penbeast0 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
homecourtloss wrote:With all due respect, I think the crux of the issue in the LeBron thread is very simple, and it is not about not allowing contrary opinions.
You have posters who have made it clear that they are “haters” and/or have made literally hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands—just run a search on one of the posters currently posting in this thread post the Denver loss) of posts attacking/disparaging James on various boards who then show up after a loss or otherwise down times and then want to somehow engage in some sort of discussion as if all the other posts don’t exist and/or somehow are coming from a civil/neutral stance. When posters who are here do not take those posts at face value given all background, they aren’t guilty of not allowing contrary opinions, but rather understanding what the poster in question is doing here in the first place. Posters here have been critical of James and his game in an analytic way for years and years but nobody reacts to them the same way they react to someone who posts non-stop hate on the GB.
PistolPeteJR wrote:The biggest problem I see is not that LeBron can’t be criticized (even though it seems with some users, it seems they get extra-defensive and can’t handle the fair criticisms, but they’re in the minority I’d say); the biggest problem is in the way certain users absolutely make it a point just to come in here to troll, bait, and make disingenuous arguments. Eventually, it gets exhausting and frustrating. We report, they get warnings, it doesn’t seem to matter much, or so it feels. In some cases, it does matter of course, given some get banned.:
This.
If you're that bothered, I suggest that the ignore function is your friend.
And if someone is
truly [like:
deliberately] trolling, I think there's wisdom to the "old" internet adage:
A deliberate troll will get bored (if not fed).
And if someone is NOT
deliberately trolling........well, that sort of limits what a moderator can [or even
should] do about it. There's no forum rule against being bad at player analysis; and there's no rule against bias, either.
Those people are still given a place at the table (but we can choose to ignore them).
Bias and flawed analysis inject a considerable amount of grey area into our job as moderators, as much as people try to paint things as black & white (e.g.
they made it a provocative bad argument-->they're obviously trolling).
But sometimes a bad take is just that: a bad take. The person may not be "trolling"; they may simply have a poor understanding about what carries value in the game of basketball, be newish to player analysis and/or be ignorant of some information/data, or may have processed that info/data differently than you (perhaps even processed information
badly).
Or maybe
you're the one who's wrong (I know: that's never ever happened. This is the internet; we're always right, it's always the other guy who's wrong).
Anyway, the point is: there's no rule saying that people who are bad at player analysis can't come to this forum and discuss hoops.
As toward the accusation that it is strictly bias driving them toward certain conclusions.......well, no one is free from bias, however much you might believe yourself to be. It's true that some carry more than others, and often the people carrying a good share think themselves pretty fair and even-handed.
But.......as moderators, we cannot police and treat with prejudicial severity, or otherwise
exclude posters for their biased basketball opinions [on a basketball forum], simply because we don't like or agree with them. And to the best of our abilities,
we don't.
Because---and I hope you and other like-minded posters can understand this---us doing THAT would make this a much worse place in the grand scheme of things. We're not going to filter the demographic, weeding out the "undesirables", until we're left with only people we agree with. That's......actually kinda horrifying when you stop and think about what that resembles.
And even while we try to moderate without our personal opinions and beliefs directing our actions, and even as you seem to be implying we're far too permissive wrt these "LeBron haters", and even as I have [seemingly] come across as overly sympathetic to the "haters".......we have literally just seen itt (I think on almost the very same page as your post that I am quoting) a poster from the
other side of the aisle as you, accusing a moderator of action based solely on pro-LeBron bias. Whadyagonnado?
And I'll repeat: having bias is not against forum rules.
Yeah, it can interfere with quality analysis: it may cause tunnel-vision on whatever bit of info helps their case, or they may selectively over/under-value certain pieces of information, or draw too broad a conclusion from a cherry-picked piece of data, or whatever other means "disingenuous" argumentation. But.....
.....if an argument is good and
truly FOS, probably ~80% of the forum is going to immediately recognize it's FOS, and some of the other 20% will figure it out in time, while most of the rest are dug in and emotionally invested in believing it, so you'll never sway them (it's right there in my signature: "The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who
wish to believe it.")
You'll not convince them otherwise. Ever. Why waste your energy trying?
If you nonetheless feel the compulsion to respond to a dubious argument, fine; but there's no need for venom, snide tone, personal attacks or accusations: diplomatically explain all the ways it is flawed, and then move on with your life. You don't need to crusade against perceived repeat offenders until they leave.
"Leave vengeance.......Instead, lead by example." -Akiroq Brost
fwiw, You express that these people are so frustrating and disruptive........but they only are if you allow them to be.
And whether you believe it or not, I think the forum would be a lesser place without some of these people. As much as you seem to imply they target certain topics to an
obsessive degree, I note you're both among the post-count leaders in this thread, with many more than most of the haters; and in fact nearly ALL of the post-count leaders here could be viewed as "Pro-LeBron" in sentiment.
I'm willing to bet if we did a broad review of this thread, we'd find the posts from "Pro-LeBron" posters FAR outnumber those from the "haters"; and this would likely be true of any LeBron-related thread on this forum. So this disparaging dissent that is apparently so disruptive and frustrating
already comprises only an extreme minority of the content on this forum.
The majority of "anti-LeBron" posting probably comes from only a small handful who are either brave or foolish enough to argue with you at length. You succeed in driving these guys out---[and that is a very REAL risk, btw, for we have had multiple posters voicing to us in private that they feel unwelcome because of opinions that don't conform to the broader consensus]---and you'll have the zero-dissent echo chamber I've cautioned against.
What do you think that does to the forum's credibility in the long-run?
What does it do to our capacity to learn, when we've scared off or bullied into submission everyone who challenged our beliefs? Speaking for myself, even when I recognize an argument is super-flawed, I often learn from it because it compells me to dig into the topic (for no other reason than to explain
how/why it's flawed).
I'll leave it there for now, as I've already derailed enough. It's an important topic though.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
