Godmoney's Fire Ainge Thread

grantlongforpresident · Post #1 » by **grantlongforpresident** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:20 am

Should not have been locked IMO. Locking a thread simply because someone has a minority opinion is probably not a good idea on a message board. If no one wants to discuss it, then the thread will die naturally.

Post #2 » by **ParticleMan** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:29 am

gotta agree. man, i was going to have some fun tearing down that post.

what drivel. but hey, it's a message board. it's all about opinions. even wrong ones :wink:

aj174 · Post #3 » by **aj174** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:29 am

ya i agree. i read the post too, seemed really well thought and had some good points, locking it without any discussion at all and also without explanation is a punk move if you ask me.

EDIT: seemed like he had some good points, im not really a celtics fan, but it looked well constructed at least it could have been argued. and i kind of do agree with some of the points.

Post #4 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:38 am

I assumed it was a lock because it was a calling for trolls. I saw it, laughed, and then went to the OT board and there was a thread there titled "Epic Fail: Celtics Board" something along those lines, and they pointed to that thread.

That is just my two cents though.

Zin5 · Post #5 » by **Zin5** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:09 am

Read some of it. It was just a long, elaborate trolling attempt. It might've been fine a couple years ago overall it was way too subjective to write something that long about and it was obvious he was just trying to incite flames when the team's fans are a bit reactionary right now with the slump. It's sad that he put that much effort into a locked topic, but it was still a deserved lock in my opinion. That topic would not have ended well and would've been locked in a few pages anyways. Why waste everyone else's time getting through those first few pages?

EDIT: Didn't see it was unlocked, skimmed it earlier. Didn't get a flame war, but for all that work, the only real conversation it's started is about how long the post is.

Joekickass2008 · Post #6 » by **Joekickass2008** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:18 am

censorship exist every where..........an open forum most of all.......i know mods exhist to keep things civil...but they cannot help but project own opinions on issues when it comes to what is OK and not OK.

I think threads should only be locked no rare occasions. Its not unlike the whole movie rating thingy......just dont read it if it aont your cupa of tea.

Fencer reregistered · Post #7 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:48 am

I'm surprised everybody seems to think the post was sincere. The scorekeeping system seemed so carefully constructed to support the conclusion that I thought it was an attempt at a BSG-style comedy post.

lojowo · Post #8 » by **lojowo** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:58 am

Though I dont agree with his grading system, he did do alot of research on that thread.

I'd keep it open just for the research. Theres alot of good information there, just graded poorly.

I read it and thought," I forgot Ainge made that deal."

I dont mind hearing both sides of an opinion, even if I dont agree with it.

the sea duck · Post #9 » by **the sea duck** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:35 pm

I didn't see anything lock-worthy, but it was a horrible post.

His rating standards were biased toward "poor performances". Only one rating was given credit as a good move, one mediocre and then three at varying degrees of awful. If you were to randomly assign the Ainge transactions, you were likely to end up with a bad ranking anyway. So, the fact that he subjectively described most of them as poor or weak moves is no surprise.