# ***Attention Blazer Community***



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Due to countless complaints from board members, and members of the staff, the member Mixum has been removed of his posting privleges on this Blazer board here on BBB.net. He is still an active member of BBB.net not just the Blazer community. If you have any questions please PM me or you can ask in this thread. 

Thanks

BEEZ


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

BEEZ said:


> Due to countless complaints from board members, and members of the staff, the member Mixum has been removed of his posting privleges on this Blazer board here on BBB.net. He is still an active member of BBB.net not just the Blazer community. If you have any questions please PM me or you can ask in this thread.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> BEEZ


You are so awesome. :clap:


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

thanks so much i liked him but his recent posts were getting out of hand.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Good riddance!:cheers:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

BEEZ said:


> Due to countless complaints from board members, and members of the staff, the member Mixum has been removed of his posting privleges on this Blazer board here on BBB.net. He is still an active member of BBB.net not just the Blazer community. If you have any questions please PM me or you can ask in this thread.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> BEEZ


Absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> Absolutely ridiculous.


I agree.

It's not ridiculous that the management has made this decision after receiving numerous complaints - this is not on them. I understand why they have made this decision.

It's ridiculous to me that people would choose to ask to "ban" him rather than use the ignore button - or simply refuse to open the posts that mixum starts.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

Thanks I am all for the belief that you should be able to have a dissenting position, but spouting it off in every thread and being generally beligerant in every thread gets a little old. Like many I question why he was even still a fan.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

whats ridiculous about him getting his posting privleages taken away he was trolling to get a responce.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Thank you.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> I agree.
> 
> It's not ridiculous that the management has made this decision after receiving numerous complaints - this is not on them. I understand why they have made this decision.
> 
> It's ridiculous to me that people would choose to ask to "ban" him rather than use the ignore button - or simply refuse to open the posts that mixum starts.


I agree.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

tlong said:


> Absolutely ridiculous.


 Expound please?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> I agree.
> 
> It's not ridiculous that the management has made this decision after receiving numerous complaints - this is not on them. I understand why they have made this decision.
> 
> It's ridiculous to me that people would choose to ask to "ban" him rather than use the ignore button - or simply refuse to open the posts that mixum starts.


Agreed. The administration can and should do what they think is best.

It's just sad that if people cried loudly enough and long enough that they'd get their way. Especially since, as you say ST, there are such easy ways to simply ignore everything that mixum posted if one was so inclined.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> I agree.
> 
> It's not ridiculous that the management has made this decision after receiving numerous complaints - this is not on them. I understand why they have made this decision.
> 
> It's ridiculous to me that people would choose to ask to "ban" him rather than use the ignore button - or simply refuse to open the posts that mixum starts.


because what he did was against the rules. Ignore button only works so far, especially since mods can't just ignore problems.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Not that this is a vote or anything, but I agree with tlong, Storyteller and Fork.

Yes, his posts could often be obnoxious, were 99.99% negative rants, and many posters ended up hating the guy (it seems). 

And, there is the argument that he is simply trolling.

But the simple solution is to not read his posts if they bother you so much.

Just my 2 pesos.

P.S. Again, not a dig at management at all for responding to a problem.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> Not that this is a vote or anything, but I agree with tlong, Storyteller and Fork.
> 
> Yes, his posts could often be obnoxious, were 99.99% negative rants, and many posters ended up hating the guy (it seems).
> 
> ...


there are rules for a reason. He was given a chance (actually, several) NOT to make baiting and trolling posts. He agree'd to do it, knowing that if he went back to his old ways, he'd be gone. He went back to his old ways. He's gone.

Because a small minority think that we can just ignore him...then whats the point of having mods? I mean, we can just ignore people..


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> there are rules for a reason. He was given a chance (actually, several) NOT to make baiting and trolling posts. He agree'd to do it, knowing that if he went back to his old ways, he'd be gone. He went back to his old ways. He's gone.
> 
> Because a small minority think that we can just ignore him...then whats the point of having mods? I mean, we can just ignore people..


The definition of baiting and trolling is subjective in nature. Not everyone would agree that what Mixum did was baiting and trolling. What he did was bash the Blazers and the organization's decision making repeatedly. I see nothing wrong with this.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Hap said:


> there are rules for a reason. He was given a chance (actually, several) NOT to make baiting and trolling posts. He agree'd to do it, knowing that if he went back to his old ways, he'd be gone. He went back to his old ways. He's gone.
> 
> Because a small minority think that we can just ignore him...then whats the point of having mods? I mean, we can just ignore people..


Hey, I dig what your saying man. I know I'm not privy to all the behind the scenes arbitration. I remember his previous mea culpa thread. It was determined that he is a serial baiter. I respect the decision of the management. I agree we need mods. I bailed on O-live back in 2000 for a reason!

Now, can we all just get along and agree to fight in peace! :clown:


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

tlong said:


> The definition of baiting and trolling is *subjective* in nature. Not everyone would agree that what Mixum did was baiting and trolling. What he did was bash the Blazers and the organization's decision making repeatedly. I see nothing wrong with this.


