Non-Sports Section

[barzilla]

I've just returned from the Pedro Guerrero thread and have come to believe two things:

1) A baseball thread shouldn't be hijacked for social commentary.
2) There is a definite place for social commentary on this site. People were more interested in that than the debate on Guerrero itself. I remember a similar thread with Rube Waddell.

Offering an additional section would give people interested in debating such topics a place to go and would allow portions of a hijacked thread to be moved.

Just my two cents........

[digglahhh]

Well, the mods will not create a forum for social commentary. The position of the site is that there are other forums available on the internet to discuss such matters, and this site is purely baseball.

I think it is unrealistic to think that there won't be a bit of talk on social issues or unrelated issues that spills over. And I don't think that putting your two cents in on an issue is a problem, especially if the tangent is sparked by issues germaine to baseball. I also think that if somebody espouses incorrect information, and you know better, you have a responsiblity to correct them. The "bigger man" ignores the ignorance, but ignoring the ignorace, instead of correcting it only further propagates the ignorace because it exists unchallenged. There are a lot of young people on this site and when people post ethnocentric opinions that amount to eugenics as fact, they must be corrected. I feel it is my responsibilty as somebody with post-graduate degrees in social science to contextualize such statements.

Once that's done though, I assume it is irresponsible and rude to continue a debate about a non-baseball issue throughout a thread over numerous posts and many days.

I feel that the point/counterpoint dynamic is okay provided it is respectful and limited to one jab each, two requirements I don't always adhere to, I must admit.

What I take umbrage at though is the selective way the "baseball and only baseball" guideline is applied. Politics, religion, race, these things are out of bounds but all kinds of other non-baseball topics are discussed all the time from music to horseracing and so forth. I guess, I would just appreciate the policy being forthcoming as to what it actually wants to prevent, which is political discussion.

[Mattingly]

What kind of social commentary is being sought? Please be specific, including what you feel should be allowed and what shouldn't.

Thanks.

[barzilla]

Was that directed to me or Digglahh?

As it were, I agree with him that those of us with post graduate degrees in social science should be encouraged to correct obviously incorrect and moronic responses to social questions. I guess the question is how long we allow that stuff to go on. If three or four of us responded in kind in the Pedro Guerrero thread (for example) and the member in question continues to postulate the same nonsense when do we cut it off? I see two separate issues:

1) Free speech should be encouraged, but baseball threads should remain baseball threads.
2) Debunking incorrect thoughts can only go on for so long. At some point we just end up spewing the same stuff over and over.

[Jake83]

Social commentary with regard to baseball would be the best situtation for the site itself and certain posters. A fourm where complex thoughts on certain social issues in regard to baseball are interchanged and free speech is not just accepted but also promoted. The problem with the threads being in Current Events, History of the Game or other fourms is they usually are hijacked by posters looking for attention and not to futher their knowledge on the respective issue. A few monthes back a thread regarding Carlos Delgado and the Mets forcing him to stand for God Bless America is a perfect example. The thread was closed and then reopened later but the majority of the post inside the thread were on an issue bigger than baseball itself but at the sametime it was a baseball issue. The thread had if am not mistaken over 100 post in a 2 day peroid and not from just a few posters.

[Brownie31]

Was that directed to me or Digglahh?

As it were, I agree with him that those of us with post graduate degrees in social science should be encouraged to correct obviously incorrect and moronic responses to social questions. I guess the question is how long we allow that stuff to go on. If three or four of us responded in kind in the Pedro Guerrero thread (for example) and the member in question continues to postulate the same nonsense when do we cut it off? I see two separate issues:

1) Free speech should be encouraged, but baseball threads should remain baseball threads.
2) Debunking incorrect thoughts can only go on for so long. At some point we just end up spewing the same stuff over and over.

barzilla:

Are you saying that you and others with post graduate
degrees in the social sciences should be arbiters as to
what is or is not correct thought? Which title would
you prefer we address you by-commissar or gaulieter?

Brownie31

[Mattingly]

Was that directed to me or Digglahh?

As it were, I agree with him that those of us with post graduate degrees in social science should be encouraged to correct obviously incorrect and moronic responses to social questions. I guess the question is how long we allow that stuff to go on. If three or four of us responded in kind in the Pedro Guerrero thread (for example) and the member in question continues to postulate the same nonsense when do we cut it off? I see two separate issues:

1) Free speech should be encouraged, but baseball threads should remain baseball threads.
2) Debunking incorrect thoughts can only go on for so long. At some point we just end up spewing the same stuff over and over.
Actually, the post was made to "all". I should've clarified.

As to post-graduate degrees, specifically in Social Science, which social issues does that make you more qualified to say who's correct and who's incorrect? I look more for someone's viewpoint than their qualifications.

As to the Pedro Guerrero thread, where exactly would this be? Link, please?

As to free speech, would that mean that "anything" can be said? Which issues would you like to discuss?

For example, we've had threads about gay ballplayers. Would this then be a suitable place for people to discuss anything and everything about homosexuality, per the "free speech" thing? We've had a thread about if Barry Bonds were White. Would we then be encouraged to discuss everything about racial relations?

As to debunking incorrect thoughts, who amongst us decides what is "incorrect" and what is "correct"? Also, by "incorrect/correct", do you mean factual accuracy, or one's perspective and thoughts on a subject matter?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Let's not paint barzilla as something he's not here. He has some very valid points, (as does diglahhh) and is indeed saying baseball should be discussed on a baseball board. He's also saying one shouldn't go off on tangents on something they really don't know anything about. If somebody says Leif Erickson sailed for Spain and discovered the lost colony of Roanoke, someone should correct them.
I would hope that pet theories stemming from bias would be discouraged.

[Brownie31]

Let's not paint barzilla as something he's not here. He has some very valid points, (as does diglahhh) and is indeed saying baseball should be discussed on a baseball board. He's also saying one shouldn't go off on tangents on something they really don't know anything about. If somebody says Leif Erickson sailed for Spain and discovered the lost colony of Roanoke, someone should correct them.
I would hope that pet theories stemming from bias would be discouraged.

And if someone says Babe Ruth hit only 16 home runs in 1927
then they should obviously be corrected. As to pet theories
(read opinions), that is a horse of a different color.

If A says Barry Bonds is a disgrace to MLB and B says no,
he's not, that is a difference of opinion. If A says Whitey
Ford pitched for the Chicago Cubs, that is an error and B
should post a correction.

Brownie31

[Mattingly]

Let's not paint barzilla as something he's not here. He has some very valid points, (as does diglahhh) and is indeed saying baseball should be discussed on a baseball board. He's also saying one shouldn't go off on tangents on something they really don't know anything about. If somebody says Leif Erickson sailed for Spain and discovered the lost colony of Roanoke, someone should correct them.
I would hope that pet theories stemming from bias would be discouraged.
If referring to myself, I wasn't painting him as anything. However, the words "correct" and "incorrect" can either be factually-based, per the example given, or they can be about one's perspective, such as a stance on the DH.

