Should this Forum "split" and have new business

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Rather than making a pithy comment about your idea I will point out the following:

1) Simply adding a "sub-head" does not work. Over at another umpire website they have a "small diamond" area. Rules and mechanic questions are seldom posted to that are even when it is pure small diamond in nature.

When I have asked: "why didn't you post this in the samll diamond area?" the answer is always the same: "when I post there I do not get the quailty of answer I do when I post under the other headings."

2) So you want to add the same problems to this site that where, by your own admittance: "eTeamz.com but that Forum has had all kinds of problems . . ." I am trying not to sound elitist but maybe we already have enough small diamond umpires and coaches here. If you want this site to mimick eTeamZ so be it . . . as one of the "third rate umpires" that write articles here I would be forced to go to another site with Strikes & Outs. It may not be missed but I leave eTeamZ alone . . . if this site becomes primarily a small diamond site I would leave it alone.

3) Since the two of us started on these sites many years ago we have seen what works and what does not (gmcgriff.com). Why change something here that is working. While it is true that I have six names on my ignore list I think the general value here is that there is a samll amount of small diamond traffic that is handled quite well by many of our small diamond umpires and coaches that are here.

4) In my own strange way I think this site is for the "betterment" of umpiring. Some don't like my style of posting but the days of pissing and moaning and name calling are a thing in my past. I try to give a value for a post. Some here do not.

In closing I don't see what adavantage your request gives to people already here. If a small diamond question is asked it is usually answered in a very nice manner. People such as me that hate "Little League Baseball" normally stay out of those threads.

I think what we have is fine.

Regards,

Good point Tim - never thought of it that way.