Yep.. Subjective like the excessive noise ticket I got in high school with my '67 Nova.. I still had to pay it even though they never tested it. I got the ticket because of one cops hearing. Oh well.

Trolling and baiting is subjective to. If management feels that's what he was doing, oh well. They gave him many chances I think. It's like kids. You give them a 2nd and maybe a 3rd chance, but eventually you'll have to give them the punishment if they keep breaking the rules.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

It's got nothing to do with mixum being negative. Ed O and theWanker are negative most of the time, too. Should they be banned as well? Of course not. And why? Because they don't cause a ruckus here over every little Blazers-related event. That was mixum's MO.

Maybe mixum was/is just an extremely overreactionary person. Maybe he really was trolling. But motivations aside, he made life difficult for the Mods with pretty much every single post here. They gave him chances to change it. He didn't. He's gone. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

That said, it bothers me too that people would put their energy into complaining about it rather than ignoring it or, better yet, confronting it directly and trying to change it. I personally hadn't yet grown tired of trying to talk some sense into mixum, but I can understand if some here had.

Unfortunate turn of events.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> It's got nothing to do with mixum being negative. Ed O and theWanker are negative most of the time, too. Should they be banned as well? Of course not. And why? Because they don't cause a ruckus here over every little Blazers-related event. That was mixum's MO.


I am not sure this is right (although I see what you're saying). We've had serial positive spammers on this board before, and they annoyed many people. But the nature of most fans is that they want to be positive and they don't want to hear others (media, other teams' fans, other fans of their teams) be negative. There's nothing wrong with that IMO, but I think that means there's a real bias against negative comments.

Which, when the current team prompts so many negative comments, causes problems because some people don't have theWanker's eloquence or my spare time to make thoughtful (or at least thought-out) posts ripping Blazers management.

Ed O.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

If this board were an actual building, where we all met to talk about the Blazers (with an OT room off to the side), the management would be forced to remove mixum. He walks into the place, shouts that Nash sucks, watches people argue about whether Nash sucks or not, and then a while later he shouts that Nash sucks again. 

If the management decided to NOT bounce mixum, the customer complaints would surely make them consider it, and if it was an actual brick-and-mortar meeting place they would surely not wait two or three years to ban him as was the case here.

The moral of the story is: have an opinion, but also have some consideration for your fellow human beings.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> There's nothing wrong with that IMO, but I think that means there's a real bias against negative comments.


Duh. 

But not against negative comments about the Blazers or Nash, just in general. You can't walk into a place and start spouting negative stuff to get people talking and then watch the arguing. You CAN walk into a place and say positive stuff and then watch what happens.

Free speech? Not the issue here. He is still free to say what he wants, but I'd put him in the category with graffiti taggers and not war protesters. He crossed the line. Constantly.

IMO


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> It's got nothing to do with mixum being negative. Ed O and theWanker are negative most of the time, too. Should they be banned as well? Of course not. And why? Because they don't cause a ruckus here over every little Blazers-related event. That was mixum's MO.
> 
> 
> PBF


I agree! Because at least they take the time to back up their displeasure with sometimes  valid points.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

mixum loved to troll 

I am willing to bet the blazers arent his real favorite team


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> I agree.
> 
> It's not ridiculous that the management has made this decision after receiving numerous complaints - this is not on them. I understand why they have made this decision.
> 
> It's ridiculous to me that people would choose to ask to "ban" him rather than use the ignore button - or simply refuse to open the posts that mixum starts.


yup. Time and again it was the same posters whining and taking personal cheapshots at him, claiming "welcome to my ignore list" and so on only to be back with the same lame bleep the next time he posted. 

There are posters here who I find to be completely off their respective rockers... nonsensical looney tunes... and others I find to be, well, pretty stupid... but rather then responding when I know I'm not going to find any common ground or learn anything, or worse yet going off crying to mommie management about a poster who is ruining my day, since I find them to have nothing of value to contribute to why I am here, I simply scroll down and go on to the next post. 

Like Storyteller, I understand why management did what they did, but on the other hand it's too bad IMO that those who weren't capable of handling matters maturely got their way by making an easily ignorable molehill into a mountain.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Like Storyteller, I understand why management did what they did, but on the other hand it's too bad IMO that those who weren't capable of handling matters maturely got their way by making an easily ignorable molehill into a mountain.
> 
> STOMP


Fact is he broke the rules here. They gave him numerous opportunities to tone it down and he didn't. He knew the consequences he would face if he continued his childish behavior.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Fact is he broke the rules here. They gave him numerous opportunities to tone it down and he didn't. He knew the consequences he would face if he continued his childish behavior.


Facts are that those who I was refering to often broke the rules here, much more blatently then Mixum IMO. Usually in the threads he started, several posts containing direct personal insults would be edited out in response to him criticizing the moves of the team... hopefully you can understand the difference. 

