Did KP really turn down this package at the deadline???

[Ed O]

Ha! This is the first time I've ever replied to my own post.

Anyways...the more I think about this, the more curious I am. Is there a Mod that can answer my question from the quote above? I'm not trying to start controversy, I'm genuinely interested in the answer.

Negativity is not the same as trolling, as you said.

If you can't take the ignore feature and you can't stand to hear negativity about the team, I apologize. I don't know what to say.

Ed O.

 

[yenniedn]

Negativity is not the same as trolling, as you said.

If you can't take the ignore feature and you can't stand to hear negativity about the team, I apologize. I don't know what to say.

Ed O.

Aren't you oversimplifying it a bit there, Ed? I dare say that NO ONE minds a bit of negativity (or even reality) now and then. But the constant, over-the-top and probably made-up crap that gets thrown out every single day??? That's the issue. It's not that someone, anyone cries blashphemy if a negative word is said about the team - it's the ongoing and constant barrage of bull nookie that "some" people like to create everyday.

 

[Ed O]

Aren't you oversimplifying it a bit there, Ed? I dare say that NO ONE minds a bit of negativity (or even reality) now and then. But the constant, over-the-top and probably made-up crap that gets thrown out every single day??? That's the issue. It's not that someone, anyone cries blashphemy if a negative word is said about the team - it's the ongoing and constant barrage of bull nookie that "some" people like to create everyday.

Your continued complaints on this topic are noted but, ultimately, irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

You've said the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.

Do you think that your point is stronger now than it was a month ago? Really?

There is a small group of people that love to bitch about a few posters and act all up in arms that they have to put up with the constant negativity. You are a part of that small group, and I'm sorry that you're incapable of ignoring him or at least (to help the rest of us out) shut up about it.

Ed O.

 

[WarriorFan]

Maybe it's this pick they were talking about:
New Jersey receives 2011 Golden State first round pick (lottery protected in 2011, top 11 protected in 2012, top 10 protected in 2013. *If it is not conveyed by 2013, the Nets get second-round picks in 2013 and 2015).

And I don't see why you can't trade conditional picks. You just take over the rights of the conditions of the pick.

Maybe it's just the pessimism that comes with being a Warrior fan but I don't think there's any chance of the Ws drafting worse than 10th in the next 4 years

 

[Chuck Taylor]

Negativity is not the same as trolling, as you said.

If you can't take the ignore feature and you can't stand to hear negativity about the team, I apologize. I don't know what to say.

Ed O.

I don't know what the exact definition of trolling is, so I guess I shouldn't have used that term. In any event, I have no problem hearing negativity about the team, the board would be dull without it. But there is a certain line that I believe is being crossed. Negativity is certainly allowed, but dishonorable intentions are not, according to forum rule #1. Can constant, over-the-top negativity be considered a form of dishonorable intent? I would sure think so.

The rules also state that "it is completely the discretion of SportsTwo staff to enforce any unwritten policies they deem fit" and that "we reserve the right to amend these rules at any time." So, even if you determine that the poster in question's intent is honorable, if the SportsTwo staff wanted to ban him for essentially any other reason, they certainly could. And if they can ban someone, why wouldn't the staff want to ban a poster that completely annoys the vast majority of the rest of their customers? It's simple business...if one customer is spending $50 a day at my restaurant, but is driving away $200 in business, I would get rid of him.

 

[yenniedn]

Your continued complaints on this topic are noted but, ultimately, irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

You've said the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.

Do you think that your point is stronger now than it was a month ago? Really?

There is a small group of people that love to bitch about a few posters and act all up in arms that they have to put up with the constant negativity. You are a part of that small group, and I'm sorry that you're incapable of ignoring him or at least (to help the rest of us out) shut up about it.

Ed O.

Cool - so long as you defend the rights of individual to piss on the forum, hopefully you'll just as fervently defend my rights to piss on him? You're a good guy - impartial to the end.

 

[yenniedn]

I don't know what the exact definition of trolling is, so I guess I shouldn't have used that term. In any event, I have no problem hearing negativity about the team, the board would be dull without it. But there is a certain line that I believe is being crossed. Negativity is certainly allowed, but dishonorable intentions are not, according to forum rule #1. Can constant, over-the-top negativity be considered a form of dishonorable intent? I would sure think so.