Facts are that Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's hit record, but Cobb did it in far fewer at bats. Perception is whether or not Barry Bonds is good or not good for the game of baseball.

As to the social thing, I'm willing to hear just how far people are willing to go with this. What is acceptable to the forumers here, and what isn't? What are the boundaries they wish to set for themselves, and would not mind if they were set (by the Admins and Mods) for them.

[barzilla]

I feel it is my responsibilty as somebody with post-graduate degrees in social science to contextualize such statements.

These were diggalahh's words and not mine. I parroted what he said as a stated question. It is true that I have a post-graduate degree, but would agree that doesn't make the grand pubha or anything. It was my mistake to say "correct" or "incorrect". I would rather say, unsubstaniated according to the prevailing wisdom or what I would consider offensive.

The tone of my post was as a question which still demands to be answered. There are facts and then there are opinions. I guess opinions can never be wrong, but some seem misguided to most of us.

[Captain Cold Nose]

These were diggalahh's words and not mine. I parroted what he said as a stated question. It is true that I have a post-graduate degree, but would agree that doesn't make the grand pubha or anything. It was my mistake to say "correct" or "incorrect". I would rather say, unsubstaniated according to the prevailing wisdom or what I would consider offensive.

The tone of my post was as a question which still demands to be answered. There are facts and then there are opinions. I guess opinions can never be wrong, but some seem misguided to most of us.
If the opinions are based on an erroneous assumption of the facts, or facts that have been proven wrong, yes, they can be wrong. A 100 level logic course will show that.

[digglahhh]

Black people are stupid and IQ scores are the proof.

That's the argument.

Call it opinion, perspective or whatever. Debate or frame the semantics as you wish, but it doesn't change the substance or (Il)legitimacy of the statement.

Its ignorant, thinly veiled racism, entirely passe and blatantly wrong.

[Jake83]

No one here is going to change someone's ignorance. You can agrue with someone for days and disprove all their theories but truthfully in my opinion it was a waste of time. What should be taught here on this website is for posters to have evidence to prove their thesis when they make a post. This will improve the knowlege on this site because if a poster doesn't have evidence than he will be more unlikely to post ignorant statements because he will be then riduculed.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No one here is going to change someone's ignorance. You can agrue with someone for days and disprove all their theories but truthfully in my opinion it was a waste of time. What should be taught here on this website is for posters to have evidence to prove their thesis when they make a post. This will improve the knowlege on this site because if a poster doesn't have evidence than he will be more unlikely to post ignorant statements because he will be then riduculed.
Man, Jake. You're knocking them out of the park today.

[Jake83]

Man, Jake. You're knocking them out of the park today.
:laugh :laugh How do people become supposdly educated? Research-Learning new ideas and changelling old thoughts. That is why at the college-level research is engrained in students.

[leecemark]

--Dig, I think the point in question could more accurately (and certainly less offensively) be summed up as "black people on average score significantly lower on IQ tests than white people". This is a fact which both sides of that discussion (in which I have no part or agenda) agree upon. The disagreement is over what that fact means.
--The social scientists amoung us choose to paint the other side (or more accurately the individual poster) as racist for bring up that fact and the conclusions that he draws from it. I (and they) have no whether that is accurate. Pointing out unpleasant information about a minority group is not inherently racist, even though it is too often viewed that way in our society.
--It was even said in that discussion that bringing this fact up was bad because it might lead "other people" to draw the wrong conclusions. I find it unfortunate that one side of discussion would object to the introduction of factual information because it might lead to "incorrect" thinking. If people draw wrong conclusions from accurate information that is their problem, not a problem with the person who introduced the information. We are not idiots (well most of us:) ) who need to be protected from knowledge for the fear we may misuse it. Is censorship preferable to the possibility that racist conclusions might arise from a piece of information?
--All that said, I think that particular discussion did wander far enough off the baseball topic that prompted it that intervention was probably warranted. If the parties involved wished to continue the discussion then it should have been moved to PM or another venue. I sometimes think the mods are too quick to intervene in inocuous conversations, but when they have repeatedly asked that a thread get back to baseball that request should be honored by the members involved. Most of the posts in the Pedro IQ thread did not have any baseball reference of any sort.

[digglahhh]

Sure, Mark it did get out of hand. That's why I refrained from continuing to post. I said my piece, and that was that. I actually showed uncharacteristic self-restraint with the wandering sociopolitical posts this time.

The fact that you reference is that members of a certain race score lower than members of another race on these tests, in general. Does that association exist, yes. But the conclusion drawn from it is a lie by omission. There are numerous other factors more strongly correlated with performance on IQ tests, socio-economic status, for one. Since blacks, are disproportinately impoverished, there as a huge confluence of variable there. Now correlation does not indicate causality, and what we have here is multicoliniarity, at best...

Being black is a predictor of poverty, which is a predictor of IQ performance...

Its like if I said that Albert Pujols is a great player because he hits .330. Well, he's a great player, and he hits .330. But hitting .330 is not what makes him great, there are several other more salient indicators of Albert's productivity. What we had here was an irresponsible relay of fact.

Now everybody always like to talk about the kids and how we must protect them. Do you not agree that we should supply counter-evidence to ignorant and simplistic conclusions portrayed by those who, disingeniously at worst or naively at best, masquerade as knowledgable in a field and espouse narrow minded half-truths as fact? I was not arguing with Mac, that ship has sailed long ago. I was providing a counter-argument for those who may have been undecided and found Mac's point convincing.

Regarding the "credentials" argument. I agree that there is no inherent superiority in my opinions because of my degrees. In fact, my (partial) rejection of such practices is the reason that I have not, to date, chosen to further advance my studies through conventional academia. But, I do believe it is at least relevant to the reader of the two viewpoints that one has a post-grad degree in the field and the other references Wikipedia.

[Mattingly]

Black people are stupid and IQ scores are the proof.

That's the argument.

Call it opinion, perspective or whatever. Debate or frame the semantics as you wish, but it doesn't change the substance or (Il)legitimacy of the statement.

Its ignorant, thinly veiled racism, entirely passe and blatantly wrong.
So you're saying this as an example of what people could ignorantly post? After seeing your defense of the "Allan Iverson types" in a Barry Bonds thread, I certainly know those would never be your own opinions.

I'm trying to figure where you're going with that statement. Are you saying that if someone posted this, they should have to prove this? Or is this what you're saying could be an ill-conceived type of post here?

If you could clarify a bit, I'd appreciate it greatly. :)

EDIT:

From reading post #18, which was a page after the one I'd replied to, are you saying that social and racial politics be welcome here at BBF?