As it has been layed out countless times by the mods here, players and team moves are pretty much free game, blasting posters with insults is specifically not OK. I don't blame mods for getting sick of dealing with this issue, and certainly Mixim did not tone down his distain as he'd promised so he is not blameless... but that doesn't excuse the childish behavior by those who continually rose to what they percieved to be baiting. Certainly their behavior exaserbated the situation quite a bit. 

STOMP


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I don't see anything wrong with banning the posting privileges of trolls. Their intent is enough to warrant their ban. Mixim was the worst kind of troll. He actually has some people believing he wasn't one. He's worked over this board for too long and banning him was without question the right thing to do.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> mixum loved to troll
> 
> I am willing to bet the blazers arent his real favorite team


There's really no doubt about that in my mind. None whatsoever. There's no issue here. A troll was banned. That's what happens to them.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Scout226 said:


> Yep.. Subjective like the excessive noise ticket I got in high school with my '67 Nova..


Off topic and just for fun, my deductive reasoning says your age is no where close to the age of 94 you claim to have. I would say 55 or 56, but 57 tops. 

On topic, Mixum always walked a fine line and got called on it. Relying solely on the ignore function or not opening his posts renders the mods pointless. He only has himself to blame and I doubt he will lose any sleep over it.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Thank you management.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I'll take the stance that I disagree with "management's" decision (is this my last post?). They have a higher duty than to follow the moral majority. They are in a role to make decisions and need to look past the politicing of doing what the majority wants and do the right thing. To institue the equivalent of the death penalty for a poster who rubs others the wrong way and potentially violates a few rules is a throwback to the times of persecution. Did mangement even ask other posters opinion before taking such decisive actions or did they simply listen to the posters voicing the most displeaure and make a decision based on those posters thoughts?

I am not unmindful that mixim crosses the line, but so do many others. There are cheap shots being thrown out on a daily basis and I submit that an equivalent to a troll is the eternal optomist that refuses to face the facts and spews Blazers predictions of playoffs and being the best Blazer team ever on a daily basis. Should they as well be banned? In the process of gaining a peaceful and enjoyable board, management must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Mangement should not seek to satisfy their thirst for peaceful board by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. Instead, mangement should conduct their struggles on the high plane of dignity and discipline, making decision that are fair to all who participate.

I urge mangement not to allow the protest of the masses to degenerate into banishment of a poster. I know I'm new here and no doubt put my own exsistence at risk by being new and challengeing the status quo. But do you know what this looks like from someone on the outside looking in?


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

This perhaps could have been avoided with a more robust and easily accessible Ignore function. Ignore exists, and I used it on mixum for a while, but there were two flaws keeping it from being used by all who could have used it.

1 - It doesn't block thread titles (where mixum did as much pontification as in his posts).

2 - It is a little hard to find. I've seen forum software with the Ignore feature right there beneath the poster's avatar ("Ignore This User"). That feature perhaps would have let people (like me, before I was given directions to the Ignore feature) more easily ignore him.

I think if these two (in my humble opinion) flaws in the system had not existed , say, a year ago, mixum would still be allowed to post, and those who wish to read his posts and engage in conversation with him could still do so.

However, just because mixum is gone doesn't mean these two problems are gone, too. I'd like to know who I can submit these suggestions to (or if this post is enough) to perhaps see if these two items can be addressed.

Anyway... just thought I'd chime in.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

> But do you know what this looks like from someone on the outside looking in?


 Quite a bit better than the O'Live forum, I'd Imagine.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> Off topic and just for fun, my deductive reasoning says your age is no where close to the age of 94 you claim to have. I would say 55 or 56, but 57 tops.


ha ha.. Not even close.. More in the low-mid 30's..


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

Thanks moderators, I appreciate it. There's already enough negativity on these boards that comes from discussing a losing team - he just exacerbated the problem.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> It's got nothing to do with mixum being negative. Ed O and theWanker are negative most of the time, too. Should they be banned as well? Of course not. And why? Because they don't cause a ruckus here over every little Blazers-related event. That was mixum's MO.


Hey, just because I have stared into the endless, dark abyss of Blazer nothingness and found no hope, no future, no significant rational plan, and I have wept and screamed into this void with the force of a thousand children discovering crushed puppies in their Christmas stockings, does not make me a curmudgeon. 

as for mixum, well, I'll use the same selfish rationale I've used to evaluate everything Blazer-related, from Rasheed to Damon to Hap to the famous skanks of a Bash a few years back: Does it make this really pointless hobby of religiously following a basketball team in some way more enjoyable? 

mixum clearly failed that test for me. 