The rules also state that "it is completely the discretion of SportsTwo staff to enforce any unwritten policies they deem fit" and that "we reserve the right to amend these rules at any time." So, even if you determine that the poster in question's intent is honorable, if the SportsTwo staff wanted to ban him for essentially any other reason, they certainly could. And if they can ban someone, why wouldn't the staff want to ban a poster that completely annoys the vast majority of the rest of their customers? It's simple business...if one customer is spending $50 a day at my restaurant, but is driving away $200 in business, I would get rid of him.

Let me answer that question for you Chuck before Ed comes in with the same reply: apparently, there's only 4 or 5 of us that are annoyed by this poster so it's really not pertinent to fix. From what I'm told, most people enjoy him just fine and it's just the four or five of us that just need to shut up about him. Understood?

 

[Ed O]

Cool - so long as you defend the rights of individual to piss on the forum, hopefully you'll just as fervently defend my rights to piss on him? You're a good guy - impartial to the end.

There is no "pissing on the forum". People are being crybabies about a guy who has been posting in this community for YEARS. Longer than you have, I would guess.

He attacks the players and the GM. So what? That's part of why this forum exists. He has the right to do that... loudly and often, if he so chooses. I will defend that right, sure.

You have NO rights to "piss on" any poster and there is nothing for me to defend on that front. Sorry.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

I don't know what the exact definition of trolling is, so I guess I shouldn't have used that term. In any event, I have no problem hearing negativity about the team, the board would be dull without it. But there is a certain line that I believe is being crossed. Negativity is certainly allowed, but dishonorable intentions are not, according to forum rule #1. Can constant, over-the-top negativity be considered a form of dishonorable intent? I would sure think so.

Sure it can. It can also be the way that the guy expresses himself.

The rules also state that "it is completely the discretion of SportsTwo staff to enforce any unwritten policies they deem fit" and that "we reserve the right to amend these rules at any time." So, even if you determine that the poster in question's intent is honorable, if the SportsTwo staff wanted to ban him for essentially any other reason, they certainly could. And if they can ban someone, why wouldn't the staff want to ban a poster that completely annoys the vast majority of the rest of their customers? It's simple business...if one customer is spending $50 a day at my restaurant, but is driving away $200 in business, I would get rid of him.

I can understand what you're saying. This is not a business, though... I don't get paid to do this, at least. The success of this site and the community lies in the diversity of opinion and the open nature of communications about sports and the teams we all follow.

It would be easier to ban the people that complain about him repeatedly, actually. It would be more consistent with the nature of the board which is to talk about basketball, not about other posters.

Ed O.

 

[yenniedn]

There is no "pissing on the forum". People are being crybabies about a guy who has been posting in this community for YEARS. Longer than you have, I would guess.

He attacks the players and the GM. So what? That's part of why this forum exists. He has the right to do that... loudly and often, if he so chooses. I will defend that right, sure.

You have NO rights to "piss on" any poster and there is nothing for me to defend on that front. Sorry.

Ed O.

So . . . what you're saying is that this is not an equal opportunity piss-hole? That's too bad the pissing only gets to go one way then. I'll look forward to the next time you're wrong as it'll be your first

 

[Chuck Taylor]

Sure it can. It can also be the way that the guy expresses himself.

Certainly. And intent is a very difficult thing to judge, especially on an internet forum. My point is that just because he may not be "trolling", doesn't mean he's not breaking the rules.

I can understand what you're saying. This is not a business, though... I don't get paid to do this, at least.
Ed O.

Somebody's cashing the checks for all the banner ads, so this certainly is a business. And I'm sure the more people who visit the site, the bigger the checks are.

The success of this site and the community lies in the diversity of opinion and the open nature of communications about sports and the teams we all follow.

I don't think anyone is arguing that diversity of opinion is great and is part of the fun. If we all posted the same opinion, it would be very boring around here.

 

[alex42083]

I don't think it's a small group of people. I've noticed a bit more people who admitted they didn't pay attention to him before, now starting to call him out on being unreasonable in his opinions. Heck, he never backs up his opinions with any fact. He got banned on the other site for it I think, or maybe I'm wrong.

In the end, I don't want to see him banned. I just want the guy to be just a tiny bit more reasonable, defend his opinions, and not 'troll' and run away while never responding.

This reminds me of in basketball: a guy will sucker punch someone first, another player retaliates and then gets T'ed up because the refs only saw the retaliation. And the first guy looks like a victim. Oh well...

