question to C81: regarding inference i'm a shill

[bills44]

that's it?

[FluffHead]

Judges? Scorecard? Or are there more rounds a coming?

[bills44]

C81 with the TKO

[thebandit27]

I'm thinking this one went PM

[Jauronimo]

I'd say this went about as well as it could have.

[papazoid]

Move along folks, nothing to see here

[Astrobot]

I hope the moderators---all TEN of them--- will do their job, which, according to Wikipedia is "person given special authority to enforce the rules on a forum".

 

Do a search for TBD's rules in the Search box and you'll see the problem:

 

No results found for 'rules'.

[MOFO]

speaking of thinskinned hacks, your assessment of my so-called tirade is curious given that i was asked to explain what i had stated on the radio. it was not made with the intention to create ill will. it was simply my take on the situation, one that i shared on Twitter the night before and was asked to share it once again on WGR.

that you took at as being mean-spirited and, perhaps, somehow, directed at you is essentially the pot calling the kettle black in regards to being thin-skinned.

 

evidently, your idea of moderation is using a sledge hammer, having no patience and holding grudges. i can certainly be accused of having similar qualities, but then again, i'm not a moderator but a mere member of this board.

 

you, sir, have instead shown your true colors by bringing up vague references to posters and moderators past, perhaps others with which you held grudges and appear to be glad their gone. i guess, you won't have it your way until all of us "Lori-philes" have been rid of this board. nice to have such an open-minded moderator on board.

 

i'm not lamely or unlamely attempting to capitalize on anything. i'm mere bringing up a point of decorum.

you seem to revel in your own opinionated self. good for you. i won't hold that against you.

 

but it's evident that you have to at some point choose to either be a mere member of this board or a moderator because it's quite evident you're not cut out for one of those jobs.

 

but that's just the shill in me talking.

 

jw

 

and as for you being "out," i could only hope and pray it to be so.

 

Oh no you di'int!!!! (clapping hands with each syllable)

 

I hope the moderators---all TEN of them--- will do their job, which, according to Wikipedia is "person given special authority to enforce the rules on a forum".

 

Do a search for TBD's rules in the Search box and you'll see the problem:

 

My god it's Thunderdome!

[bills44]

somewhere, Hossage is smiling.

[Best Player Available]

Hey, JW! On the plus side at least the grammar & spelling cops haven't called you out. Bravo in the English dept.

The two main ones will comment on this thread today though, if not already.

 

But, I wouldn't let anyone dictate what you opinions should be on this board. And, certainly could care less on a anonymous sports board.

I have to wonder who anyone would infer who you're a shill for? Parker? Really? I find it refreshing to read a hometown writer feeling like he doesn't need to be a OBD ball washer.

[BillsVet]

And there are others who are beyond repulsive in their continual backbiting and gainsaying of any and every move the FO and coaching staff does. I for one, can live with never hearing another death wish for Ralph.

 

This tends to happen when the franchise hasn't been even gotten to .500 in the last 8 seasons. There'd be a lot less questioning considering the results.

 

And for the record, I have never once talked about or wished for the demise of the owner. So unless you've got proof to support otherwise, your insinuation I said that is completely baseless.

[l< j]

'jw', starting a 'hurt feeling' thread about a second person inferred reference to your highly opinionated, drenched in negativity post and radio discussion comes as no surprise, given how often you reveal your 'thin skin' here. Typically, I avoid your posts and threads like the plague, as I think you're both a terrible sports writer and despicable conversationalist. But that's just my assessment. What you either fail to realize, or are lamely trying to capitalize on is -for better or worse- you are actually 2 different posters here under the same moniker. As a sports journalist who 'appears' generous enough to share his professional insights on TBD, it should and would be an honor to interact with you. Especially so, given the ghost of Lori hanging over you.

 

The thing with you, though, is you bring 'JW' into the mix. A character I consider to be a snide, self-righteous blowhard, willing to go 'dukes up' with anyone who challenges your biting opinions. It's my opinion, 'JW' is just a grenade thrower with no Kevlar.

 

I can separate the two. It doesn't appear you can, or choose to.

 

To the OP, I won't, in good conscience, apologize for agreeing with another person's assessment of your 1st tirade.

