NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Cerbaho-WG @ Jun 26, 2011 -> 05:48 PM) What has gotten into Axelrod? Sheesh, he's been lights out this year. He's been showing positive signs for a couple years now. Wasn't considered much of a prospect, old for level, but I've been saying he's a guy to watch for a while now.

He Gawn!

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) Well, Ozzie is showing supreme faith in a guy (Pierre) that has a proven pedigree and you have to admire that about him. Ozzie always sticks by his vets and that's a decent trait to have. I know its sarcastic and a hit on me/us, but I like this post. Well done.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:23 PM) You'll love this reference, but check out The Wire, which is widely considered to be really, really accurate. They fudged the numbers all the time. They purposefully spread out crimes by date to make one month look better than the last. I don't know how much of an affect this really has, but since people's jobs are on the line, I have no doubt that they fudge the numbers in their favor. You think they've been postponing reports for years? Please, the homicide rates in Chicago have dropped dramatically, over a period of a good number of years. Could there be manipulation in there? Sure, a few here and there. But I want someone to show me how its even remotely possible to "fudge the numbers" to show a 40% drop in homicides over years or a decade.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) I'm quite a few pages back, and perhaps it has since been answered, but this portion of NSS's post is golden. If Jason and company are going to establish new rules concerning posting there should be clear guidelines detailing what's acceptable and what isn't. More than "hyperbole" or outlandish negativity. Additionally, who exactly is enforcing these rules, just Jason; or all mods? Will each post that is questionable be put up for review? Also, I'm trying to wrap my mind around this concept -- so there's a collection of 'quality' posters out in the nether regions of the internet lurking, and oh boy do they have some valuable insight to provide for fellow Soxtalk members. Yet, when these member log on all they notice is the negativity; and that just makes them sad. They don't appreciate such injustices. So in a silent protest (well, not really, because they made sure to tell the mods/admins of their intentions so everyone will miss them) they leave and now the world will never know what knowledge could have been shared with Soxtalk. Am I the only person who finds it ridiculous someone is allowing another person indirectly to influence whether or not they post here? You're not the only one, but it is ridiculous. As I said earlier, and others have said, it would be easy to be on the extremes. We could just not moderate or admin at all, let everyone post what they want... you'd have more leeway, but you'd also have complete garbage discussions, way worse than here (again, see ESPN or MLB boards). Alternately, we could be really stringent like WSI, and half the posters here would get banned. Don't really want to do that either. So what does that leave? Something between. And no matter what, that's going to be subjective, and you know that. You're trying for the absolutes here, and those aren't practical. We gave examples, you had a handful of mods and admins describe in detail what we want. If that isn't clear, ask for some specific clarification. And finally, its never "another person", its the team of mods and admins. People don't get suspended or banned or anything else without discussion among people who've been on here a long time, and who have set out for you and others as clear a set of examples and guidelines as we reasonably can.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) Before his 2 days off and on Wednesday, I didn't see this at all. I saw it Wednesday at the game. He was inconsistent with it, but he seemed to be making changes, which I see as a positive.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) Fixed LOUD!!!!!!!!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) How about I like my superstars and don't want rumors spreading because of a website. The internet can be dangerous like that, in case you haven't heard. Paul Konerko has given us enough that we needn't assist in any idle bs speculation about him. I understand what you are saying, and the thread title was indeed changed. But as we're not WSI (I feel like I keep saying that today), we don't generally quash entire topics of discussion just because they are controversial.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) THREE MODS IN THE TOPIC!! WHO WILL COMPLY WITH MY DEMANDS Too much caffeine today?

