PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[parsnips33]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

[HeartBreakKid]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

RealGm has always been like this.

[Colbinii]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

You have threads with people posting < 25% of a players playoff series and insinuating...What are they even insinuating?

You have people saying that Defensive Rebounding is part of rim protection.

[Colbinii]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

RealGm has always been like this.

Yeah--just don't take it personal. We are all behind keyboards. I assume nobody here is trying to hurt or be malice. I'll meet stupid with stupid but I will also be open to other opinions.

[OhayoKD]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

You have threads with people posting < 25% of a players playoff series and insinuating...What are they even insinuating?

You have people saying that Defensive Rebounding is part of rim protection.

And then there's the bit where they say you said something, you show you did not say that thing, and they pretend it didn't happen.

Honestly, no offense, but the argumentation over the last year or so is levels ahead of what came before. The issue is that the weaker, mostly "want it to be true" stuff that used to fly is actually vetted and challenged now.

Standards are higher now. You can't just say 2 and 2 and [insert buzzword] = 6 and expect people to roll with it

Some people handle that in good faith. Others find every excuse possible to avoid the substantive parts of discussions they don't have a good response for. "You don't watch the sport" is a pretty big tell.

[Jaivl]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

RealGm has always been like this.

Yeah--just don't take it personal. We are all behind keyboards. I assume nobody here is trying to hurt or be malice. I'll meet stupid with stupid but I will also be open to other opinions.

Oh you assume too much I think.

[parsnips33]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

You have threads with people posting < 25% of a players playoff series and insinuating...What are they even insinuating?

You have people saying that Defensive Rebounding is part of rim protection.

And then there's the bit where they say you said something, you show you did not say that thing, and they pretend it didn't happen.

Honestly, no offense, but the argumentation over the last year or so is levels ahead of what came before. The issue is that the weaker, mostly "want it to be true" stuff that used to fly is actually vetted and challenged now.

Standards are higher now. You can't just say 2 and 2 and [insert buzzword] = 6 and expect people to roll with it

Some people handle that in good faith. Others find every excuse possible to avoid the substantive parts of discussions they don't have a good response for. "You don't watch the sport" is a pretty big tell.

I actually do tend to agree with you that the argumentation has become more sophisticated, which is a good thing no question about it. Just seems like way more people come here with the sole intention of proving they are right rather than to try and learn something - maybe I'm just being naive to expect the latter but it seems like it would be way more conducive to productive conversation

[Clyde Frazier]

Read on Twitter

[rk2023]

I feel terrible for Chubb. Has been on a very good trajectory since his rookie year; he has a great case for being the best RB in the league (was snubbed of First Team All Pro majorly last year imo). Over 5.0 YPC for 5 straight seasons is a pretty damn impressive statistical feat. Ah well.. hoping he has a speedy recovery and is able to come back & add to what has been a tremendous career.

[parsnips33]

Am I the only one still doing immaculate grid? 35 rarity score on today's I'm feeling good

[Jaivl]

Am I the only one still doing immaculate grid? 35 rarity score on today's I'm feeling good

I only do them when I feel they are easy, to take a break from work. Today it was really easy, 31 rarity.

Spoiler:

[parsnips33]

Am I the only one still doing immaculate grid? 35 rarity score on today's I'm feeling good

I only do them when I feel they are easy, to take a break from work. Today it was really easy, 31 rarity.

Spoiler:

Hey I got Cowens too. Wish I had thought of Sam Cassell

[Goudelock]

This is why i'll never delete twitter:

Read on Twitter

[HeartBreakKid]

This is why i'll never delete twitter:

Read on Twitter

it's called X. show some respect.

[penbeast0]

Do I just have rose colored glasses on or did this forum used to be a lot more civil?

Seems like every single thread is childish back and forth and sniping and arguments that drag from one thread to another, poisoning the whole well

Makes me not even really want to read a lot of the threads here, let alone contribute

At least the vibes in the Media Lounge are still groovy

RealGm has always been like this.

Having been here for a long long time, no, it hasn't, at least on the PC Board. We have gotten a group of relatively new posters that are much more prone to name calling and cheap shots. I would guess that I've written over twice as many warnings as I have any other year in the past decade. Most of these are to the same 5-10 people and/or posters who were banned but create new identities and come back to cause more problems. To complicate the issue, many of these uncivil posters are providing substantive content as well which has a positive value so it's always a balancing act.

