Phun with Phil Rogers' trade scenario

[USSoccer]

I'm sure people would take me more seriously if I had 7,829 posts. My apologies.

 

Exactly. The most credible people are the dorm room GMs with the most time and the most posts. Your fault for not realizing that.

 

peace, guys. peace. :D

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm sure people would take me more seriously if I had 7,829 posts. My apologies.

 

You're sure to get there quicker by throwing jabs at the entire community in nearly every post. Sooner or later you'll wind up in an epic argument that'll up your totals.

[wilk]

I'm all for peace, but he does have a point and I see it evident all the time here. Maybe for good reason considering how some "communities" like Cubs.com operate but it's true that you have no credibility on this board unless you have a huge post total. And in all sincerity, what truly credible person close to the business is going to have the most posts? The people who post the most are usually the people without a whole lot else to do. That's just logic. And besides, while "jabs" are not proper... is libel? C'mon, "I'm certain [Rogers is reminded to juice up stories to sell papers]." Plainly untrue and perhaps some people take offense to THOSE jabs. But preference to the post total holds true there, also, when deciding who to hush.

[Chris]

Do Bruce Miles, Ron Potesta, Len Kasper or Nathan Baliva have big post counts?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm all for peace, but he does have a point and I see it evident all the time here. Maybe for good reason considering how some "communities" like Cubs.com operate but it's true that you have no credibility on this board unless you have a huge post total. And in all sincerity, what truly credible person close to the business is going to have the most posts? The people who post the most are usually the people without a whole lot else to do. That's just logic. And besides, while "jabs" are not proper... is libel? C'mon, "I'm certain [Rogers is reminded to juice up stories to sell papers]." Plainly untrue and perhaps some people take offense to THOSE jabs. But preference to the post total holds true there, also, when deciding who to hush.

 

Insinuating Rogers exaggerates to sell papers is libel? If that's libel all this nonsense about post counts is too. What example is there of people respecting the opinions of people more than others because of post count?

[wilk]

Do Bruce Miles, Ron Potesta, Len Kasper or Nathan Baliva have big post counts?

 

But that's an entirely arbitrary point. They are credible due to outside circumstances and come to the board AS authorities on the matter. Not vice versa. Now if Bruce Miles posted under a different name and didn't reveal that he was Bruce Miles - then yes, he'd be dismissed in favor of Jeff from Iowa (not a reference to any one real poster).

Edited December 28, 2005 by wilk

[wilk]

Insinuating Rogers exaggerates to sell papers is libel? If that's libel all this nonsense about post counts is too. What example is there of people respecting the opinions of people more than others because of post count?

 

Yes, saying "I AM CERTAIN [that Rogers knows to write juicy and phony stories to sell papers and is reminded if he doesn't]" is libel. No, anything mentioned about post counts is not libel. I'm only being technical here, I'm not suggesting anyone file a suit and I'd find that laughable if someone did. But some people might take offense to such things. I'm not going to sit here and have a stupid argument with you guys. If you want to believe what I say is entirely untrue, then fine. But if you're going to warn a poster about defending his comments, then warn the posters dismissing and attacking that comment while stating they are "certain" of something untrue.

[Outshined_One]

And if he forgets I am certain that he is reminded.

 

You are certain? I am certain that no one tells nor reminds him "Hey, our numbers are slipping, why don't you cook up some absurd article today and get more subscribers!"

 

The voices in his head take care of that on their own, imo.

[Chris]

Do Bruce Miles, Ron Potesta, Len Kasper or Nathan Baliva have big post counts?

 

Um, that's an entirely arbitrary point. They are credible due to outside circumstances and come to the board AS authorities on the matter. Not vice versa. Now if Bruce Miles posted under a different name and didn't reveal that he was Bruce Miles - then yes, he'd be dismissed in favor of Jeff from Iowa (not a reference to any one real poster).

