Master Index of Archived Threads


Disappointing News

Edgy DC May 30 2006 04:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 27 2006 11:49 PM

Several days ago, the administrators jointly and reluctantly decided that it would be in the best interest of the forum to restrict Bret Sabermetric from any future participation. Regular forum members are aware of the issues involved, and there's no need to rehash them here. I and they are resolved not to make this into any more of a public spectacle than it has been, but we felt that it was better to make an announcement than to leave posters to figure it out for themselves amidst rumor and speculation.

Vic Sage May 30 2006 04:49 PM

Look, youse guys have the right to do what you want to here... you do all the work to keep this place afloat, so anything I say about this in no way diminishes my respect and appreciation for what you've accomplished with the CPF. And i'm not trying to pick a fight. That being said, i wish you didn't feel like you had to do this. And please stop with the euphemisms. You didn't "restrict him from further participation"... you banned him. Its the most extreme response available to a website administrator in dealing with a registered user. So don't play Orwellian mind games. If you think couching your action in neutral jargon de-fangs your use of the nuclear option, it doesn't. In fact, its the kind of passive-aggressive thing that Bret complained about so constantly and obnoxiously. I just felt compelled to point that out. Of course, he'd have pointed it out himself, if he hadn't been banned.

Edgy DC May 30 2006 04:56 PM

I didn't write that, but I posted it. You're right that it doesn't say what it is. He's been banned. Of course, "nuclear option" is a euphemism also. I'll add that I hope some day we can reach enough reconciliation with him to unban him.

Nymr83 May 30 2006 04:56 PM

Bret recently crossed over from provocative (which was fine with me even if others didn't like it) to being intentionally annoying to the point of disrupting threads just for the sake of pissing people off. I wish he could have just stopped and gotten back to baseball, but it didn't happen. Nearly every post from him was an attempt to re-hash old arguments or to start a fight with someone. I don't run the joint so it's not up to me who gets banned, and I won't say I'd have been unhappy of he stayed, but i'm nt unhappy that he's gone either considering the way his posts have gone the last few months.

Vic Sage May 30 2006 05:05 PM

="Edgy DC"]Of course, "nuclear option" is a euphemism also. . No, its not. Euphemism -- A mild, indirect, or vague term substituted for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive. My reference to banning as a "nuclear option" may be an example of hyperbole, inflammatory rhetoric, or mere poetic license, but it is certainly not euphemistic.

Edgy DC May 30 2006 05:13 PM

You're right. Your term wasn't mild. And you also know, I'm sure, that there's nothing Orwellian about it and no mind games involved. Let's not let hyperbole reframe this. Listen, I don't want to be arguing over this. I didn't want to make the announcement, but it falls to me and that's all there is to it. But here I am, arguing the nuances of varying ways to distort a message.

Edgy DC May 30 2006 05:14 PM

If you want to call me passive-aggressive, please start another thread.

Vic Sage May 30 2006 05:38 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ...you also know, I'm sure, that there's nothing Orwellian about it and no mind games involved. Let's not let hyperbole reframe this... You posted a euphemistic phrase which has the potential effect (intended or unintended) of distancing the administrators from the harshness of their own actions. So no Edgy, i actually DON'T know that there is nothing Orwellian about it. In fact, this use of language is utterly Orwellian. I take your word that it was done unintentionally, but doing this subconsciously is just as damning, to my mind, as it indicates a mindset or way of doing or expressing things. And I point this out not to argue with you, or reframe anything, but simply to observe the irony that, in the very announcement of Bret's banning, you acted in a way that validated (in a small way) his ranting about being victimized by passive-aggressive administrators. Now that I've registered my objection to Bret's banning, and having made note of the irony i perceive in your announcement of it, i'm perfectly happy to move on.

KC May 30 2006 05:43 PM

EDC: >>>I hope some day we can reach enough reconciliation with him to unban him<<< I hope so too.

metirish May 30 2006 06:26 PM

Something had to give, although I have never had a direct conflict with Bret it was getting to much to even post here the past few weeks, I would find myself here but not posting much....not an easy step fpr you guys but one I think most here would agree with.

ScarletKnight41 May 30 2006 07:28 PM

metirish wrote: Something had to give, although I have never had a direct conflict with Bret it was getting to much to even post here the past few weeks, I would find myself here but not posting much....not an easy step fpr you guys but one I think most here would agree with. I have to concur. The whole mood of the place was becoming toxic.

Yancy Street Gang May 30 2006 10:12 PM

"Restrict from further participation" was my phrase. I'll take the credit or the blame for that.

Yancy Street Gang May 30 2006 10:13 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: ="metirish"]Something had to give, although I have never had a direct conflict with Bret it was getting to much to even post here the past few weeks, I would find myself here but not posting much....not an easy step fpr you guys but one I think most here would agree with. I have to concur. The whole mood of the place was becoming toxic. Yes, and it's why I stayed away for the past two weeks. And it's why I came back today.

