For Pete's sake, are we not umpires and officials here?
A little jeering and name calling should be par for the course. This is an opinion Board and we take a risk when we post our ideas, opinions and suggestions. Just like the calls we make, some people are bound to oppose them. The beauty of this operation is that you can read the items without feeling the pressure to comment. Conversely, you can comment and not feel threatened because of the distance afforded by the internet. When are we going to realize that much like offensive radio, television or movies, you don't have to watch. No one is forced to read a thread or participate in a discussion here. Rather than complain and beg a Moderator to "Make the mean man stop.", do a little soul searching. I have seen some tremendous battles of wills on this site over the years. That's right, I was one of those that enjoyed watching and reading, prior to engaging in the debate. Soemtimes the flames were brilliant and other times quite caustic. Other than feelings, no one ever was hurt.

If you take the risk of placing your ideas for the world to see, expect some ramifications. Some members insinuate that umpire numbers are so low because of the in-fighting and "Big Dog" effect. That's rubbish...this trade is the same as any. You need to have a passion for it. That commitment must be strong if you are to excel to the highest levels. Sit in teh stands at a MLB game and listen to what is being thrown at the umpires. While some of what is being said is brutal, toughen up or look the other way if if doesn't involve you. We try to help here, sometimes that help comes in the form of a punch and sometimes a pat on the back.

I just received an email asking what brought about this post. I am concerned that a double standard is being established. On multiple occassions, we have allowed cheap shots and stone throwing to end a dialogue, rather than moving it to the general section. (Like we've done before!) We've seen thread deleted and when questions are asked about why, how or who - we can't get a straight answer. (Ask, Mick - he's defending himself today and he didn't even do it!)

I have seen several threads closed after a request has been made to do so. Why? Who is forcing you to read the exchange? Are our moderators afraid that the dialogue will detract from officiating discussion? Please...even our Editor in Chief has done his share to antagonize and start flame wars. As I said earlier, no one has been hurt and I've never seen an umpire that didn't hear from the crowd after a bad call. It's the same thing here. If you make a call, be prepared for some hootin' and hollerin'. These young guys, that everyone is pretending to protect, need to see the real world and grow some thicker skin.

WindyCityBlue,
I do not understand the reference.
Please explain.
mick

WindBag has a reading problem. In the thread over the weekend, Mark accused you of deleting a thread. I pointed out to Mark that it was fedup who deleted the thread. Mark did not read your first response carefully.

WindBag was wrong as to what you did and when you did it. He's 0 for 2 on his reading exam.

Uh, ...okay. :)

It's a subjective call, but the farther a thread veers from discussing or advancing the art of officiating, the greater the chance it will get closed or deleted.

Kind of like Mt Liar, uh, Lyle's poor execution of an accusation.

My reading skills must be finer than his writing ones. Mick, you were accused of deleting a thread. You defended yourself against those who claimed that you were at it again. Bob Jenkins has been accused of the same thing. My thought is that if you allow the mudslinging to begin, how do you justify stepping in and locking it down? I purposely posted this on the General Discussion Board, because of the antics of those that can't verbally spar. (sounds familiar, liar, oops, I did it again, Lyle.)

I posted a thread the other day that extended an olive branch - as long as other involved acted accordingly. It was at Brad's behest, but it too, was deleted. What's up?

We have plenty of discussions that get heated and veer from the topic or even officiating, in general. We ride the storm out. Why the recent changes?

Speaking of those who can't verbally spar, I'll bet if we took a poll of who was coming out on the losing end of the sparring, it would be WindBag. You are the only one who thinks that he's winning the debate, kind of like George Bush. In all the polls, he lost the debate. In his mind, he won.

Dream on, WindBag, er WindBush.

WindyCityBlue,
I do not have a real strong feeling of why I may be tempted to justify anything in general, except to the Administrator.
Like bob said, ... a subjective call....

If you want something specific, then you may e-mail me or you could ask me on this forum. There is generally some kind of reason of what I was thinking at the time and there may be a chance that I actually read it. If you really want my attention, e-mail me and I will read it and answer it.

Your "olive branch thread" [Truce] (<I>I read it.</I>), and I thought it was quite patronizing, but not offensive ...to me. Somebody didn't like the tone and made it go away. Maybe it was because you made a reference that you would have been well advised to avoid.

