Improve this thread - Extraneous BS

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If you phrase your disagreement in terms of the opinion and not the poster, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But you don't. Your potshot was clearly directed at a personal nature instead of an opinion response. That's got to stop, regardless of who it is.

So while you're defending Partial from this comment:

Oh yeah. Win games instead of losing them. Thanks for nailing that down Thanks for the thought and research there, parsh.

Here's what's been going on this weekend:

I think your list of players is by and large BS.

Harv, don't be a little bitch.

get real jag...

Having everyone laugh at you as you're crushed by a fat man will be glorious.

I want him to shut the fuck up

So many people here talk a big game without any ability whatsoever to back it up.

Don't be a DFC.

That's Dumb Fucking Cunt for the more refined amongst us.

yet are unwilling to be a fucking man and walk the walk...

dumb fucking cunt. What do I care? Your actions are a direct reflection of this lately.

This is from one thread! ONE THREAD! And what did you have to say?

Yet you choose to chastise JH for having the "gall" to question the validity of one of Partial's posts - without cursing and without referencing anything other than his post. Give me fucking break. Either you're being highly selective in what you read, or this forum is far worse off than I thought. Take your pick.

I think the admin falls prey to the second infraction theory, like in football.

Instead of wondering why there appears to be a random gang that is picking on partial he ignores it.

Surely all those people are just asshat.

[Deputy Nutz]

I thought I had another post floating around this thread. What must have happened to it?

[RashanGary]

Thank you for rescuing me, skinbasket. I love you.

[SkinBasket]

Thank you for rescuing me, skinbasket. I love you.

Well, no offense, but I didn't do it for you JH. It's exactly like I said before. I have no problem if Admin wants to run a tighter ship. I don't agree with it and I think trying to maintain any level of civility above a bar around 1am is going to be damn near impossible, but if that's what he wants to do, then that tighter ship rule has to apply to everyone equally. As Waldo pointed out, it's difficult to post on a board where someone makes wild claims, then ignores all reason against them. It's frustrating. It's doubly frustrating when that kind of poster is allowed to berate others so crudely while being shielded from rather benign comments, in my opinion.

[Administrator]

Either you're being highly selective in what you read, or this forum is far worse off than I thought. Take your pick.

Ok, well I've read the offending thread. I'll detail my thoughts on that below.

Regarding this point, I reiterate what I said earlier, I don't read every thread. I don't know who Pete Shrager is and couldn't give a damn what he thinks.

So, I didn't read it. Had someone pointed me to it, I'd have probably deleted the later responses, and talked with several people via PM. This might have been the first thread that I actually locked, as the last 2 1/2 pages didn't have a damn thing to do about football.

Was Partial out of line? Yes. Was he the only one? NO. It's kind of sad Skinbasket that you are slanting everything towards one perspective.

You are maintaining that there is somehow "favoritism" directed at a few people here. Coming from you, that's complete and utter bullshit. I have stopped all of the references directed at you from Partial and a few other folks. Have you forgotten? Partial has the distinction as being one of two people that I told to "knock of the crap" in the Garbage Can.

I have no 'favorites' here. It is a completely non-starter of an argument. Your situation is proof of that. In this thread, I told Justin Harrell that I disagreed with the manner that he posted and I still do. It was wrong. Waldo showed that there are effective ways to make your point without attacking the poster. Justin Harrell did not do that, and someone else acting inappropriately doesn't change that.

I'll detail out the post now, but first I'm moving this behind closed doors to the Romper Room, as well as the Pete Schrager thread. The guests do not need to see this dirty laundry.

[sharpe1027]

Thank you for rescuing me, skinbasket. I love you.

Well, no offense, but I didn't do it for you JH. It's exactly like I said before. I have no problem if Admin wants to run a tighter ship. I don't agree with it and I think trying to maintain any level of civility above a bar around 1am is going to be damn near impossible, but if that's what he wants to do, then that tighter ship rule has to apply to everyone equally. As Waldo pointed out, it's difficult to post on a board where someone makes wild claims, then ignores all reason against them. It's frustrating. It's doubly frustrating when that kind of poster is allowed to berate others so crudely while being shielded from rather benign comments, in my opinion.