Edited the topic title. Nothing wrong with discussing it, though we should be careful. If anyone can determine what this is about, if its any more than just some doofus caller with a theory, let us know.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) Want to know a pet-peeve of mine? When people continue calling this Obamacare...when it's absolutely nothing like what he pitched or intended. It's a X number of pages law that's filled with compromise after compromise. In the end, it's -- at best -- "Compromisecare", because calling it Obamacare is asinine. I don't think Obama is the greatest President of all time by any means (then again, who was?), but blaming him for things he didn't intend, etc...is dishonest at best. Also agree with this, I've said it a few times. This was not what he had planned.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) In the end, the "reform" that was passed, was -- at best -- a s***ty bandaid that's already falling off. If you're happy with it, all the power to you. But they had a historic opportunity and failed us...again. Granted, that's just my opinion. I actually agree with you in general, the legislation was a disappointment.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) But I don't think this should include game threads. THere have been times during games where I have cursed voodoo spells on juan pierre, and then the play happens and whatever. It's way too hard not to be hyperbolic in the heat of a game. Game threads are certainly given more latitude, that hasn't changed. But that doesn't mean all rules are off in there either. Just a little more leeway is given.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) The June numbers for Rios don't look that bad. So hopefully he's coming around. Just watching the Cubs series, he was starting to look a lot better at the plate. Not just on results, but his approach. I feel like he may be about to turn it around and get hot for a while. And I think Beckham seems to have figured out what was getting him with his hands. Dunn is the guy we really need to get going now.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) I've read through the thread. And I've come to the same conclusion. Now I have to worry about getting suspended if I say something as trivial as "Adam Dunn sucks" after another 0/4, 3K game. If you were to post that, say, once in a game thread, no one would care. If you post it 10 times in 5 different ways in 4 different threads with not a coherent though accompanying, that's just irritating.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) I was a little buzzed last night (shocking, I know), but now that I'm sober I can now kinda say my piece on this issue. Without making this a 1500 word rant or a pessimist vs optimist centric post, I think the one thing that I've definitely underestimated about the board in general is the overall sensitivity, or more specifically, over-sensitivity. When I say that, I don't mean certain posters are crybabies or get their feelings hurt easily. But when a poster(s) says that they don't want to post or can't come in here or it's just too negative for them, etc, is that my problem (using me as an example here) or theirs? That a person(s) that you've never met before in your life can have that affect on you? That seems like a separate issue in itself. There's not a poster here that will influence how often I frequent the board. If I take a month off it'll be because I just felt like taking a month off or I've been too busy or whatever. Not because a poster or a certain group 'forced' me to. What's the ignore feature for? USE IT! If it bothers you that much then you have that option. I'm only speaking for myself here. Yes, I do create hyperbolic posts at times. Yes, if we're losing 8-2 in the bottom of the 7th I'll get nasty. Yes, when the Twins run out a lineup on consecutive nights that would make Smalls, Benny, Porter, Squints and Yeah-Yeah point and laugh and you STILL lose, yes, that's not going to exactly inspire a positive vibe. When I say JP sucks, I mean he sucks as a baseball player. Not as a man, husband or father. When Alex Rios get torched? It's because his performance as a baseball player warrants it. Not because I think he rapes small bunnies. When Peavy gets critiqued, it's all baseball related. I don't and never will see a problem with that as long as you don't cross that threshold. As far as excessive cursing and personal attacks, yeah, I get that. And that's for the mods and admins to take care of. But trying muzzle or put a gag order on certain posters (and then basically saying if you don't comply, see ya!) because they express their views/opinions regarding the players/team differently from others? Only one site comes to mind. Totally missed the point. In fact, we want people to disagree, it makes better discussions. It has absoultely nothing to do with how bad you think Juan Pierre is, or how good you think Paul Konerko is. Its about how you post. And you still don't get that. Not once, ever, has a poster been suspened or even PM'd or talked with about where they stand on some specific issue, player, stat, decision, etc. Never happened, and isn't going to here either. Are you not capable of telling us why you think Player X is bad? Or can you only post an expletive-laden, laughably over-the-top rant? Do you think anyone wants to read a site full of posts like that? If you want a truly, 100% unmoderated forum, then go over to ESPN or MLB boards. See how fun that is. If you want a heavily moderated and tuned forum, go to WSI, see how long you last there. If you want something in between, stay here, but be aware that we have rules and expectations too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) A good example to this is the controversy of racial data being reported of traffic stops in one of the burbs (I can't remember which one, but it was in the Trib a while back) being outright lies. Very different though. In the case of the racial data, hispanic people were being noted as white during traffic stops. That's a long ways from classifying a homicide as something different, which I highly, highly doubt is happening with any frequency. Think about the dynamics of that - a guy gets shot, what are they going to do, call it natural causes? Suicide? If this were true, suicide rates would be skyrocketing. Its just not believable.