Why the recent changes? Again, if you could be specific, so could I.
mick

That's a great thought. If you can't prevent it, you have no right to stop it. I guess nobody should get a speeding ticket. The cop was unable to keep the guy from speeding, so how can he justify stepping in and putting a stop to it?

Ditto.

I didn't delete the "olive branch" thread.

I closed the "American League Rulebook" thread -- the first part was sufficiently on-topic -- does the "black book" exist today, what's the official title, what's in it, who gets it, how do we get it, ... After a while, it turned into a contest to see whether Gary or Rich could be more childish -- "post your name" "no -- you post your address, "I won't post my address, it's already out there. "I won't go looking for it" ...

I also closed another thread that turned into a Bush v. Kerry debate. That thread has since, I think, been deleted -- I didn't delete it.

Bob and Mick,
That's my point...you are the two people listed as moderators here. yet, both of you claim that you did not delete the "Truce" thread. If someone else made it disappear, what reference is taboo? Also, Bob, who is this Gary you referred to in the "he said/she said" post?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I decided to edit this in order to address all comments, instead of adding additional posts:

Mr. Elias,

Was the concept that difficult to comprehend? If you agree with moderators allowing some people to vent, but delete others who respond, you are probably the official that penalizes the retaliator rather than the instigator. I hate working with those guys. They miss some good games.

Mr. Lyle,
Take your poll. How many people feel that you have justified ANY of your positions here during the last year? How much advice have you given? How about a rule interpretation? How many feel that I have articulated mine better? At least I can play the contrarian successfully. How many times have you drifted out on the branch? It's easier and safer to sit back and let other people form opinions and then harangue them later. How about something original, once in a while? Members may not agree with all of my thoughts, but they have become better by trying or avoiding them. Just like the Davis stance, the way I work isn't for all. Just those who want to get better and respect the game.

My schedule prevents me from adopting your demeanor on the field. You wouldn't last at this level with your imaginative (read: bogus) reasoning. Continue your puffery, it's funny and gives me ammo for future discussion.


[Edited by WindyCityBlue on Oct 6th, 2004 at 10:29 AM]

Uh..., that would mean someone else had reason and means to delete your thread.
Simple.
mick

Uh, WindBag, you changed the subject and confused the issue. That's a habit of yours when you're losing a debate. I wrote about a poll as to who came out on the losing end of verbal sparring. I was referring to several posters who were in an argument with you:

"Speaking of those who can't verbally spar, I'll bet if we took a poll of who was coming out on the losing end of the sparring, it would be WindBag. You are the only one who thinks that he's winning the debate, kind of like George Bush. In all the polls, he lost the debate. In his mind, he won."

You subtly changed the subject to Bob Lyle vs. WindBag instead of the multiple forum participants vs. WindBag. You're getting your butt kicked by any number of posters. The other official from Chicago is a master of changing the subject when he is losing the argument. You need to take instructions from him on that topic.

I do primarily football and it was on the football forum that I first ran into your moronic arguments. I mostly read the other forums so I rarely contribute except on football.

Unlike some posters who trumpet their resume on a daily basis, I've made no claims as to what kind of officiating I do outside of football. The issues that you're polling for have no relevance to me. Unlike some posters, I don't claim expertise that I don't have.

You should have been here over the weekend for a great thread that we had about officials who don't pay taxes and child support on their income. It was deleted by the starter of the thread for unknown reasons. As a private investigator, I had expertise to contribute to that thread. My day job gives me expertise on blowhards and liars which is why I regularly cross swords with two posters from Chicago.

To Mick - WindBag made one point in his post which you didn't answer. You said you didn't delete the truce thread, neither did Bob nor did WindBag. I was under the assumption that no one else could delete the threads. Rather than allude to someone else deleting the threads, could you name all the people who can delete threads. BTW, thanks for your tutorial on how to use the system features that you gave me over the weekend.

Bob,
I do not know all the people who can delete threads.
Thus, I cannot name them.
And, I feel it would be quite improper to speculate.
I only know what I know. I am not as gifted as others may be. :)
mick

Dumbass must be your middle name.
 

