Posted below in a closed thread is Brad Batt's rules to not having a post deleted:

<b><i>Tips on how not to get your thread/post deleted:

1) Discuss umpiring
2) Discuss something marginally related to umpiring
3) Don't attack or "flame" other posters or officials
4) Don't post messages about how you were attacked on another thread
5) Don't start a thread asking why another post was deleted</i></b>

<I>I AM NOT ASKING WHY ANY POST (YET ALONE COMPLETE THREAD) HAS BEEN DELETED.

THIS THREAD IS RELEVANT TO BASEBALL AS IT DISCUSSES THE RULES BY WHICH WE SHARE OUR THOUGHTS.

It is no different than umps discussing rules while off the field.</I>

I agree with the above principles except the policy for which I have no control over when authoring a post. That policy is whether or not a post will "flame" another member of the board.

Certainly to attack someone personally, is an attack. That can be done directly, or as some may rightly understand in my saying this, through inuendo. To put an end to both level of personal attack is welcome and appropriate and certainly within the realm of the management of the forum.
To attack an idea is not inappropriate. If one disagrees with the idea or the content of a post and wishes to rebut it, then it not only should be allowed but it should be welcomed. That is what this forum is all about. The intensity of the rebuttal(s) will vary from person to person and subject to subject. This should be expected on behalf of management.

However, if one takes the time to author information and post it in a forum and it "flames" another, the author may have little control over that. Sometimes a person can be inflamed over mere opposition of the thought, and other times it is the manner of presentation that inflames someone. Furthermore, a manner that inflames one person, may not inflame another. <b>Point being, if the content is appropriate and relevant, the author should not be responsible for the inflammation.</b>

I must question while it is worthwhile for any umpire to post on any board when, without warning, an entire thread is deleted. Does this mean <b>all</b> posts did not meet the standards? Significant time and research may go into authoring a post to state exactly what you wish it to say. <b>All</b> should not suffer from the acts of a few. It certainly is wasted time for those who appropriately post to have their efforts deleted. I like to read the thoughts and opinions of all, as I like to think my thoughts and opinions may be considered by others. I hate to think that the management of any board would unjustly censor the thoughts of those abiding by its policies, as I can condone and support their taking action on those who do not abide by their policies. However, all should not suffer.

If and when the management feels the guidelines are not appropriately adhered to, can they not simply remove the affected words (such are "bleeped" in other media)? Why must the entire effort of the post be lost? Should we need to maintain copies of all posts? I certainly find that necessary at this point in time. (I, BTW, have had only one board ever delete or censor my posts). Will you provide copies the authors or their posts after you have deleted them? Perhaps if the posts are not becoming this board they can then be posted elsewhere. That could be positive advertising for eUmpire, if in fact, these are poor and unworthy posts. The trash can go elsewhere.

I agree with your right to set your own standards and maintain them, however, I question if in the past bias has not existed in the application of your standards. Therefore, I must also question if I expect it will continue. Certainly I would expect you to disagree and acknowledge that my opinion may differ from that of yours and others, but with many agreeing with both of us.

Again, I wish not to break your rules but rather to understand and discuss them. I WILL retain a copy of this and all posts put on eUmpire (and recommend others do so with their own) as I have no knowledge when it may be deleted. That way, it can always be posted elsewhere to allow others to judge whether you maintain your standards fairly.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 21st, 2001 at 03:15 PM]

Attention . . .
 

Steve your point is well taken.

I hate any type of censorship but the worst kind is for expediance.

Not all post flame the same people . . . all of us get our butts ignited at times . . . it is a sophomoric style but it is an accepted style.

When a person posts to this board with the attitude of "I am an authority" and ther is a weakness in the argument then questions should be asked of that poster.

This is the issue that normally leads to the increased flaming. We, the unwashed masses, are simply expected to accept as authority anyone who quotes J/R or JEA. This is wrong.

Steve has hit the nail on the head . . . censorship is sinister. We also have a responsibility to be above it all.

Why don't I have a good feeling about this thread?
 

Well, before its too late:

TC wrote: <B>This is the issue that normally leads to the increased flaming. We, the unwashed masses, are simply expected to accept as authority anyone who quotes J/R or JEA. This is wrong.</B>

I disagree.

Questions can be asked without flaming. Questions can be asked without insulting one's heritage or nationality. Questions can asked without questioning one's intelligence, purpose or parentage.

It is not the questions of baseball thought that cause problems, it is the adjectives and other mood setting devices that get in the way.

You don't have to take anybody as an authority. Ask away.

Just make sure you're open to an answer.

GB

Just for clarification - the word "flame" on the Internet means to attack someone else - not whether that person be become upset about what you said.

For instance, posting something to the effect of "You are completely wrong - that is not what the rule says at all." is perfectly permissible. Posting something like, "You are a complete idiot - how can you think that? I pity your co-umpires." or something along those lines is considered an attack or "flame".

The reason for deleting the entire thread is simple - we do not have the time or resources to edit individual posts. If there is a single post on a thread that is out of line, we will address it. However, if there are many posts and overall the thread is more attacks and back-and-forth diatribes, it will be deleted.

I hope that everyone on the board understands that we have other pursuits which take our time and prevent us from being able to monitor every single post.

It's simple - stick to baseball and umpiring and things will be fine. If someone posts a message that is inappropriate, it will be deleted. If a thread goes by the wayside it will be closed or deleted. If a user is on a continual rampage, his registration and ALL his posts will be deleted.

