don1481

YES!!! GP IN DA HOUSE!!

Usually all interesting relationship talk occurs when one is... drunkhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif So you do the mathhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif Hmm... furthermore: Girl A likes Jack Daniels, Girl B likes dark beer. ARRRRRGH!! WHY ME??? *bangs head on desk*

First of all... BuckyTuba, sorry to hear that man. Now onto my situation: I have two women that really like me...how do I choose? Both like baseball - BREWERS baseball - so that's not a factor. Both are hot, awesome to be around, great kissers, and what not... HOW. DO. I. DECIDE???

Yes - twice the fun at the Keg!http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif And twice the fun tomorrow!

Ooooooh! Sounds like a good time! Bravo!

Welcome aboard Stevo! I'm still waiting for the Drunk Thread gathering on the East Side...

As a matter of fact, yes I have discussed this with other members at length. And rather than bombarding the moderators with this issue, especially seeing as concerns expressed by others *have* gone unresolved in the past, it was deemed that this would be an appropriate venue to take up this discussion. One centralized location, visible to all of those who care to show concern, rather than getting X number of responses with X numbers of opinions from X number of moderators. It's not Brian that's the problem, Nicole. Never has been, never will be. As I state above, it's the fact that when one *does* email the moderators, as you suggest, one often gets a differing opinion from each moderator. So really... what gain is there to be made by doing so? Further confusion? A lack of openness? One of the strengths of BF.Net when I first started posting was its relative transparentness. Everyone knew how the site was run, what to expect from others, and that their concerns would be fairly heard. Now? It seems like that vision is obfuscated. Whoa, whoa, whoa... am I shoving this in people's faces? Absolutely not. If I wanted to do something like that, I probably would have replied directly to the thread referenced in the original post. All I'm trying to do is comment about the fact that BF.NET prided itself on the fact that it was a place for *informed* discussion, as opposed to other sites that BF.NET was originally founded to replace. Is that elitist? Based on dictionary.com's definition of elitism: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. It certainly is. As I recall, there was a *lot* of looking down upon sites like ESPN.com by many of the moderators here because its baseball talk was, well, uninformed and completely ridiculous. We deserved favored treatment in the sense that we deserved a place to have these intellectual discussions. That's *all* I meant. That's *all* I have ever implied.

Yes, it absolutely was. And judging from the responses on this thread, a number of others agree. And how would the others with the same concern as me have known that this issue was even being addressed then? They wouldn't have. Wow. That's completely taking what I said out of context. The issue that katuluu brought up was how to keep relevant topics near the "top" on page 1 even if those topics haven't had anything meaningful to add. I think you and I agree in the sense that we shouldn't post to just "bump up" a thread. I think we disagree, though, in how discussions that have been done in depth (examples are found throughout this thread) can be dealt with when someone introduces a 500th "Hardy Sux" thread.

It's difficult when, as I stated in my previous post, the topic already has been beaten to death and there's really not much else to say at that point. That's where I have the issue.

I'm sure it'll pick up as Spring Training draws to a close but... over the winter, as you well know, there's only so many topics you can beat to death. And when those topics start repeating that have already been beat to death, do you post in the original just to "bump it up?" Based on Mass' observation here, that could be mistaken for meaningless garbage posts. *sigh*

Am I? Did you even need to bother with that reference though? Similar or not... I'm sure most people on the site would have preferred BJames not have been brought up. Uh... so it's acceptable, though, for moderators to make countless one-liners on the site yet for the rest of us... it's not? Please. I think we would all be so much happier if we *all* - mods, posters, everyone - didn't have so many one-liners. Sometimes, there's just a juicy bit that can't go without comment... we all know that. But sometimes, you just gotta hold it in. It's not the fact that a thread is *negative* that's the issue here, Ja, it's the fact that the SAME TOPICS surface... over... and over... and over. If I wanted to read that I'd go to ESPN and see if Peter Gammons knows what decade he's in.

Bo-ring! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif In all seriousness, Ja, it's hard for many of the seasoned posters to have those discussions with a lot of the "HARDY SUX!!" or "EVELAND IS TERRIBLE" threads that we've been seeing around here lately. As RoCo so eloquently pointed out, *that's* where the real problem lies. Those are the threads that the mods should be focusing on, locking down - in a polite, non overbearing manner - when they're posted.