Bob,

Leave my name out of this discussion. I have in no way talked about you. I do not address you when I post. I do not know you and you definitely do not know me. You call me names and a liar because you cannot prove anything. If you have an issue with Windy, take that up with him. Both of you are acting like children if you ask me. You cannot find out anything about each other so you keep talking about how the other is more of a tool. Wow, great conversation. But leave my name out of it. I guess your name is Kobe and you think I am Shaq. I do not need to prove anything here. Maybe you do, but I do not. Even Windy has tried to "expose me" but has yet to do so. For one, he does not know me and he lives in my area.

BTW, I do not live in Chicago. So would that call you a liar because you keep repeating that? I live in the <b>Chicago land area</b>, there is a difference.

Peace

Re: Dumbass must be your middle name.
 

Rut,
I thought he was talkin" 'bout bob jenkins! ;)

So..., when your first hoops game? ...End of November?

mick

Re: Re: Dumbass must be your middle name.
 

Believe it or not I have a scrimmage this weekend. But that is college Men's.

I have my first real game on November 20, which is Men's College game. First time I will wear the gray shirts.

My first HS game is November 22. I might get a game on Monday before that, but we will see. I am really looking forward to it.

Peace

A private investigator by day and pretender by night!

Looking for liars and blowhards...my grandfather used to have a saying. "When you lie with dogs, you're bound to get fleas."

You've been scratching an awful lot lately.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mick,
I appreciate your candor. I was curious if Brad had deleted the thread because he felt that it was embarassing. I did not intend for it to be. I simply copied his words and showed the membership that I was being asked to tone it down. I offered to behave in exactly the same manner as to which I was treated. I offered the truce not as a sign of weakness, but as a courtesy to someone who has a vested interest in this Board. I believe that you did not remove it. I was just curious why it was taken away.

No, the concept is amazingly simple to comprehend. You wrote:


How exactly do you propose that the moderators of these forums prevent the mudslinging from beginning? All it takes for it to begin is some putz with a keyboard and hitting the "submit" button. Bob can't prevent that. Mick can't prevent that. Even Brad can't prevent that.

But once it starts, and it's obvious that it's going to continue, it's completely appropriate for a moderator to stop it.

Allowing it to start is irrelevant to the question of whether they should stop the mudslinging. That was my only point. Just like the cop who allows a driver to start speeding. The cop doesn't really have any control over when or whether the driver starts speeding. But once s/he sees the speeder, s/he is completely justified in issuing a ticket. Exactly the same situation. Just my $.02.

WindyCityBlue,
Well, I can understand that.
If you were to put one of <U>my</U> private and polite e-mails on the forum without asking me if I was all right with it, I would be quite moved.

Now, it seems, you just did it again.
I just don't understand what you're thinking.
mick

YU.P. T'was me.
 

Bob and Rut,
Play nicely! ;)
mick

Re: Re: Re: Dumbass must be your middle name.
 

Rut,
I'm jealous!
Being on the floor with college men is the bestest, most funnest officiating experiences I have had.
mick

Mick,
I'm not sure what your background is, but I own several businesses and grew up believing that if someone treats you well, you return the favor. If someone takes a swing at you, you can either turn tail or put on the gloves. That is all I alluded to in my emails that have left you concerned. I will behave exactly as I'm treated. I will offer my opinions and expertise and expect that they will not be embraced by all. That's okay...I'm an umpire and understand that some of the things I say will spark controversy. People are to worried about stepping on each other's toes. This is a discussion forum and that involves debate. We tell young officials to learn how to sell their calls. this is an extension of that. I'm not concerned with offending Brad. He has seen far worse over the years. I'm sure that realizes that I've never directed a comment at him or impugned his integrity. My offer of a truce was sincere and the intent was to inform others that take great glee in any sign of weakness. I hope I clarified the issue for you.

WCB

Yawn.

Sorry to keep you up, but hang in there.

They're serving jello tonight!


BTW, Bob Jenkins, who is Gary? :)

Windy,

Who cares? When you are on someone else's turf you have to follow their rules. If one umpire is on the game you might have one type of call, the next day you will have another call for the same action with another set of umpires. You can always create your own website and have people come there and you can say and do anything you like. Until then as long as you come here you have to live with their rules and regulations and decisions.

Peace

WindyCityBlue,
I prefer another choice. :)
<LI><Font color = red>"Conversely, you can comment and not feel threatened because of the distance afforded by the internet." - WCB </Font>

I think that being polite is not a direct result of cowardice.
mick

Jeff,

That would be great...if we knew the rules.
One guy can slam another and it is okay. Someone else comes along and that thread is deleted. Like Mick said - it is completely subjective.

