[Warren Willson]

Tee,

I appreciate your candour and share many of your thoughts. I have offered my personal opinion on each of your points for consideration below. BTW, you used to be a brief gnostic, didn't you? (grin)

Originally posted by Tim C

1) There needs to be an ability to separate levels of play for discussion. Having Little League Umpires, FED umpires, college umpires, professional umpires posting to the same page is impossible.

I don't have a problem with them all being on the same board. That operates to broaden the perspective of all concerned. If a post is on a specific level of play, however, I agree it should be identified. On McGriff's, many years ago, we used to insist that the title of any level-specific question include that information e.g. [FED], [LL], [NCAA], [OBR], etc. We could voluntarily introduce that here, too.

Originally posted by Tim C

2) There needs to be an "even" tone of the board. There is nothing wrong with disagreement . . . some of what we talk is subjective. There needs to be a way that thought counter to the norm is respected even when not accepted.

I would certainly hope you see that as the case here at OfficialForum. I don't believe anyone posting on any subject has been seriously ridiculed for their position. I don't think even Pete Booth was offended when Papa C told him he'd "Screwed the pooch". The use of the term A2D (Agree to Disagree) should be encouraged when debate reaches a point that both sides of the argument are repeating themselves.

OTOH, there will be times when "thought counter to the norm" becomes almost subversive in its effect on the quality of officiating. We can't afford to be seen to be encouraging "official disobedience" (pun intended). We can respect alternative views only up to the point that they don't encourage new and impressionable officials to go their own way on the diamond. We can handle only so many gnostics in discussion, but condone none when that is translated to the field of play. I hope you can accept and respect that, Tee.

Originally posted by Tim C

3) There needs to be a wide range of documented experts that post at times. Since Jon Bible is a member of the establishment of URC I would not expect to see him participate @ McGriff or here. There still needs to be noted experts.

Ok, Tee, but we'd need to be pretty sure who we're talking about here. Carl posts at three of the four major boards and rso. I don't think anyone disputes his expert status. As you correctly note, Jon Bible is unlikely to post on any board other than URC. Equally, Jim Booth is unlikely to post on any board but eTeamz. Both would certainly be welcomed here, I'm sure. The choice is theirs. I'd love to see the likes of Dave Yeast, Gus Rodriguez, Tim Stevens, Steve Mattingly, Jim Evans, Cris Jones etc all posting here but I don't think that's going to happen either. That's THEIR choice, not ours.

Originally posted by Tim C

4) For what ever reason this board seems to run lean on the personal attacks seen on at least two other boards. This is good. But there needs to be thought counter to the accepted for a group to grow.

The reason this board runs lean is because the operators have chosen to moderate all posts for personal attacks. Two attempts have been made to slip through that net, and failed. I think the negative posters have the message, at least for the time being. Moderating a board such as this requires considerable effort, especially during the relevent season when posting is hot. I'm glad Brad and his partners have chosen to go this way. I only hope they won't find it too difficult when things get really busy. I like a board that it doesn't take ages for you to find the worthwhile discussions. I'm prepared to sacrifice a bit of off-topic debate for that end.

Thought "counter to the accepted" will surface over time, as the board becomes a more popular destination. We need the current crop of posters to encourage others to visit.

Originally posted by Tim C

5) Since I am considered a gnostic I can only ASK that people believe what I say . . . therefore I should not be considered an expert. But we need experts that are from divergent groups and backgrounds not all from one small contingent.

Tee, as a gnostic you are a constant backslider! (grin) A true gnostic would have said "I know so you have no choice but to believe what I say. I'm the ultimate expert, it's true!" Do you have any suggestions for the experts you want to see, or are they in my list above?

Originally posted by Tim C

6) Openness. We need to deliver an attitude that allows people to disagree and not have others attempt to intimidate them into submission. The funny thing is that at this precise moment some of you have decided that I am talking of Carl or the UT members . . . that is NOT who I am talking about. They are the ones that have, so far, given us the clear, researched and correct view of many issues.

Tee, I hope I'm right when I assume that what you are talking about are posting "clicques"? I've known each of the other boards (McGriff's, URC and eTeamz) to have their cadre of posters who tend to "gang up" on those outside the group, when they disagree with others inside that group. Even if you aren't specifically talking about UT here, there is still a possibility that UT or even UChatter could be seen as such a cadre. I have never been afraid to disagree with Carl, Garth, Bob, Rich or anyone else so I hope that type of group feeding frenzy will never darken these doors. BUT I am also probably perceived as an insider on this board, so in that regard I hope you'll keep us honest, eh? (grin)

Originally posted by Tim C

7) New topics. I have been on most of the pages for about two years and often mention that umpiring is not rocket science and there are only so many things to write/talk about . . . that is why my column on URC mainly kept to personal observations rather than being "How To" in nature.

While it is obvious that I need to learn all I can from all the rules books it does become dry when we reach a discussion about "Last Time By" for the 6th time . . .

I don't think you'll find any resistance to topics other than rules and mechanics here. OTOH, the operators have chosen to ensure the topics are of specific interest to baseball officials in particular. That still gives us a fairly broad band of opportunity for new topics, wouldn't you say? The only topic I can recall being closed by Brad was one that went too far OT on politics. That's fair enough. That's preventative umpiring by Brad. You don't want to get too far off track with politics or religion in case things turned heated. If you wanted to philosophise about umpiring, Tee, I don't think that tap would be turned off.

Originally posted by Tim C

This site can become an all-knowing, complete site . . . it would be nice to have a column that is more than rules, mechanics, and administration.

If you mean a "column" at eUmpire.com, Tee, I can assure you that we are trying to introduce issues that are less specifically rules, mechanics and game administration. My piece "Through the Looking Glass", and coming pieces called "Send in the Clowns" and "A New Year's Resolution" all have a flavour that is distinctly NOT about those three areas of officiating. And my editor has asked me to keep those sorts of articles coming. We too realise there is only so much you can discuss about the rules, mechanics and administration of one sport. We don't want to bore our readers any more than they want to be bored by us.

OTOH, if you mean a "column" in the vein of a "5th column" of posts to this discussion board, then you'd have to take your share of responsibility there along with every other poster. No-one dictates what new threads are started here. Anything reasonably on topic and non-personal will make the list. It's up to each and every poster to start their share of threads. The staff writers haven't been specifically precluded either, but I think most of us would rather NOT been seen to be dominating conversations here as well as spruiking our views unchallenged at eUmpire.com. After all, our readers who pay our way would quickly become bored with that, too.

This is a good topic, Pete Booth. Thanks to you for introducing it and to Tee for starting the ball rolling.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 7th, 2000 at 05:11 PM]