[barzilla]

Mattingly,

No, that is not Digglahh's belief, he was characterizing the argument in question.

I was the person Leece was referring to as saying that presenting such "facts" as dangerous. I believe that for a number of reasons.

1) Anytime a fact is introduced without a context, someone will attach a context on their own time. In fact, I wonder if the original poster was suggesting a context without actually saying it. It was a sort of a, "I don't mean anything by this, but these scores show that black people are stupid." Of course you mean something by it.

2) The poster ignores the precept of social science that causation can never truly exist. Fact A and Fact B can exist simultaneously, but that doesn't mean that A causes B, or that B causes A. More than likely, there are dozens of other factors that also correlate. In my social science classes, we were always taught to include those possible factors (and even test for them) in our analysis to give the research balance. If I postulate that parent attitudes on education is strongly correlated with student success and IQ scores then I have to include other possible factors, socioeconomic status, race, language spoken, location, mean income, et al in that analysis at least as possible alternatives. Even if my hypothesis is correct, I am essentially furthering the idea that parent attitudes is the only contributing factor even if I don't explicitly say it.

I entered the discussion to bring this point home, but the arguer in question continued to hammer home the point of race and IQ. In the process, he denied the precepts we hold dear.

[digglahhh]

From reading post #18, which was a page after the one I'd replied to, are you saying that social and racial politics be welcome here at BBF?

Well, I believe that there is always a place for civil and articulate discussion of these types of topics, but that is not the policy here, and I respect that. I personally advocate the discussion of these types of issues, because, in fact, they are extremely relevant to sports, and prevalent within sports themselves, as the sport acts as a microcosm of the society in which its played. But I don't expect others to share my view and I don't expect the mods to let such talk go on for extended periods of time. I'll push the envelope and indulge my sociopolitical bent more than most, but I do try to temper it and rarely do I engage in this type of discussion unprovoked.

What I do support is that when positions like Mac's in the Pedro Guerrero thread are espoused, that is posts that are, unsubstantiated, incomplete, widely discredited and along racial (or gender or religious, etc.) lines, those with knowledge of the subject should be allowed to civily and articulately refute the claims for the benefit of ALL. Either that, or the Mods should be proactive and delete the original posts. I'd rather the second option not be the preferred method as it invites the slippery slope.

You want that type of crap to exist on this site unrefuted? You want BBF to come up on a google search for the superiority of white intellect and then not even have somebody refuting that position in that thread?

To answer your question in a word, no. But, might I propose you this counter question. Do you think it is realistic that such issues can be ignored while still having meaningful discussions about events in which the said issues play a part?

[riverfrontier]

I'd have to chime in and say that, during my short time here I've more or less been going with the flow, angling for a better feel of the zeitgeist, laying back and following the traffic. I have also been noting to a slight degree the 'elite stuffiness' of some members of the 1,000+ post club, as well as
a glaring lack of all but the most puerile, smiley-assisted sense of humor.:laugh :laugh :laugh But I'm adapting to that. There certainly does seem to be leeway given to certain posters when the topic wanders, but it's the nature of any cliquish faction wielding
ad hoc power over a larger group to do so. Moderators addressing posters by their first names, but deleting any threads pertaining to the exchange of even the slightest bit of personal information seems quite ironic to me, but maybe it's just me. Anyway, it doesn't directly come from a Barry Bonds quote, so I probably shouldn't bring it up. I DO think the parameters of relevant topics could be stretched a bit, especially when events on the ball field or in the front office are directly related to a given social condition. That being said, I guess the preferred course of action would be for me to take a slow drag on my pipe, peer over the top rim of my bifocals, crack a weathered, old copy of the baseball encyclopedia, and start up another thread about Walter Johnson.

[barzilla]

Riverfrontier,

I appreciate your dilemma. The last thing I want to do is come across as a know it all because that's the last thing I am. However, I'm a few posts shy of a 1000, so I can avoid that label for awhile. ;)

My biggest problem is doing other things (like work) and coming back to a discussion that has flourished. It's hard to scroll down and respond again especially when you want to respond to something that someone said in response to something you said twenty or thirty posts ago. I feel guilty about backtracking.

As for this particular discussion, I have a particular weakness when it comes to educational issues. It's what I do and I've been trained to be a counselor (although I'm not yet), so any issue that goes around that issue is going to pique my interest.

What I've found in general is that the collective baseball knowledge on this site is superior to any I've seen. It's a challenge I relish, because I'm used to being the big fish in the little pond. I find discussing baseball with the people here is a humbling experience. It's not that I can't hold my own, because I think I do, but it is humbling to move from "expert" to "one of the masses". In the end, everything is relative. There is always someone smarter somewhere.

At any rate, anyone that can use zeitgeist in a sentence can't be that bad. Jump on in, most of these people are very nice even if they are argumentative. Believe me, I've been to sites where people didn't know have to stuff these guys know and acting like bigger jack***es ten or twenty times over.

[digglahhh]

There certainly does seem to be leeway given to certain posters when the topic wanders, but it's the nature of any cliquish faction wielding ad hoc power over a larger group to do so..

Tremendous insight, RF. This should not be taken as an insult by the mods, but rather as a provocative observation about the dynamics of the type of "authority" that exist in an internet forum.

Moderators addressing posters by their first names, but deleting any threads pertaining to the exchange of even the slightest bit of personal information seems quite ironic to me, but maybe it's just me.

This site is considered a baseball "community." It is rather antithetical to the nature of a community to shun the attempts of it members to get to to know one another.


Anyway, it doesn't directly come from a Barry Bonds quote, so I probably shouldn't bring it up. I DO think the parameters of relevant topics could be stretched a bit, especially when events on the ball field or in the front office are directly related to a given social condition. That being said, I guess the preferred course of action would be for me to take a slow drag on my pipe, peer over the top rim of my bifocals, crack a weathered, old copy of the baseball encyclopedia, and start up another thread about Walter Johnson.

Absolutely. To look at the landscape of the game today, and intentionally disregard the social dynamics of the society in which it is played is embarrassingly myopic. If I went off on a rant about how the United States mercilessly and without remorse manipulates the Latin and South American political and economic condition in order to exploit its natural resources, the initial response would be that I'm straying off topic.

That is, until you realize that the players from these countries, who dispropontiately comprise ML rosters, are subject to this dynamic. Major League teams mine foreign talent, many Latin players sign English contracts without interpretors, few make the big time but most fail. The conditions of the countries in which they play, engendered by American foreign policy and militray and political intervention, give rise to the despotic conditions that are in turn responsible for the willingness of the Latin player to buy into the pipe dream, sell his soul and leave his family for a incredibly unrealistic chance at the Big Show. Then they come here, make a political statement about the American government and we're quick to call them ingrates. How dare they criticize this country, its the reason they're rich. Well, it is also the reason they were originally poor!