BJames' name hadn't been mentioned in quite some time on this site until you brought it up in that thread. Brian has talked elsewhere about letting BJames' legacy ride off into the glorious sunset of nutjobs. Now, let's say, for discussion's sake, that I posted that post rather than you. If I was a betting man, I'd wager that one of you mods would have been on me so quickly for resurfacing that old skeleton that it would have gotten fairly messy. So, of course after you make that post in that thread, the BJames commentaries start coming back. And at that point, the thread was pretty much trashed. So, someone like me who realizes this decides to parody the thread that you so kindly referenced in the first place. Now... where does the criticism go, the person that started the obnoxious BJames feeding frenzy or towards the person who parodied what was going on? Makes perfect sense to me.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif

Well, good. I'm glad you don't let some frothing at the mouth rabid poster like me bully you aroundhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine. Of course, I will always think that mine is right because, well, it's *mine*. But seriously though... what product *are* we trying to sell here? Are we trying to sell top-notch Brewers and baseball discussion where our opinions are backed up by facts and not by pure speculation? Are we trying to be a clone of ESPN circa 2000 (plus heavy moderating)? I think that's the biggest thing that's missing here - a real vision. What *is* it that Brian's looking for here? Jamie says: But where does that leave the avid fan?

So, running around here saying "hey everyone! Come here and see how good I look!" isn't exactly the best idea, right...? As implied in Al's post, his and my desires are different now than what Brian's are now. Several years ago, I would imagine that our hopes for this site were far more aligned.

So... does that include comments by others (including/especially moderators) or am I being singled out here? Look at the original post by Ja. Look where it links. Is that necessarily at all professional for a moderator to be inviting shots at a person that has been banned for some time? Compare that linked thread then to the posts that I did make. Note the parallels? It's called *parody,* Mass. I mean... the thread, especially once Ja made that one-line, was basically de-evolving anyways... so why not make fun of it a little?

Hence my adding "I understand that sometimes we all need to not pull out the whipping belt so strongly when we find a particular thread obnoxious" to my original post. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Seriously, though, the topic here isn't so much whether or not we should be bashing posters on *this* site so much as to whether or not part of the culture that made BF.net *the* place for Brewers talk was because of the inherent elitism that I talked about in my first post. Knowing that you're going to get the sky raining down on you from some of our more... "stat-driven" posters is a great way to make sure that one doesn't go spouting their mouth off with another "The Sky is Falling! Ben Sheets' Career is OVER!" thread. Sure, self-moderation is not perfect. Yes, especially as a site becomes more and more popular, we would lose some people that stumble upon this site and are overwhelmed by the intensity of some of the discussion but... let's look at other sites for clubs around... SOSH? Elitist. Cubs' sites? Elitist. Go up and down the list, folks. All of the top fan-based sites like BF.net *are* going to have an inherently elitist culture. Ultimately, you decide whether to appeal to the general public or to the die-hard. You cannot do both. If one tries, it's almost guaranteed that they will alienate both groups in the process.

When I was looking at this thread, I couldn't help but observe: Brian, this board has been considered "elitist" by many since well before even I started posting here. The words "Brewerfan.net" and "elitist" generally go hand in hand. Is it necessarily a bad thing? I don't believe so. People, it's called "backing up your statements with facts." I got jumped when I first started posting here because I didn't always bring my facts. I got small-sample sized quite a bit. When dealing with a bunch of statheads (myself included), one cannot base an argument around principles that can be taken to the toolshed by anyone who knows how to use Google or a baseball stats site. There will always be an air of "elitism" at BF.net, not necessarily because posters think that they're "better" than others on this site but... because they *are* better than those at other sites. Wasn't part of the purpose of forming this site to get *away* from the drama and theatrics and insanely inane arguments found on ESPN? By definition, this site was formed as an elitist escape from "regular" sites, where those who want to know more about what's going on with the Brewers and look at the future of our club could find refuge. Yes, I understand that sometimes we all need to not pull out the whipping belt so strongly when we find a particular thread obnoxious but... one difference between BF.net now and BF.net two years ago is that BF.net two years ago was a lot more self-moderated... in part because people were afraid of getting their comments completely being beaten down for being poorly supported/repetitive/etc. I'm concerned we're moving away from that model... and in the process watering down the discussion on the site. So really... is elitism such a bad thing?

Now, don't forget about THIS one's... on and off the "field"... http://www.hollywoodthing.com/actors/charliesheen/10.jpg

But that seems to be a common theme with a lot of our top prospects over the years. Nuke? Control problems. Blown arm. Jones? (lesser) Control problems. Blown arm. Rogers? Control problems. Sarfate? Control problems. DLR? Control problems. Hendrickson? Control problems. Especially after they tinkered further with his deliveryhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/sick.gif At this rate, our rotation could look like a bunch of http://pdn.philly.com/2005/04/26/mitch.jpg in a couple of years....http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/sick.gif

Mine means that I am the most awesomest poster here. Ever. What? I'm being completely serious!http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Patience, my friends. Moeller will be free and bagging your groceries soon enough http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif

*bump*

GP - we need to have Dueling Beers... where one of us drinks pro-Brewers, and one of us drinks anti-Brewers... we alternate (i.e. you're pro Brewers one game and I'm pro Brewers the next) so we can get fair turns. That way we can truly see which beers help the Brewers and which beers hurt them... and pick wisely in '07http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif

Can we just give Moeller the season-long Golden Sombrero award...?http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif