Kearly's Random Thoughts

[hawknation2015]

If he already owned the misstep he made, why continue to bring it up? I guess that's where my curiosity lies.

I'm not offended for him. I just remember how that whole thing went down and it was a sad ordeal. The board took a hit... For worse. But I think I've said all I needed to say, and for what it's worth I think you're one of the better posters around here. This is all going in circles, so I'm bowing out. Go Hawks.

Oh, I see where you are going. I was just trying to provide an impartial view point, as I can identify with both sides of the equation. Wasn't trying to favor either side and definitely wasn't trying to insult anyone, veiled or not. I think maybe the sensitivity regarding the subject matter heightens the senses a little, and maybe the wires got a little crossed here. Either way, I think best course of action for all is to try to be respectful even if there are disagreements, and even if they are heated. The things that caused Kearly to retire his RT's are multifaceted and not all of it is just "trolling". If we are more respectful to each other a lot of that stuff that comes in between us falls away. That goes for everybody, not just one group of people.

Cheers to all, Hawks football is here and there are other unimportant things to worry about

Go Hawks!

Right on. And your sig is killing me, man. Every time I see one of your posts I want to bash my screen, thinking I have gnats flying on my monitor. LOL

I thought the same thing the first time I saw it! Glad I'm not the only one.

 

[Hawkpower]

I guess im still a tad bit confused since this whole thing started last year. I read almost every RT and I hardly remember any vitriol. I dont remember much trolls either. I remember about 60% of the people saying, "Thanks for the write up, once again, Kearly." Another 30% discussing his observations and maybe the final 10% getting heated (I use that term lightly because what you guys think is heated and trolling seems pretty tame to me).

Kearly, if you dont like to do them anymore, then dont. Its hard work and you put lots of effort into them. I can understand getting tired of it.

But the excuse of the trolls ruining it for you..... I dont know man... This is the internet, you need to be able to block that stuff out. Especially when the majority of your readers were extremely positive and loved your stuff. This is like the 10th thread since you've stopped doing them (which you respond in most of them, so I know youve read them) that has the mass majority of people complimenting you. Seems pretty petty to worry about the rest and blame it on that.

100% this.


You pick any other random thread (anything involving Russ back in July perhaps??) and you see way more chirping than any RT thread ever had.

Some posters here are held in high regard, and of course for good reason. I just wonder if that high regard causes an overreaction by other .net posters (not Kearly) to any disagreement?

Dont we post thoughts on the internet for them to be discussed? Do we have to agree with everything written by all posters no matter what?

Havent every single one of us been disagreed with, debated with, maybe even had unkind things said our way here by "trolls"?

Just reading the responses by others, it almost seems as if Random Thoughts threads had to be read and agreed with, not a place to debate?

Just my opinion. I certainly respect the work that we all put into well thought out posts.

 

[BlueTalon]

Dont we post thoughts on the internet for them to be discussed? Do we have to agree with everything written by all posters no matter what?

Just reading the responses by others, it almost seems as if Random Thoughts threads had to be read and agreed with, not a place to debate?

I will say this again, as perhaps you missed my earlier post. I disagreed with Kip often enough, as did others. I don't think it ever bothered him that we disagreed, or at least there was never any hint of it in his responses. In my cases, the exchanges were spirited, but they were also friendly and respectful, and enjoyable.

I don't know where you got the idea that anyone ever thought Random Thoughts must only be read and agreed with.

It's an unfair mischaracterization, and honestly, it borders on character assassination. And frankly, it's really annoying me. Not just you, but many others here are also effectively blaming Kip for the disappearance of Random Thoughts, rather than the people who shot him down. Things like "It's the internet, what do you expect?" & "You need to grow a thicker skin" & "You only want people to agree with you?"

Kip has explained himself adequately in this thread. The Random Thoughts was a labor of love, but a significant investment in time and energy, and the minority of rude responses wore on him, enough to the point it wasn't worth it for him to invest the time and energy any longer. It had nothing to do with being disagreed with.