Maybe that is a blessing in disguise. A certain poster relishes taking controversial positions and seeing how many responses can be goaded out of people. It also seems that most of us are not able to resist responding. If, however, no one is allowed to take the bait for fear of being censored, maybe, just maybe, those types of posts will lessen and not dominate four pages of every other thread.

Of course it would be much easier just to respond to those posts with: "I like cheese." Same effect and entirely true.

[Zool]

Maybe Skin is way off, but I agree with him. Not about the playing favorites part, but maybe because quite a few people take it upon themselves to call Partial a retard maybe Admin feels like he needs to ease up off him. I disagree with that. He posts many insulting things and then says "well they did it first". Its a chicken/egg scenario thats gone on far too long. It seems like we're fixing the effects of the problem not the cause of the problem.

[Administrator]

Thanks for re-posting your comment Zool. I wasn't sure how to fix that, but I was going to try.

To everyone - While I was typing the above post, I was thinking how the OP's topic was a really good football topic and the discussion was overshadowed by the typical BS.

So, I decided to split the topic, and put the football discussion back into the Packers room and leave the rest of the crap here.

I'll now compose the earlier response I said I was working on...

[Administrator]

Skinbasket, your best line of defense in that thread is Partials 1st comment. (Let's set aside the DFC stuff until later, and I'll deal with that at the end).

When I'm looking at things, I'm always sensitive to the first thing said in a thread, that is out of bounds. It was a minor shot but still a shot.

It could have stopped there, but it didn't. It started between Harvey and Partial but didn't stay there. Interestingly, there were 14 "slams" directed at Partial from 9 different posters. Does that excuse the latter behavior? Umm No. Does it explain it? I think so.

My 'mode of operation' in the last two months has been to look at who started the original comment. Partial clearly did here. Then he and Harvey escalated it, and neither would back down. Then a bunch of other people that had nothing to do with the situation had to weigh in with insults of their own.

So, (again excluding the DFC comments) if the battle had not expanded from harvey and Partial, the latter comments would probably not have been made. Skinbasket - your "best criticism" comes from those latter posts, and hence, you miss the bigger point and take the whole mess out of context. I'm trying to stop the battle between Harvey and Partial from escalating.

That was my goal with the comments to Justin Harrell earlier. There was no reason to start that. Partial was following the "rules" set down by the op and he posted his comment. Justin Harrell mocked the comment. He should have ignored it. Then he mocked me, for criticizing the comment. Then, he told me that's just the "way he is". And it took off from there.

Back to Partial. He has been criticized multiple times for his arm or lack thereof. I would guess that would get old and tiring after a while. It was out of bounds for Harvey to bring that up. I'm sure that was a response to Partial's calling his point "bs". Again, neither would back down.

Then, the real problem started. (From the open Packer forum perspective). As I stated earlier 9 different people weighed in with their "slams" directed at partial. Some mocked him, some criticized him, some referred to earlier points (probably out of context) and you all kept it going, as you could clearly see he got angrier.

Then Ziggy weighed in about the "original slam" of his arm strength and he went off.

None of this is "cool". Taken collectively, it is exactly what I want to stop. Especially in the Packer room. Someone who doesn't have the history, doesn't understand that there are just a few folks who get "ganged up on". They rightly think, I'm not signing up, my comments will just get bashed like that. And they go elsewhere.

The 9 posters who slammed Partial are just a guilty as he is. My focus is going after the 1st comment. In this case, that's partial. In this thread, that was Justin Harrell. It isn't about "playing favorites", that's simply a BS diversion.

I'm asking all of you - just knock this crap off. If it doesn't have anything to do with you, don't weigh in. The comments weren't funny. It was 9 vs. 1 for a majority of the last 3 pages of the thread.