 

[Ed O]

So . . . what you're saying is that this is not an equal opportunity piss-hole? That's too bad the pissing only gets to go one way then. I'll look forward to the next time you're wrong as it'll be your first

I don't know what you're talking about.

If anyone breaks rules, they will be asked to stop. If they talk basketball, irrespective of volume or negativity, they're not breaking rules.

You claim that you look forward to "pissing on" another poster. That is clearly against the rules of the board.

This isn't a matter of me being right or wrong... I'm wrong all on a pretty regular basis. This is an issue of you continuing to bitch about something in spite of you not having a leg to stand on.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Certainly. And intent is a very difficult thing to judge, especially on an internet forum. My point is that just because he may not be "trolling", doesn't mean he's not breaking the rules.

If you see him break rules, please let me or another mod know. Or report the post.

Personally, I don't think that being an "unpopular poster" is breaking rules.

Ed O.

 

[tlongII]

As long as I get to BLAST MIXUM for being wrong I am fine with him posting here.

 

[Chuck Taylor]

If you see him break rules, please let me or another mod know. Or report the post.

Personally, I don't think that being an "unpopular poster" is breaking rules.

Ed O.

I think there is certainly a possibility he is breaking the honorable intentions rule. The problem with the rule though, is that it is almost impossible to determine if it is being violated.

If he isn't breaking any of the forum's rules, than so be it. Then I blame the forum for having weak rules, and will visit less often. I think there is a significant amount of posters who feel the same way, and will do the same. I'm surprised the forum doesn't care enough to do something about it.

 

[Ed O]

As long as I get to BLAST MIXUM for being wrong I am fine with him posting here.

Any wrong opinion can be blasted. Of course.

Ed O.

 

[mgb]

IMO he's baiting, but I just ignore it because it's attention that he's after, and it's kind of boring. While only so many complain about it though, I don't think it's sensible to assume they are the only ones it bothers. The people it bothers though would be, IMO, wiser to just ignore it to minimize the effect it's causes. I'm not saying using the ignore feature, just skip over it, why respond to something that bothers you?

 

[Chuck Taylor]

IMO he's baiting, but I just ignore it because it's attention that he's after, and it's kind of boring. While only so many complain about it though, I don't think it's sensible to assume they are the only ones it bothers. The people it bothers though would be, IMO, wiser to just ignore it to minimize the effect it's causes. I'm not saying using the ignore feature, just skip over it, why respond to something that bothers you?

I agree. This is what I typically do. On the few occasions I have responded, he never wrote back anyways.

Lately, I've literally not come to this site to specifically avoid him. That wasn't always the case. And that got me thinking. It seems like the site would be a much better place without him, and I would think the staff would want whats best for the site. So I spoke up to hear what their defense is. I also wanted to let the mods know that I, too, believe he crosses a line and am bothered by it.

I'll go back into my mostly-lurking hole now.

 

[Minstrel]

This is a pretty simple proposition to me. There are two possibilities:

1. MIXUM is a troll. If he is a troll, posters would ignore him, because it's pretty well-known by this point that "feeding trolls" only plays into their game and causes them to troll more. Anyone who really believes MIXUM is a troll would ignore him. Thus, all the people who respond to and about him are voting for:

2. MIXUM is not a troll. He's a highly negative, but sincere, fan who's basketball opinions annoy a lot of people. That's not against the rules.

Anyone who really believes (1) would ignore him and counsel others to ignore him and let him fade away. The people who talk the most about MIXUM believe (as proven by their actions) in (2).

 

[yenniedn]

This is a pretty simple proposition to me. There are two possibilities:

1. MIXUM is a troll. If he is a troll, posters would ignore him, because it's pretty well-known by this point that "feeding trolls" only plays into their game and causes them to troll more. Anyone who really believes MIXUM is a troll would ignore him. Thus, all the people who respond to and about him are voting for:

2. MIXUM is not a troll. He's a highly negative, but sincere, fan who's basketball opinions annoy a lot of people. That's not against the rules.

Anyone who really believes (1) would ignore him and counsel others to ignore him and let him fade away. The people who talk the most about MIXUM believe (as proven by their actions) in (2).

Oh Minstrel, if only the world was that simple huh? How can you objectively look at his body of work and tell me with a straight face that everything (or even 1/4th) of the stuff that he throws out is sincere?

So, no, not everyone can be lumped into either category #1 or #2.

 

[Ed O]

Oh Minstrel, if only the world was that simple huh? How can you objectively look at his body of work and tell me with a straight face that everything (or even 1/4th) of the stuff that he throws out is sincere?

