The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > General / Off-Topic

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 11:42am
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 554
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 01:37pm
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 554
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 02:37pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
(Ask, Mick - he's defending himself today and he didn't even do it!)
WindyCityBlue,
I do not understand the reference.
Please explain.
mick
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 02:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
(Ask, Mick - he's defending himself today and he didn't even do it!)
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 03:00pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Lyle
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
(Ask, Mick - he's defending himself today and he didn't even do it!)
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 03:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,246
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Are our moderators afraid that the dialogue will detract from officiating discussion?
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.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 04:19pm
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 554
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?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 04:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 180
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Kind of like Mt Liar, uh, Lyle's poor execution of an accusation.

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.)

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 05:13pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Mick, you were accused of deleting a thread. You defended yourself against those who claimed that you were at it again. .... My thought is that if you allow the mudslinging to begin, how do you justify stepping in and locking it down?


...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?
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 read it.), 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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 05, 2004, 07:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,104
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
My thought is that if you allow the mudslinging to begin, how do you justify stepping in and locking it down?
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?
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 06, 2004, 07:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,246
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
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 read it.), 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
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.

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 06, 2004, 09:24am
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 554
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]
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 06, 2004, 09:45am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
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?
Uh..., that would mean someone else had reason and means to delete your thread.
Simple.
mick





Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 06, 2004, 11:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 06, 2004, 11:38am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Lyle
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1