 

You can have the last word. I'm out.

 

This is the kind of post I expect moderators to delete.

[JoeF]

I got the nicest gift today...someone bought me a 10 pack of the new Twinkies and laid it on my desk. I can't decide whether to eat them or put them with my 15 year old box of un-opened Flutie Flakes.

 

Its really nice to be nice to others -- don't you think? Even on the Internets....

[BillnutinHouston]

Wide angle shot of the crowd shows all heads turning from jw towards C81...

[Jauronimo]

I got the nicest gift today...someone bought me a 10 pack of the new Twinkies and laid it on my desk. I can't decide whether to eat them or put them with my 15 year old box of un-opened Flutie Flakes.

 

Its really nice to be nice to others -- don't you think? Even on the Internets....

Are you calling me a queer?

[GG]

This is a tough board for tough people.

 

No, that would be PPP. This is kiddie pool.

 

jw is missing the two star hotel in the back of the second rate strip mall behind a humdrum suburban culdesac, where he will be holed up over the next month.

Edited July 18, 2013 by GG

[Saint Doug]

This is a tough board for tough people.

 

But it's not. It's the opposite. Making fun of someone's hypothetical dog can get you suspended.

[Orton's Arm]

here's the links:

 

http://forums.twobil...20#entry2847388

 

http://forums.twobil...40#entry2847498

 

just redid this post. PTR's post is first, followed a page later by Chandler#81.

 

as for this thread, i'm one of the few non-anonymous posters on this board as far as i know, thus my reputation is being put in question here. it's one thing to have PTR call me that, or any other board member. i've been called worse.

but to have a moderator chime in and essentially agree with that remark bumps it up to another level.

 

in my belief, this is not moderation but jumping on the pile and thus opening the door for others to suggest the same. heck, if a moderator can say it, then anyone can. ... that does not fly with me especially when it comes to this insinuation.

 

jw

 

(Edited to add PTR's original post)

 

Thanks for these links. I'm hesitant to become involved in this discussion; in no small part because of the high regard I have for Chandler81. He is one of my favorite moderators; and one of my favorite posters irrespective of moderator status.

 

However, his comment to you in that thread was disrespectful; and his recent comment here was more so. I don't know what past history you and he may have; or what his reasons may be for feeling as he does. But nothing I saw you do in that discussion justified his disrespectful tone. You expressed an opinion about the Byrd negotiations. Others may or may not agree with that opinion; but it should be possible to express disagreement without the use of personal attacks.

 

From the terms of service: "Courtesy is contagious - Just become someone doesn't share your opinion - doesn't make them an idiot." Chandler81's post increased the temperature in the room; and did so in a way which moved what had been a difference of opinion several steps closer to a petty personal squabble. If I was a professional writer deciding whether to join this forum, I would not want to see list moderators violate the spirit of the terms of service--especially not in their interactions with other professional writers.

 

JohnC argues that you should grow thicker skin and ignore the comments of list moderators. I disagree: I'd argue that list moderation policy is the single most important characteristic of any given discussion board. Most discussion boards have few if any mechanisms with which moderators can be held accountable for their actions. When I'm deciding whether to participate in a given discussion board, I ask myself, can I trust the mods to do the right thing, even in the absence of standards of accountability? The more nervous I become about the answer to that question, the more likely I am to vote with my feet and migrate to some other board.

 

I'm happy with the overall list moderation situation on this list, and with Chandler81's performance as a moderator. As far as I'm concerned, this incident represents a one-time deviation from what has generally been a positive pattern from him and the other moderators.

[DC Tom]

Has jw been banned yet?

[JoeF]

Are you calling me a queer?

 

Damn you got the hidden meaning.....

 

I got the nicest gift today...someone bought me a 10 pack of the new Twinkies and laid it on my desk. I can't decide whether to eat them or put them with my 15 year old box of un-opened Flutie Flakes.

 

Its really nice to be nice to others -- don't you think? Even on the Internets....Jauronimo is a queer

[DC Tom]

Thanks for these links. I'm hesitant to become involved in this discussion; in no small part because of the high regard I have for Chandler81. He is one of my favorite moderators; and one of my favorite posters irrespective of moderator status.