So, no, not everyone can be lumped into either category #1 or #2.

I don't understand how your assertion leads to your conclusion.

Ed O.

 

[Chuck Taylor]

This is a pretty simple proposition to me. There are two possibilities:

1. MIXUM is a troll. If he is a troll, posters would ignore him, because it's pretty well-known by this point that "feeding trolls" only plays into their game and causes them to troll more. Anyone who really believes MIXUM is a troll would ignore him. Thus, all the people who respond to and about him are voting for:

2. MIXUM is not a troll. He's a highly negative, but sincere, fan who's basketball opinions annoy a lot of people. That's not against the rules.

Anyone who really believes (1) would ignore him and counsel others to ignore him and let him fade away. The people who talk the most about MIXUM believe (as proven by their actions) in (2).

I almost always ignore him, but I've gotten pissed a few times and responded to him. It happens. That doesn't mean you can tell how I feel about him because I replied to his post.

 

[Minstrel]

Oh Minstrel, if only the world was that simple huh? How can you objectively look at his body of work and tell me with a straight face that everything (or even 1/4th) of the stuff that he throws out is sincere?

So, no, not everyone can be lumped into either category #1 or #2.

If you believe he's a troll, why do you encourage him by responding to and about him every day? If you really believed he was a troll, you wouldn't act to make him post more. Hence, you either want him to troll or you don't believe he's a troll.

I think there's a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in BOTH claiming someone is a troll AND eagerly encouraging that person by giving him lots and lots and lots and lots of attention.

 

[Ed O]

I think there's a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in BOTH claiming someone is a troll AND eagerly encouraging that person by giving him lots and lots and lots and lots of attention.

I agree.

Examining this a bit, a defense for people who consistently (a) believe he's a troll, and (b) "feed" him would be... frustration. Irrationality brought on by emotions.

Which is, of course, a defense that MIXUM could use as a legitimate poster against those who are convinced he's merely a troll.

Ed O.

 

[KingSpeed]

um but he wont. we dont wanna improve.... we wanna wait till next year. dont you know?

But we HAVE improved. We already have 35 wins with 27 games left to play. Last year we only won 41 games all season.

Learn the game, then post.

 

[alex42083]

I just want to know what the clear definition of a troll is...

Here's Wiki's definition...

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 

[yenniedn]

If you believe he's a troll, why do you encourage him by responding to and about him every day? If you really believed he was a troll, you wouldn't act to make him post more. Hence, you either want him to troll or you don't believe he's a troll.

I think there's a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in BOTH claiming someone is a troll AND eagerly encouraging that person by giving him lots and lots and lots and lots of attention.

Honestly, Minstrel, you really think that me ignoring this fool is going to make him go away? And you don't think I have tried to ignore him? Hell yes I want to ignore him and make him go away. But the sad truth is that he doesn't go away and isn't going away because the people with the authority to do something about, choose not to do anything about him.

I am as vocal as I have been only because I don't see a resolution in either of your scenarios. If ignoring the fool doesn't make him go away, what else can you do? And you can see that I'm not the only one that fews this way - perhaps just one of the more vocal ones. If someone is known to be a pest and nothing is done about it, what else is there to say?

 

[KingSpeed]

I like Mixum a lot. There are a lot of holes in his point of view, in my opinion, but it's still a point of view. I don't see why reading his posts upsets many of you. If you don't agree what he says, it's totally harmless. And if you do agree with him, well it's time to face that, in my opinion. But like I said, there are a lot of holes in his posts. He says we aren't improving when in fact, we have absolutely improved this season, being only a game out of 3rd place in the entire conference in late February. Still, it's fun to read what he thinks. I think a lot of it is him joking around. I mean, the clouds in his avatar and everything? He's just having fun. And if we do beat Houston tonight and we do make the playoffs, well then he was wrong and isn't that fun?

 

[Chuck Taylor]

If you believe he's a troll, why do you encourage him by responding to and about him every day? If you really believed he was a troll, you wouldn't act to make him post more. Hence, you either want him to troll or you don't believe he's a troll.

I think there's a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in BOTH claiming someone is a troll AND eagerly encouraging that person by giving him lots and lots and lots and lots of attention.

I agree that it is unwise to encourage the thing that is bothering you. However, our responses or lack thereof to MIXUM do not define whether we think he is a troll or not. Besides, its obvious that no one cares if we think he's a troll or not.