[trex_8063]

Having been here for a long long time, no, it hasn't, at least on the PC Board. We have gotten a group of relatively new posters that are much more prone to name calling and cheap shots. I would guess that I've written over twice as many warnings as I have any other year in the past decade. Most of these are to the same 5-10 people and/or posters who were banned but create new identities and come back to cause more problems. To complicate the issue, many of these uncivil posters are providing substantive content as well which has a positive value so it's always a balancing act.

Quoting this because it relates, and also transferring the discussion here so as to stop derailing the other.....

Not so relevant to this situation, but i'm curious if there is a temporal adjustment here. Having 5 problematic posts out of 20 in a month-span is very different from having 7 out of 500 in 3 months. The exact numbers aren't really the point, but i would hope after a period of good posting past trangressions are not use to justify more severe punishment than there would be for a new poster whose commited less raw offenses but alot more per insert given unit of time/posting volume. Do warning levels go down with time?

Broad strokes answer:
We don't have a specific number of warnings which constitutes a line in the sand that posters must not cross. A single small offense/warning after many months decent behaviour would not, for example, earn someone the boot simply because they had five [or whatever] warnings on record from 2-4 years ago.
Context, timelines, and numerous other factors and perceptions are of course considered.

Well the natural result of a system where past transgressions are used to scale things indefinitely without any sort of countering force is that longer tenured forumers are disadvantaged.

As stated above, we don't have an arbitrary # of violations/warnings/suspensions that cannot be crossed, thus curving things against longer tenured posters. And as Doc stated, the majority of the posters who get banned or lengthy suspensions are actually not around that long.

We are naturally going to be assessing for what might be called patterns of behaviour, though.

Okay, but isn't what matters post here the net increase vs the net decrease? Has the project actually suffered from the "toxicity"? I think the cold data for this top 100(voting participation, # of posts, ect) would suggest otherwise

............

Well that is why I also mentioned voter participation. Has voting seen a decline relative to past projects? I thought it saw an increase, but maybe I'm wrong.

As Doc said, the first statement would seem to imply that 300 posts that are 50% toxic/negative/combative/baiting is better than 100 posts that are all cogent and civil [because we still got ~50 more cogent and civil posts]. Personally, I don't feel it's a good trade-off.

Comparing the participation in this project to the last one as a means of determining if "toxicity" is driving it down this time around is a faulty method because it assumes there was no toxicity in the 2020 version (there was; there always is).

At any rate, participation appears about the same:

*In 2020 the # of votes for first three places ranged from 23-37 (avg of 29), with the first thread going ~21 pages (though immediately dropping to around 7 pages by thread #2). By thread #26 it was down to 16 votes, thread was 6 pages.

**In this 2023 project the # of votes for the first three places ranged from 23-27 (avg of 25), with the first thread going 18 pages, subsequent ones still up at like 12 pages. By thread #26 it was down to 16 votes, thread was 8 pages.

Overall, I'm not seeing a relevant difference. However, as Doc mentioned there was one poster stating they were walking away from the project out of distaste for the negativity of a specific poster, while multiple other posters---who hadn't [yet??] walked---registered complaints about that poster, as well. If that isn't tangible evidence of its affect, I don't know what is.

Conflict tends to drive some way and draw other people in. Only looking at one side of the equation provided a skewed view. As would evaluating a track-record with only transgressions.

Muliple voters have explicitly expressed here they decided to vote because of a negative reaction to what they were seeing. And it seems there's a split in how people percieve one and done's contributions based on this thread's activity.

Of course you can pursue civility for civility's sake, but civility has never been garunteed to increase engagement or, at least by conventional standards, "quality".

What follows here is me speaking for myself, and not necessarily for the other mods.

Re: voters COMING to the project because of a negative reaction....
It's my perception that generally what we're talking about here are posters who are dismayed to find their guy isn't yet off the table (and that's the thing they have a negative reaction to). Or perhaps they read an opinion they don't agree with and come in with the counterpoint.
Debating a differing opinion and/or coming in to champion someone you think should already be voted in are not the same as actively seeking conflict. That said.....

.....Regarding conflict drawing some, driving away others: I don't doubt that is true. I know some people DO revel in conflict. I am in the other group.

I skew toward conflict avoidance where possible, as it makes me uncomfortable. "Drama" also does not amuse me; so when the drama-bus pulls to the curb, I'm usually not one of those people encouraging everyone to climb aboard. And I don't like seeing people treated poorly, even when they---God forbid---have an opinion that I REALLY strongly feel is incorrect or "wrong-headed".