adios, buddy.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'll take the stance that I disagree with "management's" decision (is this my last post?). They have a higher duty than to follow the moral majority. They are in a role to make decisions and need to look past the politicing of doing what the majority wants and do the right thing. To institue the equivalent of the death penalty for a poster who rubs others the wrong way and potentially violates a few rules is a throwback to the times of persecution. Did mangement even ask other posters opinion before taking such decisive actions or did they simply listen to the posters voicing the most displeaure and make a decision based on those posters thoughts?
> 
> I am not unmindful that mixim crosses the line, but so do many others. There are cheap shots being thrown out on a daily basis and I submit that an equivalent to a troll is the eternal optomist that refuses to face the facts and spews Blazers predictions of playoffs and being the best Blazer team ever on a daily basis. Should they as well be banned? In the process of gaining a peaceful and enjoyable board, management must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. *Mangement should not seek to satisfy their thirst for peaceful board by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. Instead, mangement should conduct their struggles on the high plane of dignity and discipline, making decision that are fair to all who participate.*
> 
> I urge mangement not to allow the protest of the masses to degenerate into banishment of a poster. I know I'm new here and no doubt put my own exsistence at risk by being new and challengeing the status quo. But do you know what this looks like from someone on the outside looking in?


While I appreciate your thoughts on the banning of mixum I would like to point out that he on several occasions has been given the opportunity to stop his troll like behavior and he did make an effort where he was actually making some good posts without a troll like tone. Yet here we are three games into the preseason and he has fallen back into his habit of baiting other posters. If you have the time I would urge you to go back and look at some of the threads started out by mixum are read them. I am sure that many people on the board are upset that mixum is no longer a member of our board and you can still visit him outside of this board, but he was banned for trolling which is against policy for BBB.net. I ask everyone, how much is enough for giving people a second chance?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

theWanker said:


> Hey, just because I have stared into the endless, dark abyss of Blazer nothingness and found no hope, no future, no significant rational plan, and I have wept and screamed into this void with the force of a thousand children discovering crushed puppies in their Christmas stockings, does not make me a curmudgeon.


As a card-carrying curmudgeon, I think I take offense at that! :biggrin:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I didn't have an official vote on this, but this was my input on the matter:



> I'm not a Blazers mod, but as someone who reads the board daily, I think that mixum brings virtually nothing of value while taking a consistently antagonistic tone. Blazers fan or not, he's a troll: his posts seem pitched to draw negative reactions.
> 
> I've defended mixum in the past, because I wanted to protect the principle of dissenting viewpoints also having as much right to post as anyone else. But mixum is not merely a dissenting opinion, he tries to annoy fans of the team (which is seperate from his gloomy outlook of the team, which may or may not be sincere).


Granted, these matters are subjective, but that's how he came across to me.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

As many of you know I have hadmy issues with Mixum in the past. Hell a few months ago I even started a thread about how we could fight back against his baiting, derogratory posts. At that time i got alot of feedback telling me to just ignore the guy. So afterawhile I did...it just wasn't worth it to respond to him anymore. I did complian in the past but was not one to complain recently. His posts were taken by a 1/2 grain of salt by me lately at best. 

Mixum had a right to by cynical about this team as does EdO and Tlong and anyone else for that matter. Unfort. the difference became the general baiting and antagonism in Mixum's posts. It seemed like he really was toning it down IMO until the last couple days. Today was over the top IMO. 
Like this for instance; 




> ED O it will be fun to watch these same people who love this group start crying when they FINALLY REALIZE THAT THIS GROUP IS NOT THAT GOOD AND MOST OF OUR ROSTER WILL BE BACKUPS OR NBA-DL PLAYERS.
> 
> That will be a fun time.
> 
> In all honesty.....this franchise is done until Nash gets fired. I can tell you one thing...Nash will not be here next summer and thast is our only reason for hope


. 

Unfort. he also posted some very claseless and baseless things on our fantasy basketball page as well. For those involved please note I responded to his words by posting some basic rules for the Fantasy B-ball message board. It's unfortunate I have to do this but necessary. As you will note Mixum will be allowed to continue his participation in the league as long as he follows these rules, if he chooses not to his team will be locked for the remainder of the season.


----------



## Chalupa (Jul 20, 2005)

My problem with Mixum was when ever he posted pretty much everyone on the board goes to defend and argue about what ever he was bashing. It is impossible to ignore him when all the traffic on the board is centered on one of his posts.

That and not once (that I've seen) did he accept even the possiblity that someone else’s view point could be true even when faced with overwhelming evidence and strong rational points.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

<3 sa many people have said mixum should be allowed to stay on these message boards last night i was ready to ignore him and then this morning he went too far and therefore he shouldve been banned and the mods made a good decision.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Facts are that those who I was refering to often broke the rules here, much more blatently then Mixum IMO. Usually in the threads he started, several posts containing direct personal insults would be edited out in response to him criticizing the moves of the team... hopefully you can understand the difference.
> 
> As it has been layed out countless times by the mods here, players and team moves are pretty much free game, blasting posters with insults is specifically not OK. I don't blame mods for getting sick of dealing with this issue, and certainly Mixim did not tone down his distain as he'd promised so he is not blameless... but that doesn't excuse the childish behavior by those who continually rose to what they percieved to be baiting. Certainly their behavior exaserbated the situation quite a bit.
> 
> STOMP


I agree to a certain extent but when you get pulled over on the highway you can't tell the officer there are many more cars going as fast as yours and expect not to get a ticket. I don't expect the mods to get everything here, especially with the limited resources and such. Just because someone who does something similar gets off doesn't mean another person should. Broken rules warrant such action, now if we can only get the rest.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Chalupa said:


> ....That and not once (that I've seen) did he accept even the possiblity that someone else’s view point could be true even when faced with overwhelming evidence and strong rational points.