We have a committment to our advertisers and other officiating organizations with which we are associated to maintain a certain level of decorum on our websites. The forum guidelines are well-known and reasonable.

If anyone has any questions, please let me know via email at <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">Brad@RightSport s.com</A>

Thanks,
Brad

____________________
Bradley Batt
<A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">Brad@RightSport s.com</A>
Technical Director

I would like to clarify this sentence. Steve means to say he has had "only one OTHER board" ever delete or censor his posts. Both the Forum and eteamz OBR board have removed his posts. This is not an attack; I am simply setting the record straight.

Thanks PapaC . . .
 

I kind of thoought Steve meant "one board (with an understanding of PLUS this board) . . . now I know what was meant.

Thanks again.

Steve,

I don't expect this thread will last. If it does, I think you need to understand a couple of things about this board and its owners.

1. This is a moderated board, but the moderator apparently doesn't have the time to read every word of every post <i>before</i> it is posted. [The software allows for that but that feature is not enabled]

2. The moderator apparently doesn't have the time to read every word of every post even <i>after</i> they have been posted.

3. Censorship of inappropriate content at the "word" level becomes practically impossible after a certain number of usages of the offending words in a post. The post has to go instead.

4. Censorship of inappropriate content at the "post" level becomes practically impossible after a certain number of posts of offending material. The thread has to go instead.

5. The only reasonable arbiter of inappropriate content is the impartial arbiter. That is why the owners moderate the board, and not the editors or the staff. To suggest bias here is not being fair, Bfair. I have had MY posts censored too. Unfortunately I can no longer prove that because the threads themselves had to be lopped. I can understand why, even though it meant I lost the "work" of my own posts (I don't keep copies of all posts either).

6. Attacking the messenger will ALWAYS draw a reaction. Whether you attack the person, their "style" or their "attitude" as you perceive it from their posts. I called Moose's ideas "idiotic", which should be okay according to your ethics, yet you and the rest of EWS started flaming me for allegedly attacking Moose! Someone even complained to the moderator that I was attacking his customers. Using your logic and ethics, why should I have been held responsible for what another poster perceives?

7. The sole expressed purpose of this board is to discuss baseball officiating and baseball issues that relate to officiating. Even discussing the Forum guidelines is NOT an appropriate topic on this board. That is presumably why the moderator closed his thread reiterating those guidelines. They are NOT a topic for discussion.

Steve, I personally want this board to be a flame-free zone. If it is flames you want, McGriff's is still alive and literally "kicking". Flames and flamers have caused me to give up on 2 other boards. I don't want to see this one become a free-for-all. The rules have been there from the start. Most of the flamers have not. I applaud the owners for using whatever means are necessary to keep this board clean.

Cheers,

Re: Attention . . .
 

That's the point, Tee. It is NOT "accepted style" here, and never has been. The Forum has ALWAYS had a no flames policy.

Of course "questions should be asked". That's the whole point of a DISCUSSION board. The asking and answering of questions is, together with the free expression of related ideas and opinions, what constitutes a DISCUSSION.

No-one expects you to "accept as authority anyone who quotes J/R or JEA." We DO expect you to accept as authoritative opinion J/R and JEA themselves. That's not quite the same thing, is it?

No, Tee, I disagree. Censorship is not sinister of and by itself, but censorship of only opposing ideas IS sinister. We live with censorship on a daily basis. Heck, you can't even watch an episode of Jerry Springer without censorship rearing its ugly head. Some censorship is essential, however. I don't want my kids hearing what some of Springer's guests spew out. I don't want them offended by what some of Springer's guests do with their person. And I don't want to post my ideas in this forum only to be flamed for having them. That is all legitimate censorship, IMHO.

I am heartened, however, that you agree that ALL posters have a responsibility to be above inappropriate behaviour in their posting. If your fellow posters agree and behave accordingly, then we will truly have a "level playing field" in this discussion forum. For too long, IMHO, only the staff writers have been expected to behave with a level of decorum, while everyone else has had almost a free reign. The fact that I rejected that, and started returning flame for flame, is the only reason I believe we are having this discussion.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 21st, 2001 at 05:08 PM]

Just for FURTHER clarification -

Saying "Joe, you are an idiot" is obviously a flame.

Saying "Joe, all your ideas are idiotic" is equally a flame.

Saying "Joe, that's an idiotic idea" is, IMHO, <b><i>not</b></i> a flame.

What is absent in the third example is any sort of personal pronoun. As soon as someone says "you" or "your", whatever follows MUST be personal. That is why I immediately eject participants from the diamond who start their objections with that personal pronoun; because anything that follows <i>must</i> be "personal". "That call sucked" is only an opinion, but "Your call sucked" is a personal criticism.

Cheers,

Warren . . .
 

I don't want to spar with anyone.

It is my OPINION that censorship of ANY kind is sinister.

As trite as it may seem I will fight any battle to insure that anyone can say ANYTHING.

I would support a skin-heads right to speak of digusting forms of racial hatred, or homo-phobic rap music since it will allow others to speak of important and supportive ideals.

As I am sure as many other times, we can agree to disagree.

And now back to the game of baseball.

Re: Tim . . .
 

Point taken. You are entitled to your opinion. A2D without any problems. I don't expect to debate politics or religion here either. Baseball it is.

Cheers,

Re: Warren . . .
 

Tee: It's a noble sentiment, well said, and one you do not hold. <b>No one believe all censorship is sinister.</b> Free speech has always had limitations -- and rightly so.

We can't have people going around claiming they want to assassinate the president. Screaming "Fire" at a crowded rock concert is not protected. Publishing that someone is a pederast (without proof) is libel. Disclosing confidential information about a company's patents should be subject to censorship.

Finally, you and I both <b>know</b> that when Brad culls words or posts or threads, <b>that is not censorship</b>. Censorship, of the kind you oppose, is prior restraint by the government of ideas the government (typically) doesn't approve of. I join you 100% in distaste for that activity. Like all journalists, you and I oppose such nonsense because it strikes at the very heart of our business.

But Right Sports </b>owns</b> the forum. If the CEO does not want any post to appear that contains the word "referee," that is his perogative and he may delete it as he chooses. He is not engaged in censorship. It's his car; he can choose the brand of gasoline that suits him.

Censorship and Content
 

I am very much a proponent of free speech and I empathize with those umpires who feel their posts were unjustly exorcized from this site. I think to even begin to reach the potential of the Internet some decorum and civility has to be injected into the process even if that unfortunately means a post is deleted because it demeans another umpire. If that was your partner who was being blasted by a coach the way some of us label each other I think you'ld run his ass in a heartbeat. I know I would, and I average about an ejection a year. If we don't tolerate it from a coach why in heaven's name do we do it to each other?

I began my Internet journey toward better umpiring in early 1997. At the time I discovered McGriff's to be a challenging place to visit. As people became more comfortable there was playful needling that went on and even a thread or two that was involved in movie reviews, politics etc. At the time I posted that we should be more focused and one or two people said I should get a life.

I was quite shocked to visit after a quiet winter to find how bad the attacks had become in early 2000. Maybe we got too comfortable with the new medium. In many forums Carl and Warren are subjects of frequent criticism. Personally, I find most of what they initially write to be thought provoking. I am amazed how easily someone can get their goat ( or is it goats?) by calling them Emperor of in some other way challenging their "credentials". Someone posted recently that we don't really know how good an umpire is by the way he or she posts. I agree with that. Some may have thought long and hard about what they are going to write. We don't have the benefit of hindsight when it comes to mechanics and timing.

I know Carl no longer officiates on the field and the quality of ball in Australia has been questioned by some. I don't care whether Carl is retired in Edinburg or if Warren umpired something akin to Division I college. I can't judge them by watching them so all I have is their posts. They can be pretty brutal at times in some of their "rebuttal" posts but their advice and rules knowledge are outstanding. So how come more people are just members in name only? Maybe Carl and Warren (and others) should look how they "react" to challenges and work on being kinder and gentler i.e. not treat us as coaches.

Might I suggest an e-mail survey to all "members" to find out how often they visit with an effort to encourage them to participate. I am afraid that if we eliminate negative attacks we might be down to 2-3 posts per day. I would also ask if it is possible that a poster who has his post deleted have that returned to them via e-mail. Afterall they are the authors of posts which sometimes do have baseball content mixed into the "attacks".

I would also ask RightSports to communicate with us about the overall content and stagnancy of some of the content. I took the chance of becoming a member figuring I spend a couple hundred dollars every year on equipment, videos, and books. I realize some attention has been turned toward legal challenges but I would like to see more substantive interviews and more submissions from the various staff. Jim Simms/NY

A pronoun may be absent but there ARE those that would disagree with you about example number three as they perceive that they may be "guilty by association" or possibly insinuation. This may not be a flame in your view but it might NOT be very nice in another person's view. Would it not be better to abstain completely from such potentially perceived innuendo?

Look, ump, I understand the point you are making; I really do. OTOH, if we intend to moderate these discussions down to the lowest common denominator, the person for whom almost everything is a personal affront, then there simply won't BE any discussions going on at all. I am well able to ADMIT, even in a public forum such as this, that some of my ideas have at times been justifiably called "idiotic", at least from that poster's perspective. I take no personal offense at that suggestion, provided the poster also states their reasons for that opinion. I don't see why anyone else should either.

If someone simply says "That's an idiotic idea" and then offers no attempt at justification, I can agree with your analysis. That isn't a point for discussion - it's intended instead as a true "discussion ender". However, if that same poster were to add.."because, IMO, this is true and not that" NOW we have a reasonable basis for further discussion, and no sign of either a personal attack or a discussion-ending pronouncement, whether directly or by "association", "insinuation" or implication. I would hope that I always adopt the latter approach rather than the former.

It is also relevant how often you use a given descriptive adjective in relation to a particular poster's ideas or posts. If every time our poster Joe said something I came back with "Joe, that's another idiotic idea because of this or that", I could be accused of unfairly judging the bulk of Joe's posts. No-one is wrong ALL the time (not even ME)! :) I don't know HOW we can exclude that without pouring over every post and every sentence in every post. The moderator has already indicated that is not possible. No matter what you or I agree on as right and proper, someone else will always find something outside those parameters that is either offensive or unnecessarily restrictive. The best defense is to let the impartial arbiter, the board moderator, decide whether the repeat offender is conducting some kind of negative campaign or not, and so deal with it in his own way.

Can you see my point here, ump?

Cheers,

CW correct,
 

Your examples are well taken and I have never, ever said that an owner of a site does not have the right to do any damn thing they want.

We are in a time in modern journalistic history where rights will be tested.