This paradigm is the reason why teams invest more money in establishing camps in Latin American countries as opposed to domestic scouting and signing (expensive) blue chip American prospects (with quality legal representation). The approach now is to fish with a net, grab a bunch of Latin ballplayers for the price of one top American prospect and hope one of them turns into Bobby Abreu.

When somebody talks about the explosion of Latin superstars, how can you ignore these issues? That was only one of tons of examples I can think of.

How about discussing whether the homerun would be as glorified in a country with a socialist economy. Why is the American past time notoriously individual? Why are individual accolades, documented through numbers so important? Why is it so important to have "more" of a certain statistic than somebody else? Why is soccer, a sport entirely team dependent and unreliant on statistics, the international sport of choice? Why does baseball and baseball's statistical history thrive in a capitalist state?

How does our resentment of the salaries of players and the unwillingness of the MLBPA to accept drug testing influence our perception of unions and strikes as a whole? How does the sentiment of the union having too much power relate to the rise of the corporation and decline of labor unions in general?

These are fundamental questions that underlie so many of our subsequent perceptions of the events that take place on the field itself. Why is baseball the way it is, and why is it loved so much here? These are incredibly important and predominantly social questions.

Expanding our views as to what is and what is not baseball related can be rather illuminating, enriching and edifying.

[Mattingly]

Well, I believe that there is always a place for civil and articulate discussion of these types of topics, but that is not the policy here, and I respect that. I personally advocate the discussion of these types of issues, because, in fact, they are extremely relevant to sports, and prevalent within sports themselves, as the sport acts as a microcosm of the society in which its played. But I don't expect others to share my view and I don't expect the mods to let such talk go on for extended periods of time. I'll push the envelope and indulge my sociopolitical bent more than most, but I do try to temper it and rarely do I engage in this type of discussion unprovoked.

What I do support is that when positions like Mac's in the Pedro Guerrero thread are espoused, that is posts that are, unsubstantiated, incomplete, widely discredited and along racial (or gender or religious, etc.) lines, those with knowledge of the subject should be allowed to civily and articulately refute the claims for the benefit of ALL. Either that, or the Mods should be proactive and delete the original posts. I'd rather the second option not be the preferred method as it invites the slippery slope.

You want that type of crap to exist on this site unrefuted? You want BBF to come up on a google search for the superiority of white intellect and then not even have somebody refuting that position in that thread?

To answer your question in a word, no. But, might I propose you this counter question. Do you think it is realistic that such issues can be ignored while still having meaningful discussions about events in which the said issues play a part?
Where is the Pedro Guerrero thread you and others are referring to? Is there a link? I can't decide how this should be dealt with until I see the thread itself.

As to social comment itself, I've seen several threads which pushed the buttons. We've had threads on gay ballplayers, most of which quickly became pro- and anti-gay, then meandering into gay rights and homophobia and such. We've had a Keith Hernandez thread about his comments re a female massage therapist. That quickly became people's views on women and which were acceptable to some but not by others. Then the If Barry Bonds were White thread, which seemed to be discussing every racial issue whether it involved Barry and other blacks or not.

Some of those, I can deal with to a certain extent, but often, it just becomes one big social thing. Same with the thread about cheerleaders.

If you'd like a forum here to refute the social aspects of certain posts which you find socially offensive, then my only suggest would be to take this to PM. I'm not too sure if a full "chat" section may work here, since the volume of social causes and things being discussed could really be overwhelming.

I tend to believe that a part of BBF's success is that we don't have to deal with every social issue. Some other boards have a "chat" section, but we, the Admins and Mods, would have to see if that's viable in this case here.

As to social issues being ignored, from the last paragraph in your post, I'd say that if a highly-charged and inflammatory social issue is brought up, the various Mods can discourage this. I would, however, disagree that it's open discussion here would be something useful for BBF.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Where is the Pedro Guerrero thread you and others are referring to? Is there a link? I can't decide how this should be dealt with until I see the thread itself.

As to social comment itself, I've seen several threads which pushed the buttons. We've had threads on gay ballplayers, most of which quickly became pro- and anti-gay, then meandering into gay rights and homophobia and such. We've had a Keith Hernandez thread about his comments re a female massage therapist. That quickly became people's views on women and which were acceptable to some but not by others. Then the If Barry Bonds were White thread, which seemed to be discussing every racial issue whether it involved Barry and other blacks or not.

Some of those, I can deal with to a certain extent, but often, it just becomes one big social thing. Same with the thread about cheerleaders.

If you'd like a forum here to refute the social aspects of certain posts which you find socially offensive, then my only suggest would be to take this to PM. I'm not too sure if a full "chat" section may work here, since the volume of social causes and things being discussed could really be overwhelming.

I tend to believe that a part of BBF's success is that we don't have to deal with every social issue. Some other boards have a "chat" section, but we, the Admins and Mods, would have to see if that's viable in this case here.

As to social issues being ignored, from the last paragraph in your post, I'd say that if a highly-charged and inflammatory social issue is brought up, the various Mods can discourage this. I would, however, disagree that it's open discussion here would be something useful for BBF.
I've been dealing with it, Matt. It's in the History forum. I'll take care of it if anything else should happen.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly,

No, that is not Digglahh's belief, he was characterizing the argument in question.

I was the person Leece was referring to as saying that presenting such "facts" as dangerous. I believe that for a number of reasons.

1) Anytime a fact is introduced without a context, someone will attach a context on their own time. In fact, I wonder if the original poster was suggesting a context without actually saying it. It was a sort of a, "I don't mean anything by this, but these scores show that black people are stupid." Of course you mean something by it.

2) The poster ignores the precept of social science that causation can never truly exist. Fact A and Fact B can exist simultaneously, but that doesn't mean that A causes B, or that B causes A. More than likely, there are dozens of other factors that also correlate. In my social science classes, we were always taught to include those possible factors (and even test for them) in our analysis to give the research balance. If I postulate that parent attitudes on education is strongly correlated with student success and IQ scores then I have to include other possible factors, socioeconomic status, race, language spoken, location, mean income, et al in that analysis at least as possible alternatives. Even if my hypothesis is correct, I am essentially furthering the idea that parent attitudes is the only contributing factor even if I don't explicitly say it.

I entered the discussion to bring this point home, but the arguer in question continued to hammer home the point of race and IQ. In the process, he denied the precepts we hold dear.
In that case, you'd have to give me a link to that thread. Seems very weird, since there's no place on BBF for any kind of social studies, political science or anything similar. Despite the exclamation point behind this kind of post, I don't see why it would even need to be here. This is a baseball forum. That kind of post may as well be on a soccer or cooking forum, where it would be equally out of place.