Usually scares me to face a team with a new manager. But this is the very rare case where the manager is leaving while the team has been winning, not losing.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) A lot ARE doing this. Hence the boom in "consulting jobs". Consultants get no health coverage. A lot? Seems so far the numbers dropping it are pretty low % wise. We'll see if that holds, it might not. I do think that eventually, health care will become unwound from employment, and be a personal cost to people directly. And amazingly, I think that could be a good thing, as long as certain protections are in place around it.

Y2HH, if it was as simple as "if they save a lot of money, they will cut insurance benefits", then companies would have dropped this en masse a long time ago. The rates were increasing so much more than inflation, even before the health care legislation was passed. So not, its not at all that simple. Its more like "if it makes business sense", or if "they can't afford it anymore", then they may drop it. Insurance is a benefit, its ALWAYS an added cost, so they have to look at the full compensation package and decide if they are competitive enough.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:35 AM) It does, very much. The initial posts left out those key elements, along with the examples. Thank you. To be clear on what I said and you bolded... its entirely possible or likely that a single post like that will result in some sort of reaction from the Mod/Admin team, especially the personal attack - but if its isolated and not a poster-specific pattern, we usually say something in-thread, or send a PM, etc. I cannot even remember a time where a poster was just outright suspended before SOMETHING else was done first (exception being a brand new poster who posts 4 times, and its all that kind of crap). I'm sure its happened, but it has to be rare.

Here is something impressive in odd statistical way... Tyler Kuhn manages to have a .933 OPS, and slug .504, while hitting only one home run. That .429 OBP is pretty sick.

Hyperbole.... Personal attack... Just a bunch of angry swearing garbage... Those are sort of three classifications of what I'd consider garbage posts. Not necessarily postERS, by the way, but posts. And mind you, I am not saying (and I don't think Jason is either) that posting something like that gets you an instant suspension or something just for making one post like this (as noted earlier, we discuss these things at length and people do get slack). The problem is when the board is riddled with s*** like this, which at times it is, and that just makes this place a lot less fun. Hope that helps clarify a bit.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) Although I appreciate the insinuation that the current posters are of substandard quality and that anyone who is questioning this move is "one of those guys", I still have yet to see some real life examples. I'd like to have a better understanding before I take the risk of possibly being suspended with no warning. If the bolded were true, I'd be referring to myself as well. So no, not really what I was getting at. But I do appreciate your desire for examples. Now, if I go find a bunch, people will of course figure out who said them, and then it will look like I'm picking on certain posters. Eh, f*** it, I am picking on certain posts and posters, because I'm tired of the garbage. So let me go find a few examples for you...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) I assumed you would go that route and insinuate I'm actively rooting against the Sox. My point is that this is a discussion board and this move is clearly meant to stifle one side over the other when both sides are necessary to create meaningful discussion. I realize that the initial post includes the people who are "rah rah White Sox" with no substance, but let's not act like this isn't a direct attempt to rein in the negative posts. I still would like some concrete examples (maybe quote a few posts) as the little caveat thrown in on the first post, "Note: No warnings will be issued, so consider this your warning", is pretty disconcerting. On the two bolded sentences... First sentence, I'll actually defend you here, I don't think you are rooting against the Sox at all. I think very few people are. Second sentence is just patently false. You're damn right you need both sides to have a good discussion, although "both sides" doesn't have to mean positive vs negative on the team. But all Jason is trying to do is get rid of the garbage posts, the ones that chase off good posts and posters. And let's be honest, its a lot easier to be a negative ass than a positive one, so naturally, more of the garbage is negative.