Now, in this thread, a new idea has been presented for an elevated anti-shack sub-forum. Such a forum could very well mean the re-introduction of Random Thoughts. Yet people seem to oppose it, calling it elitist or saying this main forum is the elevated forum, while at the same time ignoring or justifying the rude pot-shots taken at Kip and telling him to have a thicker skin. The dichotomy is frustrating.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Lockett and Clark was bright spot enough for me to not freak out over the offense.

One's thing for sure though, three things you can count on in life;


1. Death
2. Taxes
3. The Hawk's O-line pass pro looking like a

 

[BobcatHawk]

I'll go as far as to say that I liked them as much as anybody here. They were special. But that is kind of a bear of a project and to know you HAVE to write one after every game would definitely make it a burden. I'm sure Kip will still have plenty of good stuff to say after all the games, especially the big ones, and he'll probably even author some topics. But he'll do so because he wants to, not because he has to. Sorry if I'm speaking out place.

I'd love to try it, but I need to work on my image first. I don't think too many people are going to seek enlightenment from the guy that thought it was a good idea to take Anthony to war, and drag poor Russell Wilson through the mud in the process.

You have a pretty good grasp of it.

There is an art to posting opinions that people disagree with and still have them enjoy the conversation. I think you have that gift. Some might agree, some might disagree. But I always enjoy reading your stuff, even when I don't agree 100%. In fact, I think you are at your best when everyone is against you, funny enough.

Also, you know a lot more about the nuts and bolts of football than I do. There are very few posters I learn more from than you.

My sentiments as well. I've learned quite a bit from both of you over the years. Your, as Kearly put it, nuts and bolts understanding of the game is great and you write about it in a way that makes it understandable to the run of the mill fan like myself. Would love to read your thoughts on those portions of the game that you find interesting.

 

[chris98251]

I'm sorry Chris, but that's just wrong. As in incorrect. Trolling will "kill things faster" than high standards will.

We are limited all the time in how we express ourselves, yet somehow we manage to get our ideas across. The only thing close to unlimited expression here is the shack, and even in the shack there are limits. In the main forum, there are more limits. You don't seem to have a problem with those, as it seems to be your baseline to which you compare the proposed elevated sub-forum.

I wish you wouldn't interpret this idea as elitist. With such an "elevated" sub-forum, there would be no limiting how anyone is able to express anything, because everybody would still have unfettered access to the main forum. And for those who want such an anti-shack forum, it's not an us-vs.-them thing or a 1% vs. 99% or anything like that, because those of us who want to participate constructively in such a forum are not the ones determining who can come in and who can stay.

The idea is to have a higher standard of behavior -- anybody can participate, they just have to be tactful. You could structure it so that people have to request posting privileges, the same way they have to do with the shack. The shack has nothing to do with elitism, does it? The idea of getting permission is, "be sure you know what you are getting into." Alternately, you could allow everyone permission to post in the anti-shack forum the same way we do in the main forum, and just be quick with the temp bans in that particular sub-forum for those who want to push the boundaries or disregard the rules. But curtailing someone's access from that sub-forum wouldn't necessarily impact their access to any place else in .NET.

With such an "elevated" sub-forum

- So a special gentlemen's club, isn't that considered elitist or a special interest forum, or a clique?

it's not an us-vs.-them thing or a 1% vs. 99% or anything like that, because those of us who want to participate constructively in such a forum are not the ones determining who can come in and who can stay.

Who would be making that determination then? We do a screening for members as it is.

The idea is to have a higher standard of behavior

So a 5 start restaurant with a dress code and perceived etiquette of manners and formality versus going to Sizzler.

This sub forum created and set up for a smaller percentage of members that don't deal well with conflict or argumentative posts and the perceived mentality that we are above the fray and know how to be civil and discuss things as gentlemen versus a street corner thug?

That will require time and energy to create, need to be constantly monitored to make sure these elevated levels are adhered to and also deal with the fall out of those not deemed worthy to continue to participate.

The rules and posting guidelines different from anywhere else in the forum would have to be written and who would approve those? I would think the members would have to that want to be in this 125th floor penthouse suite with catered service.


Yes I am being a bit sarcastic, but you also have to understand perception and that what a good portion of everyone else would perceive this to be.

Good manners and morality as well as etiquette should be something we strive for, however....... Some just don't have it or care, we try to glean that from the forums without being overly aggressive to stifle expressions, also some peoples delivery isn't necessarily taken well, the poster is just being who they are but are often thought of as aggressive due to how they deliver what they think.

When you have two extremes it is hard to find acceptable middle ground sometimes without some work, both sides will not be in their desired element, but I think it can be done with effort from both sides and guidance from the staff going forward.

 

[hawknation2015]

I'm sorry Chris, but that's just wrong. As in incorrect. Trolling will "kill things faster" than high standards will.

We are limited all the time in how we express ourselves, yet somehow we manage to get our ideas across. The only thing close to unlimited expression here is the shack, and even in the shack there are limits. In the main forum, there are more limits. You don't seem to have a problem with those, as it seems to be your baseline to which you compare the proposed elevated sub-forum.

I wish you wouldn't interpret this idea as elitist. With such an "elevated" sub-forum, there would be no limiting how anyone is able to express anything, because everybody would still have unfettered access to the main forum. And for those who want such an anti-shack forum, it's not an us-vs.-them thing or a 1% vs. 99% or anything like that, because those of us who want to participate constructively in such a forum are not the ones determining who can come in and who can stay.

The idea is to have a higher standard of behavior -- anybody can participate, they just have to be tactful. You could structure it so that people have to request posting privileges, the same way they have to do with the shack. The shack has nothing to do with elitism, does it? The idea of getting permission is, "be sure you know what you are getting into." Alternately, you could allow everyone permission to post in the anti-shack forum the same way we do in the main forum, and just be quick with the temp bans in that particular sub-forum for those who want to push the boundaries or disregard the rules. But curtailing someone's access from that sub-forum wouldn't necessarily impact their access to any place else in .NET.

With such an "elevated" sub-forum

- So a special gentlemen's club, isn't that considered elitist or a special interest forum, or a clique?

it's not an us-vs.-them thing or a 1% vs. 99% or anything like that, because those of us who want to participate constructively in such a forum are not the ones determining who can come in and who can stay.

Who would be making that determination then? We do a screening for members as it is.

The idea is to have a higher standard of behavior

So a 5 start restaurant with a dress code and perceived etiquette of manners and formality versus going to Sizzler.

This sub forum created and set up for a smaller percentage of members that don't deal well with conflict or argumentative posts and the perceived mentality that we are above the fray and know how to be civil and discuss things as gentlemen versus a street corner thug?

That will require time and energy to create, need to be constantly monitored to make sure these elevated levels are adhered to and also deal with the fall out of those not deemed worthy to continue to participate.

The rules and posting guidelines different from anywhere else in the forum would have to be written and who would approve those? I would think the members would have to that want to be in this 125th floor penthouse suite with catered service.


Yes I am being a bit sarcastic, but you also have to understand perception and that what a good portion of everyone else would perceive this to be.

Good manners and morality as well as etiquette should be something we strive for, however....... Some just don't have it or care, we try to glean that from the forums without being overly aggressive to stifle expressions, also some peoples delivery isn't necessarily taken well, the poster is just being who they are but are often thought of as aggressive due to how they deliver what they think.

When you have two extremes it is hard to find acceptable middle ground sometimes without some work, both sides will not be in their desired element, but I think it can be done with effort from both sides and guidance from the staff going forward.