R.I.P.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Granted, these matters are subjective, but that's how he came across to me.


That is pretty much exactly how I saw it as well. On general principle I didn't want him banned simply for being negative. However he was obviously trolling for attention most the time regardless. He did get warned about this in the past, so I don't think this is an unfair resolution to it.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> That is pretty much exactly how I saw it as well. On general principle I didn't want him banned simply for being negative. However he was obviously trolling for attention most the time regardless. He did get warned about this in the past, so I don't think this is an unfair resolution to it.


This is true and this is why I didn't have a problem with the ban. Most posters on this board get 2nd, & 3rd chances.......mixum kept pushing the envelope after several warnings, thus he is on the outside looking in.`


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> The definition of baiting and trolling is subjective in nature. Not everyone would agree that what Mixum did was baiting and trolling. What he did was bash the Blazers and the organization's decision making repeatedly. I see nothing wrong with this.


shame that you aren't in charge then.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

I would have to agree with tlong. What is "baiting" to one person is a legitimate opinion to someone else. Yeah mixum was negative, but it was his opinions. I don't see how that is baiting. Was it baiting becuase you disgreed with his opinion? If so, then everyone on this board is guilty of baiting every time they post. Me for example here.

Prunetang


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Prunetang said:


> I would have to agree with tlong. What is "baiting" to one person is a legitimate opinion to someone else. Yeah mixum was negative, but it was his opinions. I don't see how that is baiting. Was it baiting becuase you disgreed with his opinion? If so, then everyone on this board is guilty of baiting every time they post. Me for example here.
> 
> Prunetang



You would be banned already, if you weren't the Curveball Champion.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

why do alot of people think mixum should have been allowed to stay.he calmed down for a while then he started his old ways.in the fantasy league he was *****ing about this forum when it has nothing to do with this forum besides the name of it.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

> You would be banned already, if you weren't the Curveball Champion.


Haha....well, I am glad I got really bored and started playing a dumb game... saved me.
Is this similar to how some star players are allowed to get away with things (hint...Iverson)? haha
Ahhh yes.....CurveBall Star Treatment.....Life is good.
Prunetang


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

I too am disappointed in the banning of ole' Carlito. I don't think he was baiting individual posters, but more trying to see how stupid some of us are for continue to respond to his posts. Some of his post were a lot better than some of the "trade Darius for Tracy McGrady" posts. Mixum's posts always had two or more pages of responses. He often times would have really good points, when you read through the misspelled words and non punctuation. I could name a few other posters who are lucky to get a reply to their threads. I find some posters just respond to some threads just to see their own Avatar. That's more annoying than Mixum.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Prunetang said:


> Haha....well, I am glad I got really bored and started playing a dumb game... saved me.
> Is this similar to how some star players are allowed to get away with things (hint...Iverson)? haha
> Ahhh yes.....CurveBall Star Treatment.....Life is good.
> Prunetang


















Got my eyes on you! ​


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

bottom line is, you have some posters who just hate mods and purposely push the envelope.

you have some who hate mods, but don't push the envelope. Generally, those are 2 of the groups of people who complain when someone is banned (you all know who these people are).

You have some who don't, or refuse to, abide by the rules. They might not do anything bad (they have to keep the "reputation" going) but they'll drop in their 2 cents whenever something like this happens. 

Then you have a large % of those who aren't too happy with the banning, who aren't necessarily unhappy he's gone, but unhappy that it came to it. Not because they necessarily liked mixum, but because they don't like how others let it get to them as much as it did. They're forgetting that there's a very important reason why we have mods. So posters don't have to be baited, insulted, mocked and generally trolled by other posters. 

So after a while, you get people who are tired of having to deal with that person. It makes the board look bad. But you get people who say that all we have to do is just ignore people. What they fail to see is that there's a lot of incidences over a period of time, that despite the fact one can "just ignore", are *still* against the boards rules. Sometimes when someone gets away with something because they're "a fan of the team", it makes it even more irritating. And then to have fans (altho this wasn't one of those times, altho others have been, including Mixum) accuse the mods of doing this or that soley because the person doesn't agree with the mods mindset, defeats the purpose of why the mods are trying to help the board get better.

We mods didn't do this because mixum irrirated us. we didn't do it because he "bashed the organization". We did it because to anyone with an ounce of sense, it was obvious that he was changing the lyrics of his song, sometimes in mid prelude, to suit the overal feel of the board (in a negative tone). He would not only repeat the same things over and over and over and over (of which, he did in a purely hyperbolic manner and illogical), but he would then change his point of view *mid* argument.