While I wouldn't ever defend the cry of fire in a crowded theater I do hate the concept of book burners, record labeler's (i.e. Tipper) and such.

I still have a huge issue of the protection of free speech of all types not just that controled by a government of any type.

Nice answer Carl.

Re: Censorship and Content
 

Jim, I understand what you're saying here and perhaps I do come back a bit tougher than necessary at times. I think that comes from being perceived by others as some sort of "tall poppy" that needs to be cut down to make the whole "field" look "even". The field simply isn't "even", despite some poster's refusal to accept that. I know that, perhaps because of the idiom in which I write, some people perceive certain of my posts as "condescending" too. I can't help that. The fact is the higher in the "pecking order" you are perceived to be, the more often you get "pecked" and, conversely, the less likely you are to accept a good "pecking" as nothing more than friendly banter. I'm sure there are times that Carl, like me, is just plain "pecked" out! (grin)

I am certainly prepared to treat individuals as honest enquirers, unless and until they prove themselves to be otherwise. No-one laments that fellow officials can treat each other so badly more than I. I have already given up access to my favourite site because of such treatment. I have certainly NEVER treated the posters here as "coaches", and the fact is that I actually treat most coaches a whole lot better than that suggestion would imply.

I think negative "attacks" can be "eliminated" without harming the posting ratio. I don't think negative opinions should be eliminated, however. That certainly WOULD damage the posting ratio. Oppositive viewpoints are what <i>makes</i> a discussion board just that, instead of a mutual admiration society bulletin board.

I don't believe the board owners should be responsible for returning deleted posts. That's an unreasonable imposition. If we all KNOW our posts are subject to deletion in any thread, we should be capable of keeping for ourselves copies of those we'd rather not lose for whatever reason.

I hope either Brad (for the owners) or Carl (as Editor) will respond to this. For my part, I have written approximately 19-20 articles for eUmpire since I became a contributor in mid-September last year. That's an average of 3-4 articles per month, EVERY month. I'm currently unemployed, having been retrenched in November, and I <i>still</i> have difficulty coming up with the requisite minimum of 3 articles per month. There is only so much you can say about obstruction, interference and batting out of order! I for one would be grateful if the eUmpire.com membership were to advise US of subjects they'd like to see covered. That would be an enormous help. All of us have our email addresses posted on the site somewhere. Mine is <a href="mailto:[email protected]">Warren [email protected]</a>.

Don't talk to me about interviews, though. I've had several lined up since before the 2000 Sydney Olympics, only to have them fail to materialise for whatever reason. Nobody is more frustrated by that than me! (grin) Bottom line though, Jim, is that I think the membership of eUmpire.com is already getting everything they were promised and more. If you disagree, please help us to do it better for you.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 21st, 2001 at 08:34 PM]

Re: Censorship and Content
 

Jim,

There are some <font size=+2><b>BIG</b></font> interviews planned in the near future. You won't be disappointed.

If there is anything you would like to see covered, please feel free to e-mail me or anyone on the staff. We are always pleased to get feedback from our readers. E-mail suggestions, comments, complaints, or just to say, "Hi!" to:

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">JimPorter@ RightSports.com</a>

Every effort will be made to make your eUmpire.com experience the best it can be. But we certainly can't give you what you want if we don't know what that is. Right? Right! So e-mail me and let me know.

Moving to America?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

[i] I have certainly NEVER treated the posters here as "coaches", and the fact is that I actually treat most coaches a whole lot better than that suggestion would imply... I'm currently unemployed, having been retrenched in November, and I <i>still</i> have difficulty coming up with the requisite minimum of 3 articles per month. There is only so much you can say about obstruction, interference and batting out of order! I for one would be grateful if the eUmpire.com membership were to advise US of subjects they'd like to see covered. That would be an enormous help. All of us have our email addresses posted on the site somewhere. Mine is <a href="mailto:[email protected]">Warren [email protected]</a>. Don't talk to me about interviews, though. I've had several lined up since before the 2000 Sydney Olympics, only to have them fail to materialise for whatever reason. Nobody is more frustrated by that than me! (grin)... Cheers, [Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 21st, 2001 at 08:34 PM]

Warren,

Apologies for suggesting you would treat your fellow umpires "like coaches". It is probably true that many of us are much more pleasant in person than our posts might indicate. I think this is what gave rise to the suggestion that these discussions move to a great Cyber Ale House! I am sorry to hear that you are unemployed outside of your officating duties.

With all your friends that you have made does this mean you may be Coming To America? I guess it's hard networking when so many of your Big Blue Network is over here starting ball in warmer climes and getting gear ready in those places still infected by winter. I also assume those "interviews" were not job related.

Retrenching is happening a great deal over here especially with the dotcoms. But whether you call it "retrenching" "downsizing" or addressing "redundancy" it results in real people out of work and that can be a difficult hurdle to overcome. I was downsized from commercial banking seven years ago and it took a lot longer to "heal" than it did to move into a new field.

Unfortunately one of the victims of the "cleaning up" of the Forum I lost the tips on SNIPing, highlighting, use of color, and Quotes. I know you can resurrect these for me and I would appreciate it. Jim Simms/NY

Re: Moving to America?
 

Jim,

Try this link:

VB Codes

It should take you to a section about vbcodes from this forum's FAQ. Basically, vbcodes act like HTML codes and allow you to add:

• a list of bulleted items (like this one)
• boldface type
• italics
• underline
• or, any combination of those

You type tags, which are created in brackets, and surround the text you wish to apply the text decoration to.