 

If Bruce Miles posted under a different name and made accurate predictions in regards to what would happen, he would be reputable with or without a large number of posts. In the case of this particular thread, it is an instance of someone with fewer posts using that as a crutch, not the other way around.

[wilk]

Do Bruce Miles, Ron Potesta, Len Kasper or Nathan Baliva have big post counts?

 

Um, that's an entirely arbitrary point. They are credible due to outside circumstances and come to the board AS authorities on the matter. Not vice versa. Now if Bruce Miles posted under a different name and didn't reveal that he was Bruce Miles - then yes, he'd be dismissed in favor of Jeff from Iowa (not a reference to any one real poster).

 

If Bruce Miles posted under a different name and made accurate predictions in regards to what would happen, he would be reputable with or without a large number of posts. In the case of this particular thread, it is an instance of someone with fewer posts using that as a crutch, not the other way around.

 

Well, I disagree. I think if Bruce said some of the things he's said as a regular anonymous poster, especially some of the "new" things - such as Hill and Pie no longer being unavailable - he'd be treated as a "troll" and his posts would be entirely dismissed. By the time it was proven accurate, no one would remember his post. I have firsthand experience with this actually. These type of boards are almost always a selective clique. My point wasn't that people with high post counts use it as leverage, I don't recall seeing that occur. My point was that people with low post counts get the crappy end of the stick more times than not when it comes to credibility, moderation, and the etc. which usually ends in them being dismissed. I'm not attacking anyone and I think my stance on this is plenty reasonable. You're welcome to thinking people are more open-minded than I think they are. But I don't want to continue this debate.

[Chris]

You're welcome to thinking people are more open-minded than I think they are.

 

<-----------------------glass half full

[Laura]

Sometimes courtesy is a two-way street. It's more likely to be returned when it's extended.

 

And sometimes it takes awhile for people to recognize the contributions of new posters because there has been a lot of growth on the site lately.

[wilk]

Deleted. Edited December 28, 2005 by wilk

[1908]

I don't think you have much of a clue as to how many people we've dismissed and the reasons for us doing so, honestly.

 

Really? Why don't I have a clue? I've read this board for a couple years now, what gives you reason to believe I have any less of a "clue" than anyone else? These type of comments are exactly my point.

 

Fine, I know nothing. I have no clue. Dropped.

When I first read your post, I thought you were referring to posters we have banned when you said dismissed -- and you really don't have any clue on how many people we've dismissed in that sense. After reading it again, I realized that you probably weren't saying that, and deleted my post before you posted your reply. So my comment wasn't related to your point. Sorry to disappoint.

[wilk]

After reading it again, I realized that you probably weren't saying that, and deleted my post before you posted your reply. So my comment wasn't related to your point. Sorry to disappoint.

 

OK, I see the misunderstanding.

[Careless]

Do Bruce Miles, Ron Potesta, Len Kasper or Nathan Baliva have big post counts?

 

But that's an entirely arbitrary point. They are credible due to outside circumstances and come to the board AS authorities on the matter. Not vice versa. Now if Bruce Miles posted under a different name and didn't reveal that he was Bruce Miles - then yes, he'd be dismissed in favor of Jeff from Iowa (not a reference to any one real poster).

Hey, I'm 100% incredible (ok, noncredible), but my point about gun being completely off base when he said that there's no incentive for columnists to write inflamatory articles that will boost readership is 100% correct. And if gunned doesn't recognize it, I'm sure his bosses would want him fired for incompetence

ediT: and before some ____ brings up ethics, I never brought up what should be done, only financial consequences of irresponsible reporting.

[Cubfanintheknow]

In defense of Gunned, I've worked in a few newsrooms and here's what I've seen. We'll use Phil Rogers' trade prpposal as the example. Editors will not walk up to Phil and say, "Hey we're looking to boost circulation. Why don't you come up with the wackiest trade proposal you possibly can on this whole Miguel Tejada thing." While they will ask Rogers to write a piece specifically on the trade proposal, it's entirely up to Rogers as to what that opinion will be.