And not in a "I change my mind" sorta way either. In a "I can't believe we signed Dan Dickau/Man, we're totally screwed/I can't believe we traded Dan Dickau and signed X!"

He was saying things to inflame people here. Either that or he has a rudimentary ability to argue. Besides accusing us of drinking kool-aid a while back, he'd make comments about us being stupid about things, and that we were crazy to think the most extreme version of what *might* happen.

It's basically someone saying "I like chevrolets" and you responding with "I can't believe you think Chevrolets are the best car ever! You must drink chevrolet kool-aid if you think every car chevrolet makes is better than the best cars ever made. I mean, what are you, stupid?"

If you constantly make arguments that someone didn't make (which we all do, but not on the gross scale he did/does), what does it seem like you're doing? picking a fight for the sole purpose of picking a fight..and then running.

At least when Ed and I argue, we A: respect each other and B: don't accuse each other of being kool-aid drinking, "I'll bet you 50 bucks X will happen (despite the fact X is unlikely period and not related to what we're talking about"..

and if we do, it's once in a while. Not every post we make.

And that's just the blazers board. Ive heard and seen him make out-landish comments to incite things to Cowboys fans, Browns fans, and other football fans. 

The fact that he was allowed to get away with it as much as he did was a miracle, imho. The board will be significantly better as long as mixum/carlito/whatever fake names he made up, are gone.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Prunetang said:


> I would have to agree with tlong. What is "baiting" to one person is a legitimate opinion to someone else.


I agree that whether someone is a "troll" or "baiter" is a subjective thing. My question is, how do you feel that subjectivity should be handled? Should trolling/baiting be ignored by administration, because it's subjective? If not, who should make the the judgement call?

In this case, a large part of the community felt that their experience on the site was worsened by mixum. Moderators who viewed the board felt that mixum wasn't an innocent victim. Is that enough to make a judgement call?

I'm genuinely interested to hear your responses. These aren't meant to be rhetorical challenges, just curiosity as to how you feel about a tricky issue since you showed concern about the process.

My own philosophy is that sometimes certain individuals just can't get along within a community and those individuals usually get implicitly or explicitly excluded. It's true that such a statement can be used as justification to unfairly exclude someone who posted legitimate but unpopular positions. As a check against that, I think it's important to see what history reflects in terms of who has been excluded and who hasn't. In this case, I think that many contrarians and people with opinions who routinely dissented with the majority have had no troubles. There have been plenty of people who shared many of the majority's opinions who _were_ removed. While that isn't ironclad proof of anything, I think it's evidence that dissent is not stifled, just anti-social behaviour.

Those are my thoughts on the removal of mixum and the bigger issues at stake. I appreciate you civilly questioning that process and I hope you'll give me some more of your thoughts.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Guys,

The bottom line is that mixum has had a long history of breaking the rules of our forum. He consistently made personal attacks. He *very clearly* baited. One thing mixum has been known to do that you might not be aware or, is going out of his way to PM other posters to say nothing other than "Your team sucks, and you suck for liking them, my team is better!" etc etc etc... If that isn't bait, I don't know what is.

This kind of behavior isn't allowed here, and because of this, mixum no longer posts on the Blazer forum.

This decision wasn't made by just one person either. The *entire site staff* played a role in this process.

It really wasn't folk's complaints that did mixum in so much as it was a decision made on the part of the management, because of things that mixum has done that you may or may not be aware of.

The bottom line is that mixum, at least until he can show that he won't be a problem on other parts of the forum, will not be posting on our forum. Nothing that anyone says is going to change that.

We don't ban posters on whims. We don't ban posters because we don't like them or because we disagree with them. We ban posters when they become a problem that requires our consistent attention. We issue warnings first. Mixum had plenty. The fact that he was given so many chances should demonstrate this. Posters don't get banned except as a final-last resort.

Just remember that there is a LOT more that goes on behind the scenes that you guys aren't aware of. Any of the former mods on our forum can attest to this fact too.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Just a reminder.. Mixum is banned from the Blazer forum... not BBB.net


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> The board will be significantly better as long as mixum/carlito/whatever fake names he made up, are gone.


What's to keep him from coming back under another name, Hap? If someone shows up and does the same kinda thing he did, how do we / you mods know it's him or not? And would you have to go through the process of issuing multiple warnings and getting basically everyone running BBB.net involved before banning him again?

Inquiring minds want to know. Really.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

HearToTemptYou said:


> The bottom line is that mixum has had a long history of breaking the rules of our forum. He consistently made personal attacks. He *very clearly* baited.


Well if his history of breaking the rules was so long, and his baiting was so clear, then why did it take so long to ban the guy?