It's much easier to understand once you see an example. In addition, when you reply to a post, the raw vb code (or HTML code if a poster uses that instead) can be seen. So when you reply, you can see the quote tags, and the bold tags, etc.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask away.

Oops, two more things...

Only when you click, "Quote," when replying to a particular post will you see that poster's raw vbcode or HTML code.

If you want to snip a portion of what's quoted, simply select what you want to snip by left clicking, holding, and dragging to highlight the text to eliminate, and let go. The text you want to eliminate will remain highlighted. Then, just hit "delete" on your keyboard and it's gone.

Be careful not to delete the "Quote" tags. And be sure to delete superfluous tags.

I hope that helps.

More Prestige
 

I thank Jim Porter for furnishing Helpful vcode Hints. Armed with such helpful hints my posts should suddenly become more dramatic . Thanks again for picking this up from my follow-up to Warren. Jim/NY

Re: More Prestige
 

Sincerely <b>my</b> pleasure, Jim.

When you get the knack of vbcodes, you can check out <a href="http://www.irt.org/">irt.org's HTML tutorial</a> It's not any more complicated than vbcode, and you can eventually merge the two on this forum so that you expedite your typing time. Just make sure you do not use both vbcode and HTML to do the same function.

Besides, HTML is fun because that's when you can make <font color="red">P</font><font color="blue">R</font><font color="green">E</font><font color="orange">T</font><font color="purple">T</font><font color="green">Y</font> <font color="red">C</font><font color="yellow">O</font><font color="green">L</font><font color="orange">O</font><font color="blue">R</font><font color="purple">S</font><font color="red">!</font>

Ruminant Rumbling
 

I do not consider ADMIN keeping a TOPIC board on topic censorship at all. I have no problem, in fact I PREFER it. It takes too much time weeding through the B.S., I'd prefer that all notes were about the topic.. Baseball Umpiring (good and bad).

But what is this @#% about Mr. Peter Osborne having his persona and ID deleted?? This is what I understand.. if not true, I'm sorry.

If Pete (who is an umpire with intelligence and writing skill) is not welcome here, then NO EWS member participate.

Then, who is going to point out what the Emperor is wearing??

Mike Branch
Member, Founder
EWS

As the camel's nose protrudes into the tent...
 

Mike:

1. This is where the trouble may begin. It is fine to disagree with anyone's opinion, even "authoritative" opinion. It is great to point out differences. It has been made clear, however, by the management of the Forum, that name calling, labeling and bringing personalities and personal issues into the mix will not be tolerated.

2. EWS use of "the Emperor" and whatever "he" wears is thinly disguised and known to management as a slur or personal comment on a poster. As such, it is not welcome here. The formation of and namming of EWS itself were, apparently, done for no other reason than to antagonize a poster. That may or may not be within the forum guidelines, but it does seem a little silly and "youthful" for mature umpires.

3. It is my understanding that Mr. Osborne has allegedly been the author a large number of posts that were deemed either offensive or beyond the bounds of Forum policy and that he ignored warnings to cease such posts. As Brad stipulated yesterday, in certain cases the deletion of registration will follow the deletion of posts and threads.

4. If certain posters chose not to participate here, it would be unfortunate. It has become apparent that there will be a level of discourse found here that is not often or readily found elsewhere on the internet.


GB

Re: Warren . . .
 

I totally agree. People can say whatever they want...

Just not here.

:)

Jim,

I simply want to point out two things:

1) This is not "my" board. I am, however, the Technical Director of RightSports and as part of my job I have to respond to complaints regarding posts on this forum.

2) EVERYONE is welcome on this board as long as they participate following the guidelines.

I hope that you understand that if ANY person has a habit of posting personal attacks and flames the board becomes unmanagable. The only option is to delete that poster.

If someone that has been deleted believes that he can return under the forum guidelines, they are welcome.

Please understand that this is a professional business - not a hobby. As such, we must take into consideration our approach to ensure that our professional image is maintained.

Thanks,
Brad

___________________
Bradley Batt
<A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">Brad@RightSport s.com</A>
Technical Director

Jim Mills wrote:
<B>"Even if you vehemently disagree with Peter's, or anyone else's, positions, you can't expose the weaknesses of them if they are suppressed.</B>

Jim, I don't know if exposing "the weaknesses" of Peter's positions is anyone's goal. And they certainly haven't been suppressed. You may find them at McGriff's and Eteamz, two boards to which posters have an equal access.

Mr. Osborne has stated numerous times that he enjoys "stirring things up" more than posting factual information. He has also stated how much he likes to "yank the chains" of other posters.

was welcomed on this board and one might welcome him in your home. The rules and expectations of behavior were explained. He repeatedly violated those despite warnings. I don't know about you, but if someone can't behave in my home, I ask him to leave.

Management has posted its policy and Brad has stipulated the consequences of violation. That leaves us all with the choice of following the policy or experiencning the consequences.

Peter has chosen the latter.

This board has put a priority on civility. Again, there are other boards that have not. I understand that Peter posts on at least one of them.

I believe that discussion on this board will rise to a higher level of both accuracy and disagreement without rancor than it would have with. I believe people will be more willing to continue to put forth a position and come back more often to support and enhance it knowing that they will not be the subject of personal attacks for having done so.