As said to diggs, I don't believe that this type of discussion has any place at BBF. While I'm not totally against discussion of other sports, strong social issues, socio-economic, gender, racial politics, I've never been a fan of here.

There are other sites which are either political and/or have "off topic" forums where such discussions are encouraged and/or accepted. BBF may not be the ideal platform for these types of discussions. If two willing parties wish to discuss this privately via PM, that's their call. It's just when those are viewed publicly that I'd disagree.

[Mattingly]

I've been dealing with it, Matt. It's in the History forum. I'll take care of it if anything else should happen.
Thanks. I was kinda wondering what people were referring to. :)

[digglahhh]

Respectfully note, Mattingly, that nobody is providing you with the links you have requested.

This is because we are not requesting that you meddle in the affairs we are talking about. In fact, if you have been paying attention, this thread is about the desire of some to LIMIT the intervention and suppositions of what is and is not acceptable by overzealous moderators.

Your tone is downright humorous to me, in fact. You seem to really relish the (perceived and arbitrary) miniscule amount of power you have here as a moderator. Ideally, a moderator is supposed represent the will of the membership, not appear to take some perverse satisfaction and derive validation of his (assumed) power by enforcing the "rules" in their strictest sense. I can't be the only one who feels this way.

Also note that CCN has "been dealing with it." Relax, CCN is fully capable of handling this. In fact, I would venture to guess that in issues of this sort, he is the mod most of the involved parties would prefer handle the situation.

Regarding the PM suggestion. How do you suggest I go about PMing every potential reader of a post to inform them that the thrust of the aforementioned post has been poorly conceived, misappropriated and is absent of context?

See, Barzilla, Chris and I were fighting against ignorance in that thread. You are fighting for the strict adherenece of the guidelines of an internet forum. It would be quite foolhardy to think that it is reasonalbe or realistic to expect any of us to abandon our cause to recognize yours. Some things are just bigger than others and no codes of conduct or guidelines will change that.

[Mattingly]

Respectfully note, Mattingly, that nobody is providing you with the links you have requested.

This is because we are not requesting that you meddle in the affairs we are talking about. In fact, if you have been paying attention, this thread is about the desire of some to LIMIT the intervention and suppositions of what is and is not acceptable by overzealous moderators.

Your tone is downright humorous to me, in fact. You seem to really relish the (perceived and arbitrary) miniscule amount of power you have here as a moderator. Ideally, a moderator is supposed represent the will of the membership, not appear to take some perverse satisfaction and derive validation of his (assumed) power by enforcing the "rules" in their strictest sense. I can't be the only one who feels this way.

Also note that CCN has "been dealing with it." Relax, CCN is fully capable of handling this. In fact, I would venture to guess that in issues of this sort, he is the mod most of the involved parties would prefer handle the situation.

Regarding the PM suggestion. How do you suggest I go about PMing every potential reader of a post to inform them that the thrust of the aforementioned post has been poorly conceived, misappropriated and is absent of context?

See, Barzilla, Chris and I were fighting against ignorance in that thread. You are fighting for the strict adherenece of the guidelines of an internet forum. It would be quite foolhardy to think that it is reasonalbe or realistic to expect any of us to abandon our cause to recognize yours. Some things are just bigger than others and no codes of conduct or guidelines will change that.
Actually, Cap'n has already stated where the thread is, under History. I've peeked at it, and since he's stated that he's handling it, you need not worry about whether I'll intervene there. Since it's been referred to several times, it would seem weird, to myself at least, to try keeping me from it, then referring to it. How do you expect to keep referring to something, then I can't see it? That's like me discussing an article, but not showing you the article. I don't get that.

There's already an active Mod in the History forum whom I'm very familiar with, so I wouldn't really have any need to involve myself there. In either case, it's this thread (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=43321) that's being discussed.

As to perceived power, the only "power" I have is to keep the site clean. If you're worried about that, then I can't help you.

As to satisfaction and validation against the forumers, you must be a good mind-reader. Any other thoughts of mine you'd care to speak for me about? If others share your feelings, can they please speak up for themselves?

I'd mentioned specific threads that you are well aware of, none of which you've replied to. Are you saying that BBF should allow discussion of things such as racial relations, views on homosexuality, views on women? If yea or nea, please speak your mind. Otherwise, you're complaining about my "tone" and/or "attitude" but ignoring the very words I've written. If that were OK, can I just also talk about your "attitude" without discussing your points?

As to being the Mod most capable, I think that we can decide amongst ourselves. There are quite a few situations where I've known of various Mods very suited to handle scenarios, so I think we can take care of this.

As to the PM, you can PM various people at the same time. Just use a "username ; username ; username" thing, putting a space, semi-colon, space between each username. If you wish for various parties to be contacted simultaneously, that's how it's done here.

If you wish to get the readers of the post aware of your thoughts, simply write a post into that thread, presuming it hasn't been closed.

So here you go again in your last paragraph telling me what you're fighting against, yet you didn't want me to even take a peek at the thread itself so that I could know what you're talking about? If you don't wish to discuss that thread with me, then why do you continue referring to it? Can you please explain your line of thinking on this?

[digglahhh]

I'm not trying to hide the thread from you. I'm just saying that people in this thread have been talking about the tendency for mods to intervene prematurely or overzealously, why would those of us who disapprove of that continue to reinforce it by helping you do it again?

What do you want me to say about the threads you mentioned?

The "What if Bonds was White" thread dealt with the way Bonds would be viewed by the media and fans if he was white. Most people summarliy dismissed the question and said that they don't like him because he is a jerk. I presented evidence that stated that people more easily associate negative personality traits with dark skin, implying that his race and our perception of his personality may not be so easily seperated.

The Keith Hernandez thread dealt with women's place in sports. One's opinions on the matter are usually tied to his/her opinions on gender roles in general.

I only vaguely remember the gay player thread you are speaking of.

My position is basically that unless you are getting PMs from other members complaining about the subject matter being discussed in the forums there's not much of a need to do anything about it. Let the members govern what they feel is acceptable and relevant.

I guess my last post got to you a bit. You are welcome to comment on my attitude as you see fit. My "attempt at mind reading" was just my interpretation your behavior.

I don't "not want to discuss the thread with you." I just don't feel the need to justify my refutation of Mac's racist nonsense because my doing so happens to be against "site policy." Take an extreme example, (as if racism isn't) if somebody insulted your mother in a post, wouldn't it be more important that you defended her than you adhered to site policy and said nothing because, after all, defending your mom would be talking about things other than baseball.

[Mattingly]

I'm not trying to hide the thread from you. I'm just saying that people in this thread have been talking about the tendency for mods to intervene prematurely or overzealously, why would those of us who disapprove of that continue to reinforce it by helping you do it again?

