OnlyBucs

241106060D3406060D0A06630 wrote: It's not a smart ass reply.  They are facts that I find easy to follow.  It's direct.



There are members whom I don't agree with.  We all do.  Discussions go in tangents.  So what?  This isn't Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  It's an internet message board.  There are folks who've been a nuisance, and even i dont block them.  I can glance over things in the blink of my eye.  I don't understand why others don't.....and, even when don't, they'd rather cry about it than to Block or not go to a thread that they know full well that they won't enjoy.


OBN doesn't have a block function. You're probably thinking of PMB. I think they did if I'm not mistaken. I guess there are 2 ways to oversee a message board. One is to say anything goes and just warn posters to avoid threads if they find something continually annoying. That seemed to be how PMB was run many years ago when I there and it became very unpleasant. The other way is to discourage the continually annoying behavior so that posters don't have to avoid threads and we can have better discussions. We prefer that way.

7D43464E5D45454E6E4B5C4F182A0 wrote: Those are all moot.



The point is, Cherington should be as fair game for criticism as he is fair game for compliments.



He's as fair game as his inferior hires and subordinates.



He's as fair game as his players and coaches.



He's as fair game as anyone associated with the club.



Let's call this exactly as it is:  Cherington has nothing to do with this.  No one will admit it.  These inconsistencies are nothing other than personality conflicts among certain members.



The solution SHOULD be:  Dont read the thread if you don't enjoy it.  I don't read The Minors.thread.


You are pushing a false narrative that Cherington cannot be criticized here. It's certainly fair game to criticize him for trades, the 2021 roster and even the hiring of Shelton. But it's also fair to recognize that while he clearly punted on the MLB roster, he focused on building up the minors, for which all evaluations seems to be very favorable. So when we get the constant comments that BC is a total failure because he failed in his only task to make the 2021 MLB roster competitive while totally ignoring what he's been working on, it gets old because it pushes a poster's agenda rather than a fair discussion of BC's overall successes and failures. Shedman was asked more times than I can count to stop pushing his agenda while ignoring the overall situation. He was suspended several times, was reinstated today and immediately resumed his agenda and then immediately complained about how OBN was run when he was again asked to modify his behavior.



OBN is not PMB 2.0. Thankfully! A lot of us on OBN were once members of the PMB and left because of how the board was made unpleasant due to the accepted behavior of some posters. Such behavior is not accepted here. Shedman was made aware of that numerous times and didn't seem to care. So he's gone. Fair criticism of BC or anyone else is totally acceptable. But ignoring reality to push an agenda is not. And falsely accusing OBN of not permitting criticism of BC in order to defend unacceptable behavior is not acceptable. Learn from Shedman's mistake. Or join him. 
It's too bad that it has come to this. I just want to discuss baseball


That is an excellent idea WWD2, Let's try to do it in a civil manner, please.

First, I don't see where I wrote that you are wrong.  I only gave my opinion on how I handle the situations , or can.



I'm anything but an antagonist.  I'm just a laid back guy who does not get as disturbed by the very same things. 



In my opinion, much more of this is being made than should be.  It really is.  My fuse must be a lot longer than others in this case. 

1E333E2F28392E6E6D5C0 wrote: It's not a smart ass reply.  They are facts that I find easy to follow.  It's direct.



There are members whom I don't agree with.  We all do.  Discussions go in tangents.  So what?  This isn't Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  It's an internet message board.  There are folks who've been a nuisance, and even i dont block them.  I can glance over things in the blink of my eye.  I don't understand why others don't.....and, even when don't, they'd rather cry about it than to Block or not go to a thread that they know full well that they won't enjoy.


OBN doesn't have a block function. You're probably thinking of PMB. I think they did if I'm not mistaken. I guess there are 2 ways to oversee a message board. One is to say anything goes and just warn posters to avoid threads if they find something continually annoying. That seemed to be how PMB was run many years ago when I there and it became very unpleasant. The other way is to discourage the continually annoying behavior so that posters don't have to avoid threads and we can have better discussions. We prefer that way. 


I thought that I saw a Block function here.  If not, then I admit to being mistaken.



I do know that I can't be the only member who glances quickly and move on. 