:13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13:

 

[impacthawk]

Count me in as one who would absolutely love....and participate in an elevated discussion forum. Based on some of the responses on this thread alone, just the discussion of The RT fiasco, and such, I can tell that the main forum will remain as it is. We need a top end discussion forum. The main forum has served this purpose several times in the past 15 years, off and on depending on membership, but as the home has gotten bigger, we have a much more diverse membership. There are many members that would support this, and I really don't see a downside to giving it a try. Maybe we should hear from RockHawk on the idea.

 

[AgentDib]

The larger issue isn't a solvable problem. Some like the idea of an internet discussion forum as a place where posts and ideas are judged only on their own merit, while others like having a closer community where friendships are formed and personal histories influence the shape and tone of discourse. These are both valid opinions but ultimately conflict with each other.

 

[SeaChase]

I think Kearly just needs a fresh start. Something like Kearly's "Not so Random thoughts."

 

[Laloosh]

This thread really has taken some strange turns.

For those yearning for a sub forum in which only upper echelon thinkers exist, this thread and the level of emotion displayed by potential participants sort of put an arrow in the ass of your idea IMO. I've seen far less salt in shack threads with people arguing with opposing teams' fans.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

This thread really has taken some strange turns.

For those yearning for a sub forum in which only upper echelon thinkers exist, this thread and the level of emotion displayed by potential participants sort of put an arrow in the ass of your idea IMO. I've seen far less salt in shack threads with people arguing with opposing teams' fans.

This is a good point. You're never going to take the salt out of the Internet, no matter how hard you try.

On the other hand, the reason for the lack of it in the Smack Shack is that most people's smack is weak and not salty at all, like a two-dollar margarita in a Utah dive bar.

 

[Chawker]

kearly, I learned alot about you in the draft forum this year. Not only are your words elegantly writen you have a very good eye evaluating plays of talent, with the humor only a brother could appreciate.
I have learned to unplug myself from posting until the start of the season, and I'm in a good place now. Take your time random thoughts aren't going anywhere. cheers

 

[BlueTalon]

I'm sorry Chris, but that's just wrong. As in incorrect. Trolling will "kill things faster" than high standards will.

We are limited all the time in how we express ourselves, yet somehow we manage to get our ideas across. The only thing close to unlimited expression here is the shack, and even in the shack there are limits. In the main forum, there are more limits. You don't seem to have a problem with those, as it seems to be your baseline to which you compare the proposed elevated sub-forum.

I wish you wouldn't interpret this idea as elitist. With such an "elevated" sub-forum, there would be no limiting how anyone is able to express anything, because everybody would still have unfettered access to the main forum. And for those who want such an anti-shack forum, it's not an us-vs.-them thing or a 1% vs. 99% or anything like that, because those of us who want to participate constructively in such a forum are not the ones determining who can come in and who can stay.

The idea is to have a higher standard of behavior -- anybody can participate, they just have to be tactful. You could structure it so that people have to request posting privileges, the same way they have to do with the shack. The shack has nothing to do with elitism, does it? The idea of getting permission is, "be sure you know what you are getting into." Alternately, you could allow everyone permission to post in the anti-shack forum the same way we do in the main forum, and just be quick with the temp bans in that particular sub-forum for those who want to push the boundaries or disregard the rules. But curtailing someone's access from that sub-forum wouldn't necessarily impact their access to any place else in .NET.

With such an "elevated" sub-forum

- So a special gentlemen's club, isn't that considered elitist or a special interest forum, or a clique?

it's not an us-vs.-them thing or a 1% vs. 99% or anything like that, because those of us who want to participate constructively in such a forum are not the ones determining who can come in and who can stay.

Who would be making that determination then? We do a screening for members as it is.

The idea is to have a higher standard of behavior

So a 5 start restaurant with a dress code and perceived etiquette of manners and formality versus going to Sizzler.