Finally, the DFC comments. There is zero excuse for that. I'm not even going to try to defend it. Partial was clearly and utterly out of control at that point. Had I seen it, I would have deleted it. Without question. I'll say this, if that happens again, Partial will be gone. Permanently. So will any other member of this forum. There is no justification and no place for that.

I am also very, very tired of the "one liner" slam. There are 3 or 4 posters here that really enjoy engaging in those. One poster has been told he's on his final chance regarding those. One other poster hasn't yet been contacted. Those one-liners are a big part of starting these silly arguments like the Pete Schrager thread. I've got to end those things. They are causing good people to leave, regardless of their football perspective.

[Deputy Nutz]

Either you're being highly selective in what you read, or this forum is far worse off than I thought. Take your pick.

Ok, well I've read the offending thread. I'll detail my thoughts on that below.

Regarding this point, I reiterate what I said earlier, I don't read every thread. I don't know who Pete Shrager is and couldn't give a damn what he thinks.

So, I didn't read it. Had someone pointed me to it, I'd have probably deleted the later responses, and talked with several people via PM. This might have been the first thread that I actually locked, as the last 2 1/2 pages didn't have a damn thing to do about football.

Was Partial out of line? Yes. Was he the only one? NO. It's kind of sad Skinbasket that you are slanting everything towards one perspective.

You are maintaining that there is somehow "favoritism" directed at a few people here. Coming from you, that's complete and utter bullshit. I have stopped all of the references directed at you from Partial and a few other folks. Have you forgotten? Partial has the distinction as being one of two people that I told to "knock of the crap" in the Garbage Can.

I have no 'favorites' here. It is a completely non-starter of an argument. Your situation is proof of that. In this thread, I told Justin Harrell that I disagreed with the manner that he posted and I still do. It was wrong. Waldo showed that there are effective ways to make your point without attacking the poster. Justin Harrell did not do that, and someone else acting inappropriately doesn't change that.

I'll detail out the post now, but first I'm moving this behind closed doors to the Romper Room, as well as the Pete Schrager thread. The guests do not need to see this dirty laundry.

I'll try to keep this as concise as possible. First, I would argue that if you can't read all the threads, which is understandable, that maybe it's time to find a moderator. Otherwise, it puts you in a poor position to chastise people in one thread while a flame rages out of control in another. That's not meant as some kind of jab against you, simply a way to avoid this kind of problem in the future.

Second, I believe, though I could be wrong, that I've only said that it gives the appearance that some people are being treated differently, and that's why some people feel that way, not that you necessarily are doing it intentionally. I stated that some people here obviously felt that some posters were being treated differently than others when it comes to what is and isn't acceptable to post before they're chastised by the Administrator. You denied that, so I posted the examples as a demonstration of why that could be.

Of course the examples I gave were "skewed." I was making the point that the poster you defended in one thread was simultaneously degrading people in a much, much worse fashion in another without consequence. You've explained that it's because you hadn't read that thread, which is fine, but I would still maintain that someone claiming a guy can't throw a football doesn't rise to a response of calling people little bitches and cunts. That's the gig though. Flame out, then claim victimization afterward.

I don't get your point about this coming from me being "bullshit." Yeah, you stopped Partial's personal attacks against me. That was nice and I appreciated it. but does that mean I can't say anything when he then attacks someone else or when I see what appears to be a discrepancy in how posters are being treated? I guess if you're going to equate what JH posted with everything Partial did, I can't stop you. But for someone who wants to be "fair" I find that a tough argument to carry.


EDIT: Before anyone attacks nutz, this is SkinBasket. Nutz is over painting my house today and left himself logged in. My apologies for the confusion to follow.

[SkinBasket]

Ah, I feel much cleaner now.

[hoosier]

I was gonna say, that sounded way too articulate to be Nutz. No offense or nothin.

[SkinBasket]

I was gonna say, that sounded way too articulate to be Nutz. No offense or nothin.