 

However, his comment to you in that thread was disrespectful; and his recent comment here was more so. I don't know what past history you and he may have; or what his reasons may be for feeling as he does. But nothing I saw you do in that discussion justified his disrespectful tone. You expressed an opinion about the Byrd negotiations. Others may or may not agree with that opinion; but it should be possible to express disagreement without the use of personal attacks.

 

From the terms of service: "Courtesy is contagious - Just become someone doesn't share your opinion - doesn't make them an idiot." Chandler81's post increased the temperature in the room; and did so in a way which moved what had been a difference of opinion several steps closer to a petty personal squabble. If I was a professional writer deciding whether to join this forum, I would not want to see list moderators violate the spirit of the terms of service--especially not in their interactions with other professional writers.

 

JohnC argues that you should grow thicker skin and ignore the comments of list moderators. I disagree: I'd argue that list moderation policy is the single most important characteristic of any given discussion board. Most discussion boards have few if any mechanisms with which moderators can be held accountable for their actions. When I'm deciding whether to participate in a given discussion board, I ask myself, can I trust the mods to do the right thing, even in the absence of standards of accountability? The more nervous I become about the answer to that question, the more likely I am to vote with my feet and migrate to some other board.

 

I'm happy with the overall list moderation situation on this list, and with Chandler81's performance as a moderator. As far as I'm concerned, this incident represents a one-time deviation from what has generally been a positive pattern from him and the other moderators.

 

I can't help but point out you're shilling for the moderators...

[Jauronimo]

Damn you got the hidden meaning.....

 

I got the nicest gift today...someone bought me a 10 pack of the new Twinkies and laid it on my desk. I can't decide whether to eat them or put them with my 15 year old box of un-opened Flutie Flakes.

 

Its really nice to be nice to others -- don't you think? Even on the Internets....Jauronimo is a queer

My honor has been tarnished, or whatever, and I demand satisfaction!!! Lets settle this publicly for the amusement of half wits and mouth breathers. Now apologize, you scoundrel!

[Cash]

Thanks for these links. I'm hesitant to become involved in this discussion; in no small part because of the high regard I have for Chandler81. He is one of my favorite moderators; and one of my favorite posters irrespective of moderator status.

 

However, his comment to you in that thread was disrespectful; and his recent comment here was more so. I don't know what past history you and he may have; or what his reasons may be for feeling as he does. But nothing I saw you do in that discussion justified his disrespectful tone. You expressed an opinion about the Byrd negotiations. Others may or may not agree with that opinion; but it should be possible to express disagreement without the use of personal attacks.

 

From the terms of service: "Courtesy is contagious - Just become someone doesn't share your opinion - doesn't make them an idiot." Chandler81's post increased the temperature in the room; and did so in a way which moved what had been a difference of opinion several steps closer to a petty personal squabble. If I was a professional writer deciding whether to join this forum, I would not want to see list moderators violate the spirit of the terms of service--especially not in their interactions with other professional writers.

 

JohnC argues that you should grow thicker skin and ignore the comments of list moderators. I disagree: I'd argue that list moderation policy is the single most important characteristic of any given discussion board. Most discussion boards have few if any mechanisms with which moderators can be held accountable for their actions. When I'm deciding whether to participate in a given discussion board, I ask myself, can I trust the mods to do the right thing, even in the absence of standards of accountability? The more nervous I become about the answer to that question, the more likely I am to vote with my feet and migrate to some other board.

 

I'm happy with the overall list moderation situation on this list, and with Chandler81's performance as a moderator. As far as I'm concerned, this incident represents a one-time deviation from what has generally been a positive pattern from him and the other moderators.

 

Very good post! I know precisely

about Chandler81 either as a mod or a poster, but I do know that viewed unto themselves, his posts in this thread and the Byrd thread come across as inappropriate for a mod. Maybe there's some past history that justifies such behavior; I wouldn't know either way. But regardless, I think there are better and classier ways to disagree with a poster, whether they be amateur or professional, anonymous or public.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Very good post! I know precisely

about Chandler81 either as a mod or a poster, but I do know that viewed unto themselves, his posts in this thread and the Byrd thread come across as inappropriate for a mod. Maybe there's some past history that justifies such behavior; I wouldn't know either way. But regardless, I think there are better and classier ways to disagree with a poster, whether they be amateur or professional, anonymous or public.