This sub forum created and set up for a smaller percentage of members that don't deal well with conflict or argumentative posts and the perceived mentality that we are above the fray and know how to be civil and discuss things as gentlemen versus a street corner thug?

That will require time and energy to create, need to be constantly monitored to make sure these elevated levels are adhered to and also deal with the fall out of those not deemed worthy to continue to participate.

The rules and posting guidelines different from anywhere else in the forum would have to be written and who would approve those? I would think the members would have to that want to be in this 125th floor penthouse suite with catered service.


Yes I am being a bit sarcastic, but you also have to understand perception and that what a good portion of everyone else would perceive this to be.

Good manners and morality as well as etiquette should be something we strive for, however....... Some just don't have it or care, we try to glean that from the forums without being overly aggressive to stifle expressions, also some peoples delivery isn't necessarily taken well, the poster is just being who they are but are often thought of as aggressive due to how they deliver what they think.

When you have two extremes it is hard to find acceptable middle ground sometimes without some work, both sides will not be in their desired element, but I think it can be done with effort from both sides and guidance from the staff going forward.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Or are you just trying to push my buttons? You were more than "a bit" sarcastic, and it really said more about you than it did about me.

We already have sub-forums set up for smaller percentages of members for whom they fit. You don't seem to have an objection to any of those. Why do you insist on continuing to call an anti-shack forum "elite"? How can it be elite if everyone is eligible to participate? The only requirement is that people be polite. If you think that is too much of a burden to place on people, then your biases might prevent you from even understanding what is driving the many people who have expressed support for such a sub-forum.

You said you already do screening for this forum. What exactly is the nature of that screening? My understanding is pretty much anyone can get in as long as they agree to abide by the rules. I think that is a good thing, but it isn't much in the way of screening. And it is disingenuous to claim to be screening members when (A) it barely screens anybody, and (B) if it did screen out a lot of people, it would smack of the elitism you seem to be so concerned about.

Your current main forum isn't Sizzler, it's McDonalds. If you don't want anyone here to enjoy a 5 star restaurant because you think McDonalds should be good enough for everybody, that's reverse elitism. And if you don't want the additional burden of dealing with rules or modding an anti-shack forum, I'll do it.

 

[hawknation2015]

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Or are you just trying to push my buttons? You were more than "a bit" sarcastic, and it really said more about you than it did about me.

Wouldn't this comment get you kicked out of the very "country club" sub-forum you are advocating?

 

[BlueTalon]

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Or are you just trying to push my buttons? You were more than "a bit" sarcastic, and it really said more about you than it did about me.

Wouldn't this comment get you kicked out of the very "country club" sub-forum you are advocating?

In an anti-shack forum, I wouldn't need to ask it.

But FYI, it was a real question. He was obviously being sarcastic, he even said so. But it wasn't clear if he was trying to ridicule me or everyone who likes the idea. Either way, it made him look smaller.

If you can think of a more polite way of asking the questions, I eagerly await your suggestions.

 

[kearly]

It would be useful to be able to up vote or down vote posts. Posts that cross a certain down vote threshold would be auto deleted/blocked. That way the community could self/social admin in real time. It would also provide feedback to authors of what is beneficial to the discussion and what is not.

I've always liked this idea. It is in a way it's own form of policing. I've been on a lot of blogs with say, DISQUS type comments that use this format, and it generally motivates people with social pressures to be more insightful, and less trollish.

 

[Sarlacc83]

The fact of the matter is that most football fans aren't mature adults. They use the excuse of "venting" in order to cover up their inability to do anything other than destroy - even if that means tearing down someone trying to do something for other fans. (And I have seen it; I'm pretty sure I've called at least one person out for it in a random thoughts thread, too.)

The moderators have a difficult job, and they really have to do a fine balancing act. So I don't blame them necessarily for not being able to police what the individual members should do themselves. However, to ridicule the idea of a more 'logical' forum is short-sighted. Places like Field Gulls develop their reputation based on analysis. This would simply be a similar type of service where civility is rigorously demanded.