Don't worry, he's outside getting heatstroke now.

[Scott Campbell]

Finally, the DFC comments. There is zero excuse for that. I'm not even going to try to defend it.

Yet this is ok?

What a pathetic life do you have to have, to "show" everyone how smart you are in an online football forum?

I personally rank the comments on equal terms. Except that one of them came from the guy that is supposed to be setting the right example.

There's no place for either of those in the Packers forum. Just one guys opinion.

[Patler]

Skinbasket, your best line of defense in that thread is Partials 1st comment. (Let's set aside the DFC stuff until later, and I'll deal with that at the end).

When I'm looking at things, I'm always sensitive to the first thing said in a thread, that is out of bounds. It was a minor shot but still a shot.

(Redacted for brevity)

My 'mode of operation' in the last two months has been to look at who started the original comment.

(Redacted for brevity)

That was my goal with the comments to Justin Harrell earlier. There was no reason to start that.

(Redacted for brevity)

Then, the real problem started. (From the open Packer forum perspective). As I stated earlier 9 different people weighed in with their "slams" directed at partial. Some mocked him, some criticized him, some referred to earlier points (probably out of context) and you all kept it going, as you could clearly see he got angrier.

Then Ziggy weighed in about the "original slam" of his arm strength and he went off.

None of this is "cool". Taken collectively, it is exactly what I want to stop. Especially in the Packer room. Someone who doesn't have the history, doesn't understand that there are just a few folks who get "ganged up on". They rightly think, I'm not signing up, my comments will just get bashed like that. And they go elsewhere.

The 9 posters who slammed Partial are just a guilty as he is. My focus is going after the 1st comment. In this case, that's partial. In this thread, that was Justin Harrell. It isn't about "playing favorites", that's simply a BS diversion.

I'm asking all of you - just knock this crap off. If it doesn't have anything to do with you, don't weigh in. The comments weren't funny. It was 9 vs. 1 for a majority of the last 3 pages of the thread.

(Redacted for brevity)

I am also very, very tired of the "one liner" slam. There are 3 or 4 posters here that really enjoy engaging in those. One poster has been told he's on his final chance regarding those. One other poster hasn't yet been contacted. Those one-liners are a big part of starting these silly arguments like the Pete Schrager thread. I've got to end those things. They are causing good people to leave, regardless of their football perspective.

I have to say, (and I usually stay out of forum management stuff because it is the owners prerogative to do as they wish), I am more than a little confused by how you intend to operate, or how you expect us to participate. If any slam, no matter how slight, puts you on alert, we as posters are being asked to offer our opinions but never respond or debate.

"One liners" are out? These are sometimes the most effective way to accentuate the absurdity of an argument. If its a personal slam, I understand maybe (but see the next paragraph); but what about a comment directed clearly against the argument? Again, you are stifling debate.

I have no idea how far back your history with this site goes, but there are some unique personalities, pseudo-personalities and feigned relationships. Some of the one-line slams are good-natured jabs recognizing that history.

As for "ganging up" on a poster, yes maybe it does happen from time to time. However, many times it is evidence of a board in full self-regulating mode. When a bunch of regulars gang up on a regular there is usually a reason for it. Self-regulation is not a bad thing.

Expecting anonymous posters to simply ignore the outrageous posts of others is a laudable goal, but completely unrealistic. Many can't do it in face to face situations, how can you expect them to when veiled by the anonymity of a Packerrat name and personality?

I know you mean well. I appreciate your goals. I appreciate this board. One of the things that made it its very best in the past was the aggressive, but well-reasoned debate that occurred on here. You run the real risk of killing that if I understand your lengthy explanation

I thought of sending this by PM to you, but decided to post it as a long time regular, because I think it is worthy of discussion. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding of your explanation; but, if I am, I suspect others are too, so discussion is in order. If I am off base, I expect other Packerrats will "explain" the errors of my ways to me!