I know that it has been tried the other way, and I find the results lacking.

This approach hasn't been tried by any board long enough to see what can happen. I hope Brad continues to allow us to find out.

Re: As the camel's nose protrudes into the tent...
 

Ah, Man!! But it is just so DAMN FUNNY!! But... I will understand that "some" may consider the word "emperor" to be offensive... hold on, I am laughing too hard.... ok, I'm back.

OK... even though a person who I have shunned has called me specifically on this forum recently
IDIOT and
BRAINLESS (although, as I have said, I like that!)

I hereby pledge to not type the word EMPEROR again on Eumpire. Perhaps a certain someone may want to take note of the words above and purge them from his list.(However, my associates continue to espouse the principles of our organization, righting wrongs, seeking truth, exposing injustice, lowering taxes, etc).

Mike Branch
Member, Founder
EWS

B.J.M. writes: <B>Ah, Man!! But it is just so DAMN FUNNY!!</B>

Labelling others isn't about humor. It's about power. It is saying: "I'm strong enough to re-name you."

It's about creating a convenient way to demonstrate one's hatred towards another. It is saying: "All the evil I feel for you can be wrapped up in this one word."

It is about ignorance. It is saying: "Stay away from us, we don't understand you."

We aren't talking endearing nicknames here. This isn't the same as petnames husbands,wives,lovers may have for one another.

This is the beginning of something ugly.

(Forgive me Brad)

This is in the class of Admin Edit - (Insert nasty epithet here).....

The words coined by a certain group of people on the internet: emperor, buttsnuffler, peterkisser....are just as mean and ugly. No one can honestly say they are meant to be humorous to those who are targeted.

Klan members find "coon" humorous. Black people do not. Skin heads find "kike" humorous. Jewish people do not.

GB

[Edited by Admin on Feb 22nd, 2001 at 04:53 PM]

Re: As the camel's nose protrudes into the tent...
 

I believe, Mr Branch, that it is me that you have characterised as "<i>a person who I have shunned</i>". If it is, I don't believe that you can produce any quote by me, from this or any other forum, in which I have "specifically" called you either an IDIOT or BRAINLESS. Now please be careful, though. That doesn't mean I would deny calling your ideas IDIOTIC from time to time, and telling you why. I don't see anything wrong with that. Doubtless even Einstein had the odd idiotic idea; I <i>know</i> I have. Criticism of ideas is how those ideas are challenged and refined or rejected; even the idiotic ones. I don't <i>ever</i> recall using the word BRAINLESS in connection with either you or your ideas, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I certainly do remember suggesting that Rocky was the more intelligent partner in the duo of Rocky and Bulwinkle, and when paired Bulwinkle should always let Rocky call the shots for that reason. (grin)

In short, Mr Branch, I believe you may have inferred that which I did NOT imply. In any event, surely you are prepared to admit that if both the pot and the kettle can give up shouting "You're BLACK" then things are bound to improve in this forum?

{<i>Kiss, kiss</i>}... can we make up now? (grin)

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 22nd, 2001 at 04:13 PM]

Re: Ruminant Rumbling
 

Mr Osborne, aka His High Holiness, aka His Holiness has had numerous posts rejected for inappropriate content. In that regard he was the proverbial "three time loser". His most recent effort was not only to have his post rejected by the ADMIN, but also to come back and MODIFY the ADMIN's message in his original post cautioning about adherance to the forum guidelines, adding a message of his own that was critical of the ADMIN, the owner's and implied bias. An all around unhappy camper. In that respect he basically ASKED for his own removal in much the same way that most coaches ASK to be ejected from the diamond. As Mr Batt said, that doesn't mean he can't come back any time he believes he can adhere to the forum guidelines. He just can't come back as HH or even HHH. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't think so, given the negative connotations that "persona" carried over from other boards.

As to whether the so-called "EWS members" are willing to participate in his absence... for mine that's <i>no mas</i> either way.

Cheers,

Oh, indeed...
 

Even harder still if they really didn't exist in those removed threads, or any others, the first place, eh HT? (grin)

I'll take your word for that. My impression was that the moderator might also choose to exclude the "persona" of a repeat offender. I thought that's why Peter was forced to return last time as "His High Holiness", because the "His Holiness" persona had been excluded when he was removed. I don't know if that action has been taken on this occasion. If it hasn't then the sanctions against HHH are even less severe this time around, isn't that so? Even if that action HAS been taken, what's so wrong with him re-registering simply as Peter Osborne? Everyone knows that's who he is anyway, and his own name can have no negative connotations the way that HHH undoubtedly did.

One might be tempted to think, from our previous heated exchanges, that I believe Peter should be excluded from the Forum. Not so. In fact, when I was offered the opportunity to have him excluded at eTeamz, for negative posts directed specifically toward me, I quite deliberately declined. That is NOT the way I operate, especially not with regard to a fellow official no matter what I may think of him personally. It is my understanding that Peter has NOT been excluded at all; only de-registered.

One might also be tempted to think that I believe ALL of Peter's posts are worthless. Not so, even if I might have suggested that they were after some provocation and in the heat of the moment. To claim that ALL of Peter's posts have no intrinsic value is to unreasonably ignore much of his experience and perspective. As angry as his posts make me some times, I could not remain a reasonable person if I failed to acknowledge that occasionally they have real value for some officials.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 22nd, 2001 at 08:49 PM]

Re: Funnier yet...
 