4D786F6F645D6F6F64636F0A0 wrote: It's not a smart ass reply.  They are facts that I find easy to follow.  It's direct.



There are members whom I don't agree with.  We all do.  Discussions go in tangents.  So what?  This isn't Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  It's an internet message board.  There are folks who've been a nuisance, and even i dont block them.  I can glance over things in the blink of my eye.  I don't understand why others don't.....and, even when don't, they'd rather cry about it than to Block or not go to a thread that they know full well that they won't enjoy.


OBN doesn't have a block function. You're probably thinking of PMB. I think they did if I'm not mistaken. I guess there are 2 ways to oversee a message board. One is to say anything goes and just warn posters to avoid threads if they find something continually annoying. That seemed to be how PMB was run many years ago when I there and it became very unpleasant. The other way is to discourage the continually annoying behavior so that posters don't have to avoid threads and we can have better discussions. We prefer that way. 


I thought that I saw a Block function here.  If not, then I admit to being mistaken.



I do know that I can't be the only member who glances quickly and move on. 

6A5F4848437A48484344482D0 wrote: It's not a smart ass reply.  They are facts that I find easy to follow.  It's direct.



There are members whom I don't agree with.  We all do.  Discussions go in tangents.  So what?  This isn't Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  It's an internet message board.  There are folks who've been a nuisance, and even i dont block them.  I can glance over things in the blink of my eye.  I don't understand why others don't.....and, even when don't, they'd rather cry about it than to Block or not go to a thread that they know full well that they won't enjoy.


OBN doesn't have a block function. You're probably thinking of PMB. I think they did if I'm not mistaken. I guess there are 2 ways to oversee a message board. One is to say anything goes and just warn posters to avoid threads if they find something continually annoying. That seemed to be how PMB was run many years ago when I there and it became very unpleasant. The other way is to discourage the continually annoying behavior so that posters don't have to avoid threads and we can have better discussions. We prefer that way. 


I thought that I saw a Block function here.  If not, then I admit to being mistaken.



I do know that I can't be the only member who glances quickly and move on. 




We've been through a lot of different versions of the underlying software over the years so it's entirely possible that a previous version had a block function. The current version does not.

What EV.



I find it humorous that people continue to read things that they know in advance that they won't enjoy, then bitch about what they read.  @@@@



People at my past jobs did the same thing.  They'd come in, complain about Howard Stern.  "I hate the guy.  They should fire him.  Bah, bah, bah."  Or, "I hate the guy.  I never listen to him."  Then, they'd quote every word the guy said that morning.



"Then why do you listen to him?" I'd ask.



They were deer in headlights.  Couldn't say a thing.



If you don't like a thread, don't read it.  Simple.

546176767D4476767D7A76130 wrote: What EV.



I find it humorous that people continue to read things that they know in advance that they won't enjoy, then bitch about what they read.  @@@@



People at my past jobs did the same thing.  They'd come in, complain about Howard Stern.  "I hate the guy.  They should fire him.  Bah, bah, bah."  Or, "I hate the guy.  I never listen to him."  Then, they'd quote every word the guy said that morning.



"Then why do you listen to him?" I'd ask.



They were deer in headlights.  Couldn't say a thing.



If you don't like a thread, don't read it.  Simple.


Good advice but it's not always easy to tell which threads will end up being the 'bad' ones. It's easy though to simply not read posts by posters that one find annoying. Just skip those posts. Some folks just seem to want to be annoyed so they can complain - not pointing at anyone in particular on this board, just my observation from decades of being on message boards.

Takes me maybe 30 seconds.



I can tell by Thread Titles alone, and do.



Even so, I'm the kind of guy who mostly gets annoyed by personal attacks that are against posted Board Rules, but rarely dealt with.



Seems to me that we pick and choose what goes.

526770707B4270707B7C70150 wrote: Takes me maybe 30 seconds.



I can tell by Thread Titles alone, and do.



Even so, I'm the kind of guy who mostly gets annoyed by personal attacks that are against posted Board Rules, but rarely dealt with.



Seems to me that we pick and choose what goes.


In theory, the moderators should be reading every post every thread and should have a pretty consistent way of determining what's over the line and what's not, but in practice you don't always have the time and deciding when to but in it can be pretty subjective.