 

Perhaps the direction this discussion should go is to assess the motivation behind Rogers' proposal to trade Carlos Zambrano instead. He may think it really is in the Cubs best interest. He may suggest it just to generate more discussion on the topic. Or, in what is becoming increasingly more common these days, he might be trying to generate enough of a buzz to buy him some face itme on TV. It's an all-too-popular (read: lazy) way of filling air time on all those all-sports stations.

 

Circulation numbers do not drive the cost for ad space. Any ad salesperson will tell you demand drives the cost. And any good salesperson knows how to generate demand.

[Bull]

I'm sure people would take me more seriously if I had 7,829 posts. My apologies.

 

Exactly. The most credible people are the dorm room GMs with the most time and the most posts. Your fault for not realizing that.

 

If by credible you mean recognizable and memorable, then, yeah, the people who post often are memorable for what they say (whether accurate or inaccurate)

 

There was this guy over at cubs.com named Tom27... oh skip it.

[Gunned]

In defense of Gunned, I've worked in a few newsrooms and here's what I've seen. We'll use Phil Rogers' trade prpposal as the example. Editors will not walk up to Phil and say, "Hey we're looking to boost circulation. Why don't you come up with the wackiest trade proposal you possibly can on this whole Miguel Tejada thing." While they will ask Rogers to write a piece specifically on the trade proposal, it's entirely up to Rogers as to what that opinion will be.

 

Perhaps the direction this discussion should go is to assess the motivation behind Rogers' proposal to trade Carlos Zambrano instead. He may think it really is in the Cubs best interest. He may suggest it just to generate more discussion on the topic. Or, in what is becoming increasingly more common these days, he might be trying to generate enough of a buzz to buy him some face itme on TV. It's an all-too-popular (read: lazy) way of filling air time on all those all-sports stations.

 

Circulation numbers do not drive the cost for ad space. Any ad salesperson will tell you demand drives the cost. And any good salesperson knows how to generate demand.

 

Thanks.

[RynoRules]

Wow - sarcasm leads to much unrest.

 

And thanks for the personal attack, Mr. Wilk!

 

Oh, and BTW, I am an attnyand live with my wife and son, so I guess I am a Yuppie GM, and not a Dorm GM. Way to generalize, though.

Edited December 28, 2005 by RynoRules

[Magnetic Curses]

the fact remains: does any rational human being, including rogers for the sake of argument, believe that his trade could come to realization?

 

i doubt it.

 

the sheer fact that there are 4 pages dedicated to his assinine trade proposal would point to the probability that a sports columnist writes things to get people talking at the water cooler, on-line, barroom, card table, etc.

 

while i don't think that careless was saying that rogers aims at writing a sports version of "Baby with man-boobs born to gay couple" or "Chewbacca-man found living in Tomb of Christ", he did write his article to stir discussion, which is what columnists are paid to do.

 

this makes for more readers ("did you see that idiots new column? what a dumbass" or "did you read phil's new column? it was pretty interesting") , which newspapers like. if no one reads the paper, selling ad space would be impossible, that's simple logic. you don't need to be in the business to know how that works.

[brinoch]

I think we'd all just be better off if we paid no attention to Phil Rogers, his columns, or the fact that he picked the Rockies as his surprise team in 2005.

[BigbadB]

I think we'd all just be better off if we paid no attention to Phil Rogers, his columns, or the fact that he picked the Rockies as his surprise team in 2005.

 

I thought he picked the Rockies to win the division in 2004? Which one of us has the wrong year? Or did he do it again? #-o

[brinoch]

I think we'd all just be better off if we paid no attention to Phil Rogers, his columns, or the fact that he picked the Rockies as his surprise team in 2005.

 

I thought he picked the Rockies to win the division in 2004? Which one of us has the wrong year? Or did he do it again? #-o

 

I thought it was '05, but I could be wrong. Of course, does it matter? Whenever it happened, it was a positively loopy prediction.