I'll allow these tendencies probably skew my reaction to the behaviour of others.

I admit I would generally prefer like-minded people who:
*do not stir the pot just for stirring's sake;
**do not deliberately aim to get under the skin of others for their own amusement;
***and do not consider the ultimate goal of any/all debate(s) to "win" and see their opponent cowed into submission, humiliated.
And who consequently view admitting any fault or error, or conceding the other party may have a valid point as the equivalent of their own humiliation........which thus must be avoided at all costs (engaging in any number of deflections, whataboutisms, strawmen, etc, rather than just acknowledging "I don't know that I agree, but you may have a point there" or even just ending it with a "hmm.....agree to disagree.")

Perhaps there are others who imagine an internet environment with a bunch of respectful, conflict-avoiding posters would be boring. But I really wouldn't consider my outlook/mentality to be a character-flaw.


Debate and disagreement is one thing; and it is vital to a community such as this.
But it's possible to engage in debate without devolving into the kind of conflict we wish to avoid (the kind where people deliberately treat each other badly, and without basic respect).
Because the thing about conflict [at least in the manner I've described] is: someone always gets hurt. Always.

And I don't like seeing people get hurt [with exceedingly rare exception: I can think of a few public figures/world leaders I'd not shed a tear for].


And actually this vaguely relates back to your concerns noted near the top of this post, as well as to what penbeast's quote: about a poster being allowed some leeway if [outside of noted violations] they provide good and/or ample content.

This is something we mods have deliberated about internally, and often. And yes we surely do give more leeway to the people who cause problems IF they also are the ones who provide some of the better content, information, and ideas on the forum. This isn't always a conscious decision.

And it's not something we [the mods] exactly agree on where the appropriate thresholds should be.
However, we DO all agree on one basic premise: providing decent content, and making good, cogent, evidence-based arguments does not afford you [royal "you", not "you" specifically] the right to be a jerk in perpetuity.

Some posters [occasionally, at least] seem to believe that being "right" or "winning" a debate entitles them to demean their opponent, and generally treat them like a stupid piece of **** (pardon my language).
Like it or not, that is not how we choose to moderate this forum. If we say [in so many words] "you're really being a jerk", a response of "yeah, but I'm right" does not serve as a justification; certainly not forever, anyway. We may not agree on exactly WHERE the threshold is; but we do all agree that it's there (somewhere).

Being smart and well-informed (even brilliant) does not make it OK to be an ***hole (pardon my language again).

This feels fairly self-evident to me, actually. It's something that always calls to mind a movie scene (this is usual for me as I tend to see the world thru the lens [no pun intended] of movies). It's from the film Steve Jobs (2015).

Throughout the film the title character is dismissive of the contributions of everyone around him, and generally treats them like crap. And he sees this as OK because: he's brilliant, they're [for the most part] not.......so treating them like **** is perfectly fine.

Finally---in what is the best scene in the movie, imo---Steve Wozniak [Seth Rogan] is confronting Jobs [Michael Fassbender] about this.
Woz describes how in the past when he was asked what the difference between him and Jobs is, he would say "Steve was the big picture guy" blah blah......
Woz: ".....But when people ask me what the difference is now, I say: Steve's an ***hole. Your products are better than you are, brother."
Jobs: "That's the idea, brother. And knowing that: THAT'S the difference."
Woz (walking away): "It's NOT BINARY. You can be decent and gifted at the same time."


I'll cut my ramblings off there.

[One_and_Done]

As I've seen a number of posts discussing my removal from the project, I'll provide the reply I gave to Doc MJ mostly verbatim, but don't intend to comment on it further as I'll just get warned for daring to question the decision (even though a dozen other posters have been posting about it).

I am not shocked at all to be removed from the project, because I work on the assumption when I join an online forum that I will invariably be banned or blocked in some way, and I am not fussed. It’s a message board, and has nil impact on the rest of my life. I am not invested in the way the clique on the PC board are. I’m not here to make friends, I’m using this place as an outlet for intellectual discussion. That is why I generally don’t bother to reply to PMs, because it’s a waste of time. Forums like this are designed to protect the regulars happiness, and therefore the broad consensus they form (more on that below).

Doc described my comments as “negative”, but if you take a step back you will see that no particular thing I have written is more “negative” or “critical” than posts that most of the participants in the project make. The only reason they strike some that way is because of their priors, and so anything which is contrary to that is “provocative”. But if the exact same words were used to express a position that the majority of the project agreed with, they would not be regarded as such (and indeed the exact same words frequently are used).