Gee, HT, I'd get that checked out if I were you. I've heard of people remembering all sorts of funny things, including past lives as Cleopatra or Nero. I think that can be a sign of health problems.

Then, sir, why did YOU mention him in the first place? First suspect remembrances and then a loss of short term memory? Can't be a good sign, HT. I wouldn't waste any time in seeing your local practitioner for an educated opinion.

Cheers,

Reading, tirely, through all the posts, I have one thing to add. WE NEED BASEBALL SEASON TO START!!!

It sounds like a lot of cabin fever is going on. Let's get the games on. Leave the 5th Ammendment to the lawyers. Let's talk baseball!!!!!!!!

Max

No no no! It's about the truth, only!
 

NO no no.. I am not letting this go, it portrays the wrong message and it misconstrues my purpose and intention.

Let's be clear. Nobody hates anyone. .well at least that applies to me.

Buttsnuffler was coined elsewhere and long ago. I know what it was meant for.. and agree it could be deemed offensive.

But the E***p**r? Means royalty, right? So far, I can't see the offense.

The REASON it ever came up is that SOME OF US (and all EWS members) were tired of YELLING at our computers after "certain persons" insisted on repeating OVER AND OVER AND OVER the same platitudes that were just plain WRONG.
Someone has to take "certain persons" to task who announce themselves as Umpire Royalty, self described experts, and then announce as FACTS things that simply are not true.

It is an accurate application of the Grimm Fairy Tale. It is simply exposure of falsehoods, removing the wool from the eyes, and whatever other metaphor you would like.

AS a gift to all, I present the following link... ENJOY

http://www.interest.de/~krausst/grim...w.clothes.html

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

ah.. I did not TYPE the above, I pasted it.. so I am still in compliance with my NO E*** pledge.

I cannot understand the elimination of the past posts of Peter Osborne. Certainly there are those who may find little worth in those deleted posts---that is their choice. However, there are many, some, or perhaps only a few who may find some of the content worthwhile---that is their choice also.

Or at least it <b>was</b> their choice at one point in time, however, it seems it no longer is their choice if they wish to review. Obviously those posts met the standards of the forum at one time or they would not have been allowed to remain at that time. Therefore, there is no reason to delete them now. In fact, I personally found many of Peter's postings no different than the posting that prompted Peter to write. Many were similar in technique of inuendo and wit. There obviously remains no way to compare the two, and it therefore is difficult to compare the "one" that remains.

An editor at eUmpire is fond of recalling Orwelle's "Animal Farm" and making analogies. It seems appropriate when he makes analogies, and inappropriate when others do. As I recall when I read the book, after defeating the farmer in their revolution, the animals decided to burn all that reminded them of the "ill ways" of the humans so they may forever forget them. They then made rules to follow so as not to change and become like their much hated humans. Over time, however, certain leaders began to change the rules to best meet their own needs, and in fact took on the traits of those "ill mannered" humans. That made things very allowable for them and certainly justified what they did to the other, less knowing animals. It seemed the animals who ultimately ended up running the show got rid of anything and everything that opposed them---even killing other animals (which was against their rules---at least before they changed the rules). The leaders continued to change the rules and enforce the rules to meet their specific needs, ideals, and viewpoints. They also eliminated the animals who opposed them or highlighted their methods to the other animals.

It is an excellent book though simplistic. I suspect both your editor and I can agree upon that. Those who may not have read it already, should read it. I hope I will remain as privileged as others in recanting the author and the story---it speaks well of certain issues in life.

Peter, I for one will miss your knowledge and wit. I will also miss the information you have provided in the past. It seems I can no longer find it<b>...........</b>

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

Re: No no no! It's about the truth, only!
 

Moose,

I accept your contention that you did not intend to offend anyone by your adoption of this label. I accept your contention that you do not "hate" anyone either. I share that sentiment.

Nevertheless, one might equally accuse YOU of being the E*p***r, and unable to see for fear of being labelled stupid or incompetent, IF you too are unable to see that suggesting someone is deluded, even self-deluded, enough to be unable to admit error IS offensive labelling! Let's phrase that claim another way, Moose...."<i>Mr E you are WRONG, but you are too deluded, proud, stupid or incompetent to admit you are WRONG!</i>" Isn't that what the Grimm Brothers fairytale is really saying about their E*p***r?

Look at this another way, Moose. You say you (collectively) came up with this label because you (collectively) became tired of screaming "<i>You're WRONG!</i>" at your computer screens every time you read the posts of certain people. True? In other words, you became frustrated that certain people persistently claimed as FACT issues which were NOT FACT <u>in your eyes</u>, isn't that so? So tell me, Moose, what makes you think that YOU are RIGHT <i><b>in fact</b></i> and THEY are WRONG <b><i>in fact</b></i>? If I say "<i>what is 1 + 1</i>" and you say 2 and someone else says 0, who is RIGHT then? Isn't RIGHT and WRONG relative in this case? If you weren't told from the start that those two tailors in the Grimm Brother's fairy tale were con-men and charletons, how would you <i>really</i> KNOW the E*p***r was naked?

What I am suggesting here is that, according to YOUR reading of a rule or an interpretation, you may be RIGHT in your own eyes (and perhaps those of a few others too), but totally WRONG in FACT, as well as in the eyes of the majority or even in the eyes of a minority IF they are the true experts. TRUTH as you perceive it, Moose, is not necessarily TRUTH in FACT.