What do you want me to say about the threads you mentioned?

The "What if Bonds was White" thread dealt with the way Bonds would be viewed by the media and fans if he was white. Most people summarliy dismissed the question and said that they don't like him because he is a jerk. I presented evidence that stated that people more easily associate negative personality traits with dark skin, implying that his race and our perception of his personality may not be so easily seperated.

The Keith Hernandez thread dealt with women's place in sports. One's opinions on the matter are usually tied to his/her opinions on gender roles in general.

I only vaguely remember the gay player thread you are speaking of.

My position is basically that unless you are getting PMs from other members complaining about the subject matter being discussed in the forums there's not much of a need to do anything about it. Let the members govern what they feel is acceptable and relevant.

I guess my last post got to you a bit. You are welcome to comment on my attitude as you see fit. My "attempt at mind reading" was just my interpretation your behavior.

I don't "not want to discuss the thread with you." I just don't feel the need to justify my refutation of Mac's racist nonsense because my doing so happens to be against "site policy." Take an extreme example, (as if racism isn't) if somebody insulted your mother in a post, wouldn't it be more important that you defended her than you adhered to site policy and said nothing because, after all, defending your mom would be talking about things other than baseball.
I'll be quick here, as I'm running out the door.

As to the thread, Baseball Guru is the active Mod there, so I don't usually go in there. It's forums that don't have a Mod or an inactive one that I tend to go into. Thus, I'd have no reason to venture there, unless BG happened to be unavailable at the time. One thread about Rick Monday, where people began complaining about flag-burning was an example under History, where it began to look bad.

As to PMs, we the various Mods discuss things. Simply because I'm the one showing up and commenting on a post doesn't necessarily mean that I solely decided that forum rules weren't in place. It may seem that way, but there are quite a few Mods here.

Since I'm around quite a bit, I'm often there faster than many others. Forumers don't always send me a PM, but I do appreciate it when they do. In many cases, it's another Mod who asks that something be done, but they're unavailable. In either case, I think that your conception that I'm acting solely to tyranically uphold forum policy isn't informed, but that's not a criticism of you.

We the Mods have a separate forum. We discuss things about issues, policies, forumers. If something is alarming, be it advertising, flame wars, we post there, we act upon this. You won't see this, but I have no qualms getting myself in the middle, asking people to "pipe down", etc. There are more than enough Mods, as well as two Admins here that if I were acting out of order, this would've been handled internally amongst ourselves.

I'll try dealing with the rest later on, perhaps in the morning, as I don't wish to post some of these in other locations, as they seem to be able to be misinterpreted by some (not yourself, but where I'll be at) in the workplace, as they may not know the full meaning of what we're posting here.

Bye for now. :)

[digglahhh]

No problem, and I'm willing to admit that I don't see the developments from your side, so it is entirely possible that by circumstance, specifically you being around a lot, it seems like you are more active in these matters than the other mods. I, being unaware of that, just see you closing these types of forums and cracking down on this type of talk more than others.

My point in regards to the Guerrero thread is simple. Irresponsible, racially motivated pseudo-science that is tantamount to eugenics must be refuted for the sake of respectability and honesty, even if posting the refutation is technically against the policy of the site.

This is far from saying that people should discuss whatever topics they want with no regard for the expressed purpose of the site.

I will readily admit that I make sociopolitical posts than most, but I do not begin the types of threads that are destined to evolve into such discussions. I don't use this site as a means to provoke such discussion or spread my ideas. But when, for example, the group at large assumes Bonds's race and our perception of his personality are two completely seperate things and it is quite simple to differentiate between them and I'm aware of psychological data that contradicts that notion, I believe it is pertinent to the discussion to make people aware of it.

In conclusion, I'm not asking for card blanche, just for everybody to take notice of how these taboo subjects are so related to the game and the way we view it.

[Ubiquitous]

Alright I'm going to weigh in, I know you were all waiting for that.

The mods are the representatives of this site. They have been chosen to be the voice of this site. If they decide something should not be discussed then it is not discussed. This is a privately owned site and the owner sets the agenda. If one does not like that or feels they are unable to follow the directions of the mods then one can always leave and find another site more suitable to their interests. Now this isn't one of those love it or leave it type speeches I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I too love going off on a tangent, I rarely ever respond to the initial post in a thread. So I can understand the desire to talk about other subjects but at the same time one should remember the stated goals and desires of this site. I would love to sit and talk history with a couple of you guys or politics or human behavior but this is a baseball site and when a mod closes the door on these off topic discussions one should accept it and move on.

[Ubiquitous]

In conclusion, I'm not asking for [carte] blanche, just for everybody to take notice of how these taboo subjects are so related to the game and the way we view it.


Most people will give one enough latitude to do that but unfortunately most of these conversations end up miles and miles away from the initial goal which is to show how they are related. Yes one might be trying to argue that the numerous posts being created are because one is trying to prove or disprove an initial point but how much is too much? How far is too far? The owner of the site has given the Mods that responsibiliy to decide and we must go along.

[runningshoes]

We have pretty free liscence to carry our debates out of the baseball realm without being stopped as long as we can tie it back to the original debate.

There's no need to start a thread about the decline of western society without first linking it's effects on baseball.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Good posts guys...A few thoughts:

Each of us probably feels like we have specialized knowledge in a certain area or areas. I can relate to what Diggs was saying about the social thing peaking his interest. Some comments or posts just draw you in. You can't help but respond, and this feeling is magnified 100 fold when the post in question is inaccurate, incomplete, misguided, etc..

For me its obviously Ruth when it comes to baseball, but there are other non-baseball things. For others it may be something else. I know for a fact that if there's a Shoeless Joe discussion going on, and I mention that Comiskey was a cheap *******, or that the best of the best players don't currently play in MLB, that Ubi will shortly counter my comments with his own. Not saying that's his one area of expertise, but I know those issue are something he feels strongly about.

We need to keep in mind, and I know you all do; that many people read these posts everyday. People who only read and don't post at all. So if the IQ thing comes up, and Mac makes his original comment about blacks, then it will draw some counter posts from people who would like to either disagree or explain deeper layers which help explain things. I don't think this can or should be hashed out through PM's. Just wouldn't work. So what; then the original comment is left there for everyone to read, but not the discussion of its actual meaning.

What if the topic of marraige somehow came up, and someone said that marraige is really lame and they're never doing it because more than half of those who get married, get divorced. Now, if that's an issue someone feels strongly about, or an issue where someone has knowledge of, then they might point out that those stats don't include marraiges which come to an end by way of death to a spouse. So the stats aren't accurate in the "divorce" sense. Doing this in PM won't do anything for the thousands of others who will read that and not receive the PM.