I am glad Doc at least has the self-awareness to realise this on some level, as he has more or less admitted that his main motivation for removing me is to prevent other people leaving the project. That’s fine. It’s an internet forum, not a democracy, I honestly couldn’t care less. But posters here should be honest in recognising that the project is not really an open forum for different views. It is the consensus that emerges from a mostly like minded group of people who are ultimately unwilling to have their views challenged consistently.

If I had posted once per thread in the exact same way, nobody would have cared. Heck, the mods let one guy I won't name, who was barely able to form a coherent thought, participate. Why? Because he barely posted. But if someone persistently disagrees, they are booted because the people involved don’t like having their preconceptions challenged repeatedly. Disagreement is fine, provided you say it once or twice and move on. Ironically, the posters who disagree with me have usually been the ones refusing to let go of an argument and replying to me non-stop with walls of text. It may not seem that way, when you examine the post totals per thread, but you have to remember there are alot of different people disagreeing with me. Indeed, one of the things that has so infuriated some posters is me drawing a line under some arguments and saying 'yeh, look, we disagree. I'm not replying to this further'.

In effect, the posters who have questioned whether this is a double standard are on point. Something is 'disruptive', because it annoys the majority, but that approach inevitably favours the incumbent views of this board. Doc MJ and others have repeatedly talked about not wanting to lose the many 'great' and 'well respected' long time posters on this board. That assumes that their ways of thinking and posting are better. Other viewpoints may not care for statistical models, or lived experience watching the game, or long excerpts from books, but when you operate from the assumption that stuff is great your natural assumption is alternative perspectives like per 100 stats or award voting or the eye test or inferred impact based on circumstances is automatically less valid. That is not so.

There has been a reference to my posts being 'low calory', but I think most have been sensible enough to recognise that is not the case. Sure, sometimes I make a brief one to two line reply. Most everyone does. But I have also explained at length my views about advance stats, era differences, etc, and there are plenty of 'reasons' to back up my views. They're just not the views a clique who is invested in this board cares to hear.

I could of course recognise that people don’t agree with me, and write in a very deferential and insecure manner, but I don’t feel I should have to. People on the other side of the argument certainly don’t.

It's not like I was asked to post 3 times per thread, because then it would have looked like censorship. Instead I've been asked to leave because I was 'disruptive'. I certainly was, but to who is another matter.

[MyUniBroDavis]

As I've seen a number of posts discussing my removal from the project, I'll provide the reply I gave to Doc MJ mostly verbatim, but don't intend to comment on it further as I'll just get warned for daring to question the decision (even though a dozen other posters have been posting about it).

I am not shocked at all to be removed from the project, because I work on the assumption when I join an online forum that I will invariably be banned or blocked in some way, and I am not fussed. It’s a message board, and has nil impact on the rest of my life. I am not invested in the way the clique on the PC board are. I’m not here to make friends, I’m using this place as an outlet for intellectual discussion. That is why I generally don’t bother to reply to PMs, because it’s a waste of time. Forums like this are designed to protect the regulars happiness, and therefore the broad consensus they form (more on that below).

Doc described my comments as “negative”, but if you take a step back you will see that no particular thing I have written is more “negative” or “critical” than posts that most of the participants in the project make. The only reason they strike some that way is because of their priors, and so anything which is contrary to that is “provocative”. But if the exact same words were used to express a position that the majority of the project agreed with, they would not be regarded as such (and indeed the exact same words frequently are used).

I am glad Doc at least has the self-awareness to realise this on some level, as he has more or less admitted that his main motivation for removing me is to prevent other people leaving the project. That’s fine. It’s an internet forum, not a democracy, I honestly couldn’t care less. But posters here should be honest in recognising that the project is not really an open forum for different views. It is the consensus that emerges from a mostly like minded group of people who are ultimately unwilling to have their views challenged consistently.

If I had posted once per thread in the exact same way, nobody would have cared. Heck, the mods let one guy I won't name, who was barely able to form a coherent thought, participate. Why? Because he barely posted. But if someone persistently disagrees, they are booted because the people involved don’t like having their preconceptions challenged repeatedly. Disagreement is fine, provided you say it once or twice and move on. Ironically, the posters who disagree with me have usually been the ones refusing to let go of an argument and replying to me non-stop with walls of text. It may not seem that way, when you examine the post totals per thread, but you have to remember there are alot of different people disagreeing with me. Indeed, one of the things that has so infuriated some posters is me drawing a line under some arguments and saying 'yeh, look, we disagree. I'm not replying to this further'.