Solid call, Windy and Rut.
 

YU.P.
I listen to bob as often as possible.

But, no matter how much I try, somehow my zone isn't always the same as his. :)
mick

Mick,

Both you and Bob do a great job. I do not agree with all your decisions on what is acceptable, but your job is not to make just one person happy (whether that is me or someone else). You cannot delete every post. And sometimes all it takes is someone to let you know of a situation.

Keep up the good work. I know I would not want that job.

Peace

What the he// happened to my post !?!??
 

Thanks, Rut.
It can be a chore, ...especially the baseball forum.

What we usually start with there (as you well know) is a genuine subject.
Then someone says something, on topic, a little bit differently than is accepted.
Then a comment get made like: <LI>That's stoopid!<LI>Only a Little League Ump would think that.<LI>How can you me so lame?

[<I>Now we have something going</I>]

The next retort may be submissive, passive, aggressive.
If it's submissive, the discussion may continue.
If it's passive, then a question may be asked as to why the retort wasn't challenged.
If it's aggressive, it becomes a testosterone contest.

With the contest, now the thread may become a history lesson of all the posters involved, where they posted, why they posted, their age, their training and, possibly, their sexual preference.

So what was once a "legitimate thread"* has then become a contest of whose is longer, bigger, better.
<I>(*Obviously, not all threads start out void of antagonism.)</I>
Moderating now becomes that subjective chore to which bob alluded.

Windy and you, as well as others, wonder why these things are allowed/not allowed to continue; where is the cut-off; why is that deleted, but the one before was left; how come he got the last word and not me. When I lock and/or delete a thread, during a multiple user squabble that isn’t that bad (ie, just delete it!), but seems to have volcanic potential, I try to pick an “equal-enough” point/counterpoint position before the single post deletions and locking occur. (I am surely aggravating someone/everyone/no one when I do that, but it’s the call I make that seemed like the right thing to do at the time.)

Also, I, and I think bob is close, (but I really cannot speak or try to speak for him), kinda watch (<U>if</U>, in fact, we have happened to even read a thread), and we kinda hope that the tone will change and get back on topic. If it does, …good deal. If it doesn’t, …time to adjudge.

If it doesn't go back there, but keeps getting worse, now I am thinking, "the easiest thing to do is delete, but there was some value, but it's getting ugly, should I lock it, should I delete it, should I move it, does it have enough value to merely move, am I hurting the forum by allowing it, helping the forum by deleting it, hurting..., helping..., Aaaaaargh!

Regardless Rut, as you say, "That's just me." :)

Before the moderators were listed, we, The Forum users, would be reading away, then leave, then come back and "Whuh?, the thread was gone!" There was little doubt why our posts were deleted, but not much was said about it. And life went on.

Now, I think you've noticed that some threads that used to be deleted quickly are slightly longer lived in hopes that they return to topic. This longer life is due to the open-mindedness of the OfficialForum administration, nothing else. I cannot speak for the administration, but I think it's due to the overall faith in the forum users that all wandering threads do not have to "go bad".

A user from each active forum has, at one time or other, e-mailed me and, I am sure, other moderators, to take a look at a specific thread because they have been offended, or because of vulgarity, or because someone's name was used in vain. Some of there threads go away.
We moderators are questioned privately, as well as publicly, about our motives/reasons.

When questioned, the answer is given. The questioner, may not like the answer, but that is the end of it, ...as far as I know.

We all are pretty darn sure when we cross the line. We know we are not fooling anyone with the funny symbols above the numbers, but some of us cannot think of another word to use, so we curse. I think the software will automatically handle some words, but not all of them, as we, that may use the $$, know. We try to sneak by because we are all clever. And what have we accomplished? We've merely aggravated someone, …or merely cursed.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Anyway, I really appreciate this forum. It's a good thing.
I learn here, ...especially on the baseball forum. :)

mick

Thank you Mick, that is the longest post I've read from you.


Bob,
I'm still wondering why you haven't answered my question. :)

...Just got to ramblin' on and couldn't stop.
M'bad.
mick

Must have been a slip of the tongue.

I thought so...
if you're feelin' blue, it might be time for school.

You are smarter than people give you credit.

It was fun being Rob, though. At least he thought so.