RealityChuck May 30 2006 10:50 PM

Look, he long ago stopped being merely provocative and turned into a troll. That sort of thing gets old real fast. There's nothing wrong with banning trolls -- it lets the people who want to discuss the issues have a chance to discuss them.

DocTee May 31 2006 12:18 AM

Now if only we could somehow lure Valadius back into the pool-- we need nicknames for Milledge.

MFS62 May 31 2006 06:37 AM

That was quick. As of Saturday morning, banning him was only "being discussed". Then the axe fell. He raised some valid points while he was here. I hope this action lets him see that the meduim is (as important as) the message. (thank you, Marshall) Is anyone going to keep in touch with him? How will we know if he wants to come back? If he's "ready" to come back? I know I often defended his freedom of speech. Too bad he started to yell "fire" in the crowded theater. Later

The Big O May 31 2006 08:19 AM

MFS62 wrote: He raised some valid points while he was here. Absolutely. I'm vaguely curious about the straw that broke the whatever's whatever. I don't recall anything especially vile or abhorrent recently. (Not in the Baseball Forum, anyway.) Or have there been some excised trimmed "edited" recalibrated unexisted voided deleted posts?

KC May 31 2006 08:44 AM

I don't have much more to say publicly, and let's not forget that Bret could just as easily be three other nice posters here and we wouldn't even know it. (at least that's how I used to drive board admins nuts in the olden days) ((eeek, I'm Jim Fregosi))

Vic Sage May 31 2006 11:21 AM

i'm in touch with Bret, and will continue to be. apparently, his banning was the consequence of a series of private emails amongst him and the admins.

Yancy Street Gang May 31 2006 11:26 AM

That's not how I see it at all. I would say that his banning was the result of his public behavior on these boards.

Vic Sage May 31 2006 11:28 AM

Bret had, IMO, kept his baseball forum posts relatively neutral in recent days, and had essentially confined his more vile rantings to the RLF. Which reveals another irony...he seems to have been banned (at least in part) for using the RLF for its original purpose (to spew bile here, rather than there).

Yancy Street Gang May 31 2006 11:37 AM

That may be. I haven't been here for the past two weeks, so I don't really know what he was posting where. Vic, your post may have been referring to the "final straw" question asked above. I don't have enough information to comment on the final straw, but I don't want anyone thinking that the underlying cause of the ban was anything that was said in an e-mail. It was the behavior that's been in evidence in the public forum.

Willets Point May 31 2006 09:03 PM

What I wish we could do is ban Bret from every forum except one, list that forum second right after the Baseball forum and make him moderator of that forum. He'd be in charge of whatever went on in that room and it would be in direct competition with the existing forum. The phpBB programming does not seem to allow that though.

cooby May 31 2006 09:37 PM

You two are the same again

Nymr83 May 31 2006 11:45 PM

if yancy didnt have his fantastic four avatar i'd never know who was posting

old original jb Jun 01 2006 12:16 AM

Nymr83 wrote: if yancy didnt have his fantastic four avatar i'd never know who was posting And what is Willets, day old toast?

Yancy Street Gang Jun 01 2006 07:16 AM

Nymr83 wrote: if yancy didnt have his fantastic four avatar i'd never know who was posting That's why I switched to a bigger avatar. I wanted to overwhelm the one that was assigned to me.

Willets Point Jun 01 2006 09:43 AM

I don't know how I screwed it up, but my last post is supposed to be in Orwellian thread as a reply to the question about lesser punishments.

metirish Jun 01 2006 09:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 01 2006 07:35 PM

Well this is what I think,I'm happy to be back posting again without all the negative stuff.....

ABG Jun 01 2006 02:50 PM

Good job.

Rockin' Doc Jun 05 2006 01:47 PM

Wow, I miss a week or so and look what happens. Matsui gets benched, Nady has an appendectomy, Milledge gets called up, and Brett gets banned. Matsui deserved to lose his spot, sad to see Nady go down and I wish him a speedy recovery, glad to finally get a look at Milledge, and sad to see Bret go. I respect the admins for all the hard work they put into this board and acknowledge their right to ban anyone they deem to be disruptive. I think Brett raised some valid points in many of his discussions, but he seemed hell bent on changing the opinion of anyone that disagreed with him regarding the Mets. I often felt that Brett was trying to see just how far he could push KC, Willets, and Edgy before they would ban him. I doubt he's too upset by his banning and in his own way, I imagine he views it as a personal victory.

ScarletKnight41 Jun 05 2006 01:56 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote: I often felt that Brett was trying to see just how far he could push KC, Willets, and Edgy before they would ban him. I doubt he's too upset by his banning and in his own way, I imagine he views it as a personal victory. I concur with that theory RD.

Zvon Jun 28 2006 11:37 PM

Oh. This is unfortunate and I cant say that I agree with it. But this aint my gig. Im just a fan of the Mets as well as a fan of the people here, and that includes Bret. I have to admit when he and KC did their "gotta get the last word in" thing I just passed over it. It simply wasnt entertaining or informative. But it took two to tango there.