never. Though, to be fair, you did drive Ned Yost to Kansas City. He still curls up in the fœtal position and starts sobbing when he thinks about your comments on his bullpen management.

That's a hyper-technical quibble. Not mentioning names (if indeed he doesn't) doesn't mean it isn't known who he has in mind. It doesn't put whatever objection he has (and through experience I've learned there's nothing to be gained by following his tantrums) on a higher plain. It's just makes them more dishonest.

EDIT: What Jolly said, too.

BTW Harveys, that image of Abe Simpson is my avatar on facebook. I'm not that much younger than you, I don't think.

To be clear...for the people who regularly participate in the political threads the experience here *will be improved* not worsened. After selecting your Hot Topic preference, you won't notice a difference.

Jim, I think you've made up your mind (based on factors we're not privy to) so comments are probably superfluous, but for informational purposes I wanted to note that this response probably misses the point. It may be the case that I personally, with the right preferences, will see all the political threads just as before, but if other people don't, there will be a noticeable difference in the quality of those threads. Much as it may seem like I talk only to hear the sound of my own voice, I don't. I want to hear what other people are saying.

Hey, I thought this was the thread devoted to off topics, politics, and the redesign. Though why we would want to talk about the redesign when we can talk about Pavement and Obama is beyond me.

Jim, I think you've made up your mind (based on factors we're not privy to) so comments are probably superfluous...

Probably?

..but for informational purposes I wanted to note that this response probably misses the point. It may be the case that I personally, with the right preferences, will see all the political threads just as before, but if other people don't, there will be a noticeable difference in the quality of those threads.

David can't live without me, Jim.

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.

Yes. I've been heavily involved in political threads, and regardless of what it might look like to an outsider, these are very civil, not just by the standards of other Internet discourse, but by BBTF standards, too. There are just a couple of posters who are actively rude to other people in a mean-spirited way. (Not surprisingly, some of them have popped up in this thread. (And I don't mean Harveys, even though his tone here has been pretty harsh.)) Most of it is just people who've 'known' each other for a very long time who are tossing stuff around.

Not mentioning names

Is not a plus. I see it as a minus. DiPerna included me on his list, which is fine, although I have been reading the political threads far more than posting in them over the last year or so. HW, if you want to call people out, call us out.

I am against, however, overwrought, acrimonious discussions, whether they are politics-related, steroid-related, sabermetrics-related or whatever.

Well, this makes it clearer. Basically, it seems there are two issues, here, then:

1. Mr. Furtado wants to redesign his site so that he can get "more and better baseball content" on it.
2. Mr. Furtado, and others, are angered and irritated by, and contemptuous of, sometimes-snarky discussions of people's political/worldviews, so they want to create a feature such that they will not have to be exposed to sidebar links that indicate said discussions are ongoing, and also feel that these discussions and others "crowd out" potentially high-quality baseball discussions.

The obvious options for Issue 2:

a) Tell Repoz and others to stop posting links like "Obama wears White Sox cap while hanging out with Wife and Kids" and start linking to more sabermetrically-inclined articles
b) Set up and consistently enforce a stricter and clearer TOS.
c) Don't click on said discussions

Are apparently not on the table.

I will continue to support the site and appreciate its being here and being free.

I would have a much easier time accepting that the changes would be for the better if I still didn't have to log in every time I wanted to make a post.

plain joe

what chat forum doesn't require a log in of some kind? some use facebook, some use captcha, some use their own approach

with the spam out there it's a must or seems to be

what site that is not an informal blog does not have log in of some kind?

Apologies if this has been addressed; if it was, I missed it (back at work after 6 days off & actually having to do a few things other than reading & posting here ... oh, the inhumanity!).

In any event, I assume the complaint is about having to log in every day &/or every damned time you call up the site. That didn't used to be the case (& it's not the case at just about every place I frequent, with a couple of very small blogs being the exceptions). It's hardly a horrible hardship, but it's irritating.

Also, if manners are an issue here, maybe it would be possible to post, or let Primates know, if a huge number of people have them on ignore. I personally have no one on ignore, but if it turned out that 24 Primates have hit the mute button on me, that would indicate I need to look at my posting habits.