At the same time, it would really help if people would remind themselves that A) They don't know as much as they think they do and B) It's just a game. It is not life or death or even that important. If it didn't exist you wouldn't miss it and a great number of people would benefit from such a perspective. It's a hobby; it's supposed to be fun. Taking hobbies too seriously ruins them.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Here's my objection to an "anti-shack" message board: we've already got one. It's the main forum.

You see, this place actually self-moderates. Every person who makes things personal, stirs stuff up, or can't let go of an argument eventually becomes known for it. They thus find themselves on the outside of the community. It's happened to quite a few past names, and it's already happening to a few people now. All we need to do is be patient, fail to indulge those who are making waves, maybe some judicious use of our ignore lists...and we'll have the kind of discourse we want.

It's a lot easier than asking the mods to set up and moderate an anti-shack forum. That's a can of worms. The last place I want this site to become is another John Morgan-era Fieldgulls, regardless of what the original intention is.

 

[kearly]

So lots of stuff to respond to in this thread. Unlike some others, I think the discussion in this thread is a positive, because at least some issues are being discussed instead of not discussed. Even if no changes are implemented, the discussion has value.

With regards to Cartire and others not understanding my issue with RT. First off, 90% of the attacks I suffered were probably from drunk posters who had just signed up, and were still riding high emotionally after the game. It was a bizarre phenomenon where they would attack me personally for the loss or close win, I guess because they just wanted to attack something. These comments were usually deleted by moderators within the hour, but I'd still see them and they'd still take small pieces of my soul every time. So if you weren't seeing the attacks, it's probably because most of them were eventually stricken from the record.

The second part of what made it tough is that we are humans and it is a natural human reaction for many to bristle when others are praised, especially if that person being praised is not someone you like as much as they do. I've said many times, I would rather receive zero praise and zero disrespect than the alternative. When people praise me, I appreciate the gesture, but it only fuels the resentment of those who don't like me personally. And of course they would rarely attack me in RT, but they would do it elsewhere, where fewer eyeballs are watching. And they would often do it in ways that might not seem like an obvious attack to those who weren't watching closely.

This abuse, over years, eventually added up and I just couldn't do it anymore. It felt like I had to choose between RT and maintaining self-esteem.

Additionally, when the praise got really out of hand, I started sensing some resentment even from some good people that I respect a lot. And that was pretty much the last straw. This is why I said, in my RT farewell thread, that it wasn't as simple as people thought and that it was from a huge variety of factors.

Like I've said, RT isn't coming back. So my suggestion about a new sub-forum (and it's only a suggestion, a brainstorming idea) has nothing to do with RT, but rather creating an environment where the next guy with the next random thoughts can thrive and survive for the long term.

The irony is, I've never actually been attacked in the Shack. I've never been attacked in the PWR forum either. Probably 90% of the attacks came in the main forum, and maybe 10% in the draft forum when that forum is packed during draft season. I think civility actually has less to do with rules and more to do with the number of people in the sub-thread. So at least for me, the main forum has actually been the most toxic, and before I quit RT I actually thought about posting it in the NFL forum to see if the lower traffic might screen out some of the drunken assholes.

I only bring this up because it's been well documented that many of .net's best have been gradually leaving this place over the past 5 or so years. I've talked to many others who have talked about leaving or have said they are very close. I myself have come close on several occasions. A lot of people, not me, have commented that this place is going downhill. I think we can all sense it, even if the content (Scottemojo, Tical, DavidSeven, etc) can be quite good at times.

Anyway, all I really ask is that this issue be given real thought and real actions.

With regards to the anti-shack idea. I understand the skepticism. I understand why it might sound elitist. I understand why it could be a headache to police. I myself am only about 25% sure it would work. But it's one of those things that you won't know until you try it. I think it beats doing nothing. But I am totally open to other suggestions. For example, the +/- idea has some promise.