If Carl Childress or Jon Bible BOTH say to me "<i>That is the RIGHT way to apply this rule in NCAA baseball</i>", shouldn't I say "<i>That's good enough for me</i>"? After all, I've never called NCAA baseball, much less the amount or the level of NCAA baseball that these gentlemen have between them. Heck, I have never even <i>seen</i> let alone read the NCAA rule book. Shouldn't I defer to them in those circumstances? Don't they have MORE chance of being RIGHT than I do in such matters? What's more, if they also add, "<i>and the PBUC says this and JEA or J/R says that and they agree here too</i>", doesn't that only strengthen their case beyond anything I can possibly PROVE to the contrary? So later on, say after calling only 3 years of NCAA D3 ball, if I now become <i>absolutely convinced</i> in my own mind that they're WRONG, does that now make ME RIGHT and THEM WRONG <i><b>in fact</b></i>? I don't think so, Moose.

I don't remember anyone here or elsewhere declaring themselves anything LIKE "Umpire royalty" or "experts". Because you <i>perceive</i> it to be so doesn't <i>make</i> it so, Moose. Perception only becomes Reality if it gains popular currency. Having only 2 or 3 agree, out of perhaps 10 times that number or more, does not constitute "popular currency" any more than it makes the 2 or 3 RIGHT and anyone else WRONG.

So, if I look at an issue and say "<i>This is the RIGHT answer</i>" and Carl Childress, JEA, J/R and the OBR all say I'm RIGHT, but Moose, Steve, and Peter of EWS all say I'm WRONG, who has the better chance of REALLY being RIGHT <i><b>in fact</b></i>?

Cheers,


[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 12:04 AM]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Peter Osborne is not <b>an</b> editor at eUmpire. He's not even <b>the</b> editor. I am the sole editor, and the references to Orwell on this Board came primarily from Osborne, not from me. I do agree with your analysis of those comments; however, I doubt you still believe them appropriate now that you know you applied them to the "wrong" person.

Since Peter's posts have been deleted, a search for "Orwell" turned up only four hits: two by you, claiming incorrectly that I reference Orwell; and two by MB.

It will come as a great surprise to most of the major critics of literature that <i>Animal Farm</i> is simplistic. Foreboding? yes; pessimistic? yes; right-wing? yes; terrifying, even? yes. Simplistic? never.

As J.R. Hammond wrote:<ul>[<i>Animal Farm</i> is]one of those parables which embody permanent truths: a myth that will long outlast the particular historical events which form its background. Now that it is possible to view the work in context, freed of the emotional circumstances surrounding its publication, we can recognize it for what it is: a dystopia [an antiutopia, an imaginary picture of the worst possible world], a satirical commentary upon human societies which vividly recalls Swift’s... (<i>A George Orwell Companion</i>, 1982)</ul>

Carl, I can only state that the first references I saw on the boards (not necessarily this board---as you tried to put words into "someone" else's mouth again) were, indeed, by none other than you. Might I be able to prove that at this time? Possibly, but possibly not. You see, I don't have the power to delete and retain those posts which I desire. It appears you may have access to them however. Remember, this thread was about censorship. Therefore, on this issue I can only state that which I feel occurred.

And despite your quoted review by J.R. Hammond, (in which he did not comment on the depth of the thought required to undeerstand the content) the book "Animal Farm" is, indeed, a simplistic satirical parody of the start of Communism. It is typically required reading for those ages 16 or less (at least where I went to school). It is, however, very easy to read, follow, and understand in its own entertaining way. In doing so, it highlights some issues of communist doctrine and history along with other problems occasionally encountered in other facets of life---sometimes our own. It seems an excellent analogy to some of the occurrences on eUmpire. I am certainly glad I saw you mention elsewhere to remind me of it.

BTW, the book, while recogniezed for many things, is not recognized for its "depth". It is, indeed, simplistic.

Just my opinion,

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 02:15 AM]

Here is the kind of comment that does not forward a discussion. I don't have the power to delete anything. You are wrong, you know you are wrong, and your ego doesn't permit you to admit it. Sad!

The first references to <i>Animal Farm</i> were not mine. I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of right-wing propaganda, whether in fictional form or not. It is possible you saw a post where I quoted somebody quoting Orwell: The cliche quote is "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." That's a favorite of your mentor.

I just find it odd you are quoting from posts which, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist.

I don't believe my previous post indicated that I said you had the power to delete any posts (including your own). We all know, however, we have the power to delete our own in many areas. Correct?

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 03:51 AM]

I see now that it is Carl that has attributed "Animal Farm" references to me. He has done so in error. I have never read nor quoted "Animal Farm". Carl, on the other hand, seems intimately familiar with the book. Since Carl is wrong, should not we apply the same judgement on him that he wants to apply to Bfair?

Peter
Member
EWS

(and back as His High Holiness)

Animal Farm!?
 

Dude. .you gotta get Animal Farm and read it tonight! It's a great book (even better, its like 100 pages!!) And SO applicable to life.. even Umpiring.

In fact.. After umpire books, I'd say Animal Farm and "The E*****'s New Clothes", should be required reading.

Wow.. this is funny stuff! Who gets to be Snoball??

I hear the sheep... "Don't call it, Good! Call a Balk, Baaaaaaaaaaad!"

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

I think that we've exhausted this and other subjects...

Let's get back to talking baseball guys...

Thanks,
Brad