In effect, the posters who have questioned whether this is a double standard are on point. Something is 'disruptive', because it annoys the majority, but that approach inevitably favours the incumbent views of this board. Doc MJ and others have repeatedly talked about not wanting to lose the many 'great' and 'well respected' long time posters on this board. That assumes that their ways of thinking and posting are better. Other viewpoints may not care for statistical models, or lived experience watching the game, or long excerpts from books, but when you operate from the assumption that stuff is great your natural assumption is alternative perspectives like per 100 stats or award voting or the eye test or inferred impact based on circumstances is automatically less valid. That is not so.

There has been a reference to my posts being 'low calory', but I think most have been sensible enough to recognise that is not the case. Sure, sometimes I make a brief one to two line reply. Most everyone does. But I have also explained at length my views about advance stats, era differences, etc, and there are plenty of 'reasons' to back up my views. They're just not the views a clique who is invested in this board cares to hear.

I could of course recognise that people don’t agree with me, and write in a very deferential and insecure manner, but I don’t feel I should have to. People on the other side of the argument certainly don’t.

It's not like I was asked to post 3 times per thread, because then it would have looked like censorship. Instead I've been asked to leave because I was 'disruptive'. I certainly was, but to who is another matter.

You should posted this in the general top 100 discussion no one checks the OT thread lol

Leave shaqattack alone lol

[Doctor MJ]

As I've seen a number of posts discussing my removal from the project, I'll provide the reply I gave to Doc MJ mostly verbatim, but don't intend to comment on it further as I'll just get warned for daring to question the decision (even though a dozen other posters have been posting about it).

I am not shocked at all to be removed from the project, because I work on the assumption when I join an online forum that I will invariably be banned or blocked in some way, and I am not fussed. It’s a message board, and has nil impact on the rest of my life. I am not invested in the way the clique on the PC board are. I’m not here to make friends, I’m using this place as an outlet for intellectual discussion. That is why I generally don’t bother to reply to PMs, because it’s a waste of time. Forums like this are designed to protect the regulars happiness, and therefore the broad consensus they form (more on that below).

Doc described my comments as “negative”, but if you take a step back you will see that no particular thing I have written is more “negative” or “critical” than posts that most of the participants in the project make. The only reason they strike some that way is because of their priors, and so anything which is contrary to that is “provocative”. But if the exact same words were used to express a position that the majority of the project agreed with, they would not be regarded as such (and indeed the exact same words frequently are used).

I am glad Doc at least has the self-awareness to realise this on some level, as he has more or less admitted that his main motivation for removing me is to prevent other people leaving the project. That’s fine. It’s an internet forum, not a democracy, I honestly couldn’t care less. But posters here should be honest in recognising that the project is not really an open forum for different views. It is the consensus that emerges from a mostly like minded group of people who are ultimately unwilling to have their views challenged consistently.

If I had posted once per thread in the exact same way, nobody would have cared. Heck, the mods let one guy I won't name, who was barely able to form a coherent thought, participate. Why? Because he barely posted. But if someone persistently disagrees, they are booted because the people involved don’t like having their preconceptions challenged repeatedly. Disagreement is fine, provided you say it once or twice and move on. Ironically, the posters who disagree with me have usually been the ones refusing to let go of an argument and replying to me non-stop with walls of text. It may not seem that way, when you examine the post totals per thread, but you have to remember there are alot of different people disagreeing with me. Indeed, one of the things that has so infuriated some posters is me drawing a line under some arguments and saying 'yeh, look, we disagree. I'm not replying to this further'.

In effect, the posters who have questioned whether this is a double standard are on point. Something is 'disruptive', because it annoys the majority, but that approach inevitably favours the incumbent views of this board. Doc MJ and others have repeatedly talked about not wanting to lose the many 'great' and 'well respected' long time posters on this board. That assumes that their ways of thinking and posting are better. Other viewpoints may not care for statistical models, or lived experience watching the game, or long excerpts from books, but when you operate from the assumption that stuff is great your natural assumption is alternative perspectives like per 100 stats or award voting or the eye test or inferred impact based on circumstances is automatically less valid. That is not so.

There has been a reference to my posts being 'low calory', but I think most have been sensible enough to recognise that is not the case. Sure, sometimes I make a brief one to two line reply. Most everyone does. But I have also explained at length my views about advance stats, era differences, etc, and there are plenty of 'reasons' to back up my views. They're just not the views a clique who is invested in this board cares to hear.