 

i think the johnny manziel issue has him all worked up still. its been a fighting angry kinda week for him!

 

[Lurker]

_{I don't know what is worse, this thread, or the fact that I can't stop reading it...}

Yep. It's a great time waster on a 90-degree day...

[Coach Tuesday]

Wait, PTR - our resident Baghdad Bob - called someone else a shill???

 

That's just marvelous.

[Delete This Account]

nope. i'm still here. family just got into town so been busy with them. as for this thread, i stand by it and what i've written. obviously Chandler81 does as well, which, i guess is to his credit. as for any previous bad blood, there was a small exchange a few years back in which Chandler deleted his post.

evidently, he's become more emboldened and as pompous as accuses me of being.

 

i personally think his comments make this board a lesser place, given their vitriol and animosity. he'll of course accuse me of playing the victim. trouble is, i'm not entirely sure what i did wrong except to express my opinion, which he most certainly disagrees with, leading me to think he's either a frustrated writer or small-minded and/or likely both.

 

jw

 

what's worse, is it's not only open season on me, it's open season on the moderators. given Chandler's statements. how, in good faith, can they justify banning anyone when one of their own acts out like this?

Edited July 18, 2013 by john wawrow

[Coach Tuesday]

For the record, I think your assessment of the Byrd situation was not only spot-on, but far more informed than the other, countless opinions bandied about on that topic.

[boyst]

Imagine being a weatherman and posting on a message board? I mean, damn... if you were 1 degree off you'd get everyone calling you names.

 

To weigh in seriously, this is crap. A crap subject to have brought up, there is no wrong and I am not saying anyone here is above another or someone is right. I am just saying that I have seen some pretty strange stuff around here recently. I am not going to criticize anything but I cannot, for the life of me, understand how some of the actions on here are acceptable. There is no good reason to bring up the issues, this is not the place to discuss them and I do not want to have to worry with the aggravation of getting a warning because someone disagreed with me.

 

ps, I miss Lori, too.

Edited July 18, 2013 by jboyst62

[Delete This Account]

For the record, I think your assessment of the Byrd situation was not only spot-on, but far more informed than the other, countless opinions bandied about on that topic.

 

thanks. others disagree.

 

jw

 

Imagine being a weatherman and posting on a message board? I mean, damn... if you were 1 degree off you'd get everyone calling you names.

 

To weigh in seriously, this is crap. A crap subject to have brought up, there is no wrong and I am not saying anyone here is above another or someone is right. I am just saying that I have seen some pretty strange stuff around here recently. I am not going to criticize anything but I cannot, for the life of me, understand how some of the actions on here are acceptable. There is no good reason to bring up the issues, this is not the place to discuss them and I do not want to have to worry with the aggravation of getting a warning because someone disagreed with me.

 

evidently, anything and everything can be said. have at it.

 

jw

[boyst]

what's worse, is it's not only open season on me, it's open season on the moderators. given Chandler's statements. how, in good faith, can they justify banning anyone when one of their own acts out like this?

Oh, gosh. I am thinking DC Tom's favorite might be dropping by in a few to enlighten us.

[Gugny]

Wait. Jauronimo is queer?

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

ps, I miss Lori, too.

 

YEAH

[Campy]

This thread is just... surreal.

 

Perhaps challenging Chandler's comments in the relevant thread would have been a better play, no?

[BuffaloBill]

 

what's worse, is it's not only open season on me, it's open season on the moderators.

 

Your statement is a perfect opening to take what I believe is now the necessary action. That is to lock the thread. As an internet forum I very much support the concept of open dialogue. However, in my opinion having many now taking sides or debating issues never intended to be addressed in this thread adds no value to the dialogue.

 

As for the question that follows your statement. We as moderators are selected by Scott and continue in this capacity solely at his discretion. We are subject to the same standards as anyone else who participates on the board. We act according to our own judgement and attempt to do so in a way that preserves both the community and communication created through the board.

 

I'll be the first to say that the mods do not always agree. It's the nature of a largely unstructured forum and an outcome of the fact that we are volunteers acting according to our own judgement.

 

I invite anyone to PM me if you disagree with my choice to lock the thread.