I don't think there should be a separate area specifically created to discuss non-baseball related topics. I do however, think that if during a baseball related discussion, something comes up which is clearly going to cause long-term deviation from the original topic, that it should be allowed. Maybe a mod can step forward and set up threads on an as-needed basis, to continue those discussions. They are the sole determiners on when they get started, when they get closed, and whether or not they'll even be one in the first place. That way, the original thread can continue without being thwarted.

[digglahhh]

We need to keep in mind, and I know you all do; that many people read these posts everyday. People who only read and don't post at all. So if the IQ thing comes up, and Mac makes his original comment about blacks, then it will draw some counter posts from people who would like to either disagree or explain deeper layers which help explain things. I don't think this can or should be hashed out through PM's. Just wouldn't work. So what; then the original comment is left there for everyone to read, but not the discussion of its actual meaning.

Exactly, Sultan.

Sometimes, accuracy is a goal that is larger than rigid obedience of the codes of the site. Once Mac is talking about IQ scores and black people, chances are the discussion has already meandered off topic. At that point, refusing to respond in order to honor the code is, in effect and perception by the other readers, tantamount to endorsement of such views. For the record, I made 4 posts in that Pedro Guerrero thread, the first of which was not even about the issue of IQ, I simply stated that Mac's source, Wikipedia, is not considered reputable within the spheres where serious research regarding the topic he raised is done. And two other posts, might as well have been combined into one. I said my piece and let it rest. In fact, until now, I hadn't even read the last 30 or so posts in the thread.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm not really sure why a response is needed or a discussion is needed to hash out a non-baseball topic. I don't see why it is so important to make sure a response is refuted in detail beyond the scope of baseball in public. This whole can't let a statement stand issue is a mystery to me. If you read something and are capable of seeing that it is wrong or silly then others are as well. Can you disagree with it? Sure. Can you reply? Sure, but what is the point of getting into the minutiae of an off topic subject and why is it so important that it has to be carried out in public. If somebody makes an outrageous statement that is just plain rude tell a mod and maybe they will make a public warning or delete the post. If somebody just makes a statement you think is wrong and you just can't let the world not know you disagree then say so but then at some point the world no longer needs to know and the group involved in the debate should go into a PM discussion. If one cannot decide at what point a discussion should go to a PM well then that is what a mod is for. To let you know when it should go to a PM discussion.

It is a good thing that we are having this discussion it means that we are aware of what Fever wants. It shows that when we post we are aware of what they want and it is in the back of our mind when we are posting off topic. It probably has kept the quality of this site high because the focus has always been maitained. Just imagine what this place would be like if it was free for all, any and all discussions could be discussed in any thread at any time. I've been a member in places like that and let me tell you this place is a thousand times better and if having a high quality means I have to sacrifice a little non-topic freedom then so be it.

[Mattingly]

No problem, and I'm willing to admit that I don't see the developments from your side, so it is entirely possible that by circumstance, specifically you being around a lot, it seems like you are more active in these matters than the other mods. I, being unaware of that, just see you closing these types of forums and cracking down on this type of talk more than others.
Basically, I'm on the board quite a few times. Sometimes I just check in. Sometimes someone may PM me of an upcoming problem. Sometimes there are even issues outside of the CE and NYY forums that I'm the co-Mod of. In addition, as mentioned earlier, I have no qualms stepping in to keep the peace. Not everyone will be happy with me in that role, but like taking out the garbage, going shopping and doing the laundry, the "somebody's gotta do it" thing still applies, to myself at least. If not, then we'll have petty arguments overflowing, which causes other forumers to be turned off by certain threads.
My point in regards to the Guerrero thread is simple. Irresponsible, racially motivated pseudo-science that is tantamount to eugenics must be refuted for the sake of respectability and honesty, even if posting the refutation is technically against the policy of the site.
My feeling is that self-control is needed, as one will have to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. This would apply both to someone making crazy posts, then the ensuing knee-jerk reactions to this. When I went to grade school, I was told "two wrongs don't make a right", if someone did something ridiculously stupid and I made a similar and equally stupid response. That's what I'm thinking right now.

Still, if someone makes a racial statement of a put-down variety, such as "The problem with all blacks (or any other race, religion, ethnicity for that matter) is _______", how would you want this refuted? You've mentioned that you'd like this to get a reply, but what kind of response would you find permissible? Please provide an example. If you can just use plain English, that would be great.
This is far from saying that people should discuss whatever topics they want with no regard for the expressed purpose of the site.
Exactly what I'm saying. However, I'd still need an example of what you'd consider "acceptable" and what you'd consider "out of bounds" or "unacceptable". Please do provide this.
I will readily admit that I make sociopolitical posts than most, but I do not begin the types of threads that are destined to evolve into such discussions. I don't use this site as a means to provoke such discussion or spread my ideas. But when, for example, the group at large assumes Bonds's race and our perception of his personality are two completely seperate things and it is quite simple to differentiate between them and I'm aware of psychological data that contradicts that notion, I believe it is pertinent to the discussion to make people aware of it.
You may believe that, but not everyone does. When Kenny Rogers hit that cameraman, then the next cameraman, I do believe he was despised by many. I'm not too sure many were wondering, "I wonder if I could dislike him less because he's white?" or were wondering if they'd dislike him any more if he were black. Simply put, in my mind, there are jerks of all colors. Be they white, black, Hispanic, Asian or any other ethnicities not include in that group. I've already given several examples of athletes who are black or dark-skinned Hispanic who were very much beloved, so let's say I'll respectfully disagree with your point on this.

Still, even if you were to disagree--or even strongly disagree with what I'd just written--this would be your right, but if we're going to have another 3 pages on people's perceptions for race, black athletes or anything else you may be implying, then that to me would be well away from the baseball aspect. I think I've spent enough time on that "If Barry Bonds were White" thread to feel that way, as did yourself on that same thread.
In conclusion, I'm not asking for card blanche, just for everybody to take notice of how these taboo subjects are so related to the game and the way we view it.
I'm not expecting you to ask for carte blanche either. However, I do believe that there should be limits upon how much the non-baseball aspects of a thread should be discussed before we're basically discussing the social topic itself, rather than the baseball thing.

When Curt Schilling stumped for George W Bush's presidential candidacy, there was lots of concern. I think it would've been acceptable to make mention of other ballplayers who've been active in getting politicians elected, appearing at fund raisers, etc, but if we're going to spend 5 pages on Bush's policies, his Supreme Court nominees, his policies on Mexico, the NSA, then we're going to be spending lots of time here on things that have absolutely nothing to do with baseball. That's just an example of the red/white hot topics that come up here.

We have often discouraged threads about gay ballplayers, since this would almost head towards feelings about homosexuality itself, then someone makes a homophobic statement, people get into cheap remarks about lifestyle, and it's quite a bit more.