PBF


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

I cant believe one poster, causes so much stir, (i dont post here much but I have been lurking since the summer)


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

its called a ip or isp ban which is the number he uses to connect to the interent the block that and he usaully contact his provider and give them a heads up.people can get around this very easy is they know how but it usaully keeps the unwanted person out.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Well if his history of breaking the rules was so long, and his baiting was so clear, then why did it take so long to ban the guy?
> 
> PBF


We tried giving him second chances.

Second chances became 3rd chances.

And then 4th.

And it got to the point that it was made clear that he won't change.

We really don't like banning posters. That's why it's a last final resort.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> What's to keep him from coming back under another name, Hap? If someone shows up and does the same kinda thing he did, how do we / you mods know it's him or not? And would you have to go through the process of issuing multiple warnings and getting basically everyone running BBB.net involved before banning him again?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know. Really.
> 
> PBF


All we can say is that we know. We have ways of finding out if posters use multiple handles.

I'm afraid that we can't give you any more details about the process. Otherwise our ways of finding out would no longer be as effective.

Just be rest assured that *we know* when posters use multiple handles.

Everyone on the site staff takes part in deciding to ban posters, every time it happens.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> We mods didn't do this because mixum irrirated us. we didn't do it because he "bashed the organization". *We did it because to anyone with an ounce of sense, it was obvious that he was changing the lyrics of his song, sometimes in mid prelude, to suit the overal feel of the board (in a negative tone)*. He would not only repeat the same things over and over and over and over (of which, he did in a purely hyperbolic manner and illogical), but he would then change his point of view *mid* argument.


It's this sort of statement that pisses me off. Reasonable minds cannot disagree?

And a man can't change his mind during a discussion? I just read a few posts ago that a prime piece of evidence was that mixum NEVER changed his mind.

It seems that people are just grasping at reasons to get rid of a guy that they never agreed with and didn't like.

I disagreed with several of mixum's points in the past few days, but I didn't consider to be baited. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY have been baited by posters (when people have brought up Bonzi Wells, for example) and people have admitted it in the thread, but nothing was done.

People responded to mixum with name calling and multiple ****'d out statements. I find those reactions more offensive than anything mixum ever did.

But, again, it's not my call. I think that this board should be VERY careful about maintaining a diversity of opinion here, though, because people who aren't happy with the team aren't being treated as respectfully as they should be, and it might be easier for some us to just go away than try to fight people at every turn.

Ed O.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It's this sort of statement that pisses me off. Reasonable minds cannot disagree?
> 
> And a man can't change his mind during a discussion? I just read a few posts ago that a prime piece of evidence was that mixum NEVER changed his mind.
> 
> ...


Ed, If someone baits you, please PM me. You know that we wouldn't knowingly let those things slip by.

I just want to say again that this had nothing to do with posters on the board consistantly complaining about him. If that were all it takes to ban a poster, he would have been removed quite a while ago.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> Ed, If someone baits you, please PM me. You know that we wouldn't knowingly let those things slip by.


Like when someone says that anyone with an ounce of sense would see why mixum was banned?

Do you need a PM for that sort of thing?

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> Ed, If someone baits you, please PM me..


Except for Hap  It just would not be the same around here!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

HearToTemptYou said:


> All we can say is that we know. We have ways of finding out if posters use multiple handles.
> 
> I'm afraid that we can't give you any more details about the process. Otherwise our ways of finding out would no longer be as effective.
> 
> Just be rest assured that *we know* when posters use multiple handles.


Somehow I don't find that very plausible. I'd venture you probably know *most* of the time, but only because most of the people who create multiple handles aren't too bright. 

barfo


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Ed O. said:


> Like when someone says that anyone with an ounce of sense would see why mixum was banned?
> 
> Do you need a PM for that sort of thing?
> 
> Ed O.


I'll talk to Hap about it.

And if I have anything else to say about this, I'll say it to you in a PM.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> People responded to mixum with name calling and multiple ****'d out statements. I find those reactions more offensive than anything mixum ever did.
> 
> Ed O.


Did you ever think for one moment that is possibly what Mixum liked doing? causing a stir, running away and enjoying it? its called antagonism.. right? its a ploy.. a tactic to get a reaction out of someone.. like kicking someone in the shinn when you were in 6th grade just to see what they would do...

and that maybe it irks posters who have to put up with that garbage on both sides of the coin..... I did not like those kind of reactions either....


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> I'll talk to Hap about it.


I was kidding about Hap.... they have intellectual discussions :wink:


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

barfo said:


> Somehow I don't find that very plausible. I'd venture you probably know *most* of the time, but only because most of the people who create multiple handles aren't too bright.
> 
> barfo


I'd guess we know about 90%-95% of the time. We have lots of tools at our disposal.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

although mixum did go overboard on occassion he was picked on for being overly negative of the team huh? anyone ever paid attention to how much grief damon , da , van exel , sheed , Q caught on here? but it was ok cause it was 'majority' *****ing , since mixum is ripping on telfair , nash , webster etc everyone in the majority now takes exception?!? lets face it if he just spit all the same homer crap most of the people here do he would have just fit in nicely - but really who is more delusional...

its a shame to see the other side of the coin gone imo

i dont agree with how he always got his point across , but a lot of his points i agree with.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm glad that finally something has been done about him.....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

It's interesting, this discussion. While mixum never bothered me (nor am I defending him), I am happy that the community (mods and posters alike) take the issue of banning him seriously. 