I could of course recognise that people don’t agree with me, and write in a very deferential and insecure manner, but I don’t feel I should have to. People on the other side of the argument certainly don’t.

It's not like I was asked to post 3 times per thread, because then it would have looked like censorship. Instead I've been asked to leave because I was 'disruptive'. I certainly was, but to who is another matter.

You should posted this in the general top 100 discussion no one checks the OT thread lol

Leave shaqattack alone lol

Well, since I told him not to post in the project any further, he’s actually posting in precisely the right place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WestGOAT]

As I've seen a number of posts discussing my removal from the project, I'll provide the reply I gave to Doc MJ mostly verbatim, but don't intend to comment on it further as I'll just get warned for daring to question the decision (even though a dozen other posters have been posting about it).

I am not shocked at all to be removed from the project, because I work on the assumption when I join an online forum that I will invariably be banned or blocked in some way, and I am not fussed. It’s a message board, and has nil impact on the rest of my life. I am not invested in the way the clique on the PC board are. I’m not here to make friends, I’m using this place as an outlet for intellectual discussion. That is why I generally don’t bother to reply to PMs, because it’s a waste of time. Forums like this are designed to protect the regulars happiness, and therefore the broad consensus they form (more on that below).

Doc described my comments as “negative”, but if you take a step back you will see that no particular thing I have written is more “negative” or “critical” than posts that most of the participants in the project make. The only reason they strike some that way is because of their priors, and so anything which is contrary to that is “provocative”. But if the exact same words were used to express a position that the majority of the project agreed with, they would not be regarded as such (and indeed the exact same words frequently are used).

I am glad Doc at least has the self-awareness to realise this on some level, as he has more or less admitted that his main motivation for removing me is to prevent other people leaving the project. That’s fine. It’s an internet forum, not a democracy, I honestly couldn’t care less. But posters here should be honest in recognising that the project is not really an open forum for different views. It is the consensus that emerges from a mostly like minded group of people who are ultimately unwilling to have their views challenged consistently.

If I had posted once per thread in the exact same way, nobody would have cared. Heck, the mods let one guy I won't name, who was barely able to form a coherent thought, participate. Why? Because he barely posted. But if someone persistently disagrees, they are booted because the people involved don’t like having their preconceptions challenged repeatedly. Disagreement is fine, provided you say it once or twice and move on. Ironically, the posters who disagree with me have usually been the ones refusing to let go of an argument and replying to me non-stop with walls of text. It may not seem that way, when you examine the post totals per thread, but you have to remember there are alot of different people disagreeing with me. Indeed, one of the things that has so infuriated some posters is me drawing a line under some arguments and saying 'yeh, look, we disagree. I'm not replying to this further'.

In effect, the posters who have questioned whether this is a double standard are on point. Something is 'disruptive', because it annoys the majority, but that approach inevitably favours the incumbent views of this board. Doc MJ and others have repeatedly talked about not wanting to lose the many 'great' and 'well respected' long time posters on this board. That assumes that their ways of thinking and posting are better. Other viewpoints may not care for statistical models, or lived experience watching the game, or long excerpts from books, but when you operate from the assumption that stuff is great your natural assumption is alternative perspectives like per 100 stats or award voting or the eye test or inferred impact based on circumstances is automatically less valid. That is not so.

There has been a reference to my posts being 'low calory', but I think most have been sensible enough to recognise that is not the case. Sure, sometimes I make a brief one to two line reply. Most everyone does. But I have also explained at length my views about advance stats, era differences, etc, and there are plenty of 'reasons' to back up my views. They're just not the views a clique who is invested in this board cares to hear.

I could of course recognise that people don’t agree with me, and write in a very deferential and insecure manner, but I don’t feel I should have to. People on the other side of the argument certainly don’t.

It's not like I was asked to post 3 times per thread, because then it would have looked like censorship. Instead I've been asked to leave because I was 'disruptive'. I certainly was, but to who is another matter.

You should posted this in the general top 100 discussion no one checks the OT thread lol

Leave shaqattack alone lol

Exactly who I was thinking of

Didn't this poster make DutchFan something have a fit and leave the project? Very unfortunate as DutchFan contributied a lot to this board.

It's pretty obvious, at least to me, ShaqAttack is someone's gimmick account, but seems to get the benefit of the doubt and even gets to vote. And if I'm mistaken, sorry ShaqAttack!

Just my observation and I'll leave it at that as I don't want to get too involved with meta-commentary of a niche board.