Because of the heightened reaction towards the subject matter (homosexuality), rather than discussing how such a player would be treated by his teammates, the fans, people buying merchandise with his name on it, it's always gotten predictably ugly. By contrast, if people were to talk about how such a player would be perceived by the overall sports media, as well as the general public via the regular media, how he would be treated when he steps into the box (fans paying good money will usually have something to say), then I could better understand, as we'd be talking about the baseball aspect. In the dugout, clubhouse, on the field, in the media, that would all be good topics to discuss.

Like the Pedro Guerrero thread, it's a hot topic, but my thoughts are that comments in there should remain focused upon how they relate to baseball. If we're getting too far away from this, especially for many pages that aren't directly related to baseball itself, then to me, we've lost the focus of what we can do around here: discuss baseball.

[runningshoes]

When many of these issues are discussed and they go in a different direction, I just assume, for good reason, that everyone around here is intelligent enough to know how they relate to baseball even though baseball is not mentioned.

It's an analytical skill I believe most of us have aquired.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mattingly]

When many of these issues are discussed and they go in a different direction, I just assume, for good reason, that everyone around here is intelligent enough to know how they relate to baseball even though baseball is not mentioned.

It's an analytical skill I believe most of us have aquired.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
If referring to myself, rather than "All", I'd agree. However, just how much time is spent on the issue itself, rather than how they relate to baseball? If a few comments, I'm fine. But when there's more discussion of the non-baseball portion than the baseball aspects, I would think that it's far less of a baseball thread and far more of a social discussion thread.

[runningshoes]

If referring to myself, rather than "All", I'd agree. However, just how much time is spent on the issue itself, rather than how they relate to baseball? If a few comments, I'm fine. But when there's more discussion of the non-baseball portion than the baseball aspects, I would think that it's far less of a baseball thread and far more of a social discussion thread.

Some threads are destined to go that way and then they die a lonely death.

We're all free thinking, intelligent students of the game and nine out ten of us are opinionated; some of us extremely, so, naturally we will want to convey those opinions.

I don't see it as a problem on this board. We seem to be wanting to cater to a few members who find the discussions either uninteresting or beyong their grasp of understanding.

I think what we have to look out for is when our differences of opinion get out of hand and fights ensue.

[Mattingly]

Some threads are destined to go that way and then they die a lonely death.

We're all free thinking, intelligent students of the game and nine out ten of us are opinionated; some of us extremely, so, naturally we will want to convey those opinions.

I don't see it as a problem on this board. We seem to be wanting to cater to a few members who find the discussions either uninteresting or beyong their grasp of understanding.

I think what we have to look out for is when our differences of opinion get out of hand and fights ensue.
We will be opinionated. We will have disagreements. People have their pet topics which can't be broached, people have strongly-held opinions which at times, aren't even debatable. I have no issues with that, since it's human nature.

What I'm thinking is how far away from the baseball aspect of things would you consider permissible? And for how long?

[Ubiquitous]

I don't see it as a problem on this board. We seem to be wanting to cater to a few members who find the discussions either uninteresting or beyong their grasp of understanding.



I think it isn't a problem on this board because people know the rules are enforced. Because people know the rules are enforced they monitor themselves much more then they would do otherwise, and it doesn't go far because the Mods are doing there jobs.

I belong to BTF and they have dozens of intelligent highly articulate posters who care a lot about baseball. But their policies are not rigidly enforced and consequently the baseball discussions are hit or miss. You are more likely to get into an argument over politics, music, history, or just hatred of each other then you are to talking real baseball. It has gotten so bad now that the owner of the site has to work extra hard just to get it back to a baseball site and of course he is meeting opposition to that.

[runningshoes]

We will be opinionated. We will have disagreements. People have their pet topics which can't be broached, people have strongly-held opinions which at times, aren't even debatable. I have no issues with that, since it's human nature.

What I'm thinking is how far away from the baseball aspect of things would you consider permissible? And for how long?

That would be different for everyone. I know when something has reached it's limit so I stop posting in, and reading those threads. I move on. I don't sit here and get upset.

Me and Ubi went through that today. We both knew the discussion was over at pretty much the same time.

[Mattingly]

That would be different for everyone. I know when something has reached it's limit so I stop posting in, and reading those threads. I move on. I don't sit here and get upset.

Me and Ubi went through that today. We both knew the discussion was over at pretty much the same time.
That's a great philosophy, and I wish that more forumers would adopt this. It would make things easier for us.

As it stands, we the Mods still have to follow such threads, since we have to make sure that people don't go about attacking one another, and that others aren't put off by the site in its entirety because of this type of unfortunate behavior.

[digglahhh]

Ubi,

I don't feel that, in the Guerrero thread, I indulged in the off-topic ranting in the egregious manner you (I tend think, rightfully) denounce. I said my piece and moved on. I thought that the implications were dire enough that I had to respond, but that was it.

Mattingly,

Okay, so you disagree with the implicit association studies being performed at Harvard, fine. If I wanted to indulge in the off topic discussion, I would ask you on what basis you disagree. You reference anecdotal examples as your grounds and you limit is to athletes (a class of people you obviously already respect and revere)... I could on and on, interogating you about your reluctance to believe the studies, the exception proves the rule, blah, blah, blah But, that would be excessively entertaining unrelated subject matter because then we are not discussing Bonds, we are debating the merits of implicit association studies.

Let me ask you this though, were you aware of the research I cited at all before I brought it to your attention? Most people were not. It may have influenced the opinions of some and it may not have influenced others, but I think it is quite clear that it was relevant to the discussion we were having. The thread was about whether being considered a jerk and a cheat and being black were totally unrelated and this is research claiming that character perception and race ARE, in fact, related. I can't really think of anything MORE germane.

I think people should seriously consider that research before forming their opinion. If you still disagree there's nothing I can do about it, and it would be unproductive to continue deriding somebody for not agreeing with me. If I'm aware of information that might influence somebody's opinion on the subject were are discussing I think its a good idea to share it, whether it's research about race in a "What if Bonds was White" thread or the wind patterns to left and right in Shea when discussing the stadium's park factor. What you do with it subsequently is entirely your perogative.

[Mattingly]

diggs:

Which Harvard study? You'd mentioned this before on another thread under CE (the "Bonds were White" thread under CE, I believe), but I wasn't considering a Harvard study. You have a link to this? Anyway, I presume it's relevance would be to racial views or intelligence along racial lines as they pertain to the Pedro Guerrero thread, correct?

Also, did you mention that in this thread? I don't remember seeing it, so it wasn't something I'd previously felt any expectation on my part to discuss here.

[digglahhh]

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

I believe I posted this link in the What if Bonds was White thread, select demo and follow the prompts to the race IAT.