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HearToTemptYou said:


> All we can say is that we know. We have ways of finding out if posters use multiple handles.
> 
> I'm afraid that we can't give you any more details about the process. Otherwise our ways of finding out would no longer be as effective.
> 
> ...


LoL.....Give me a break Mr. Double-O-Mod......

I'll break the secret folks....Its called an ISP....


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Blazer Bert said:


> Not that this is a vote or anything, but I agree with tlong, Storyteller and Fork.
> 
> Yes, his posts could often be obnoxious, were 99.99% negative rants, and many posters ended up hating the guy (it seems).
> 
> ...


Agreed. I don't like the decision at all. There will be nay-sayers. Why punish them for having uncommon opinions?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I think that this board should be VERY careful about maintaining a diversity of opinion here, though, because people who aren't happy with the team aren't being treated as respectfully as they should be, and it might be easier for some us to just go away than try to fight people at every turn.


 :boohoo: 

I'd miss reading your well-thought-out basketball opinions if you left. 

I won't miss mixum.

You shouldn't lump all "people who aren't happy with the team" together.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> LoL.....Give me a break Mr. Double-O-Mod......
> 
> I'll break the secret folks....Its called an ISP....


There's quite a bit more to it than a simple look up of IP addresses.

And what the hell does "Double-O-Mod" mean?


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

LameR said:


> Agreed. I don't like the decision at all. There will be nay-sayers. Why punish them for having uncommon opinions?


This wasn't about mixum not having a "popular opinion" *at all.*

This was about mixum posting in ways ONLY to annoy the rest of the posting base.

Take a look at some of his posts else where on the site.

One that stands out in my mind was where he blasted Nash for something on the Blazer forum, then turned around and posted something on the NBA General completely contradicting what he had just said on the Blazer forum, only to annoy the hell out of the folks on the NBA general forum.

We welcome differing opinions. That's why we enjoy this place after all. What we don't welcome is baiting and trolling, and that's what mixum was doing.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> Because a small minority think that we can just ignore him...then whats the point of having mods? I mean, we can just ignore people..


Exactly.

All it takes is a modicum of personal responsibility.

And a smidgen of self control.

While his rants were usually so extreme as to be laughable if taken literally, I've never seen anything in them that any sensible adult would feel threatened by.

He's simply a very passionate Blazers Fan. Where's the danger?

:whoknows:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> It's basically someone saying "I like chevrolets" and you responding with "I can't believe you think Chevrolets are the best car ever! You must drink chevrolet kool-aid if you think every car chevrolet makes is better than the best cars ever made. I mean, what are you, stupid?"


Bad example.

Everyone knows Chevy's are junk.

:biggrin:


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Maris does have a point...

Chevy sucks. :raised_ey 

Seriously, I'm all for more personal responsibility, but it would have taken a gargantuan effort to notify all the posters (since new ones come every day) to simply ignore mixum. Let's remember how a thread usually went:

Mixum: all y'all suck if you think Nash is anything but a chimpanzee in a cheap suit.
User 1: You are full of it!!!!!!!!!!!
User 2: NOOO! Ignore him! He's trolling!!!!!!!
User 3: Mixum strikes again :sigh: 
User 4: Jeez mixum! :sigh:
User 5: Ignore him and he'll go away!
User 6: Yeah, ignore him! He just likes seeing responses to his posts.
User 7: Like yours?
User 8: No, like yours.
User 9: This thread is stupid.
User 10: I like peanut butter.

See? No matter what, someone was going to answer like User 1, and someone was going to answer like User 2. No matter what. Because someone's always out there who [a] doesn't know where the Ignore feature's at, or * read the inflammatory thread title and decided to un-ignore him because it was the last straw. Fix those two, and push the "if you don't like him, ignore him" feature, and the mods may actually have an easier job.*


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> What's to keep him from coming back under another name, Hap? If someone shows up and does the same kinda thing he did, how do we / you mods know it's him or not? And would you have to go through the process of issuing multiple warnings and getting basically everyone running BBB.net involved before banning him again?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know. Really.
> 
> PBF


altho someone might have already answered this (I haven't read the rest of the thread yet) there is a way that as mods, we can tell. Him making another SN up to post here, is, and could be, iirc, grounds for site banning.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It's this sort of statement that pisses me off. Reasonable minds cannot disagree?
> 
> And a man can't change his mind during a discussion? I just read a few posts ago that a prime piece of evidence was that mixum NEVER changed his mind.
> 
> It seems that people are just grasping at reasons to get rid of a guy that they never agreed with and didn't like.


Yah Ed, thats it.

I'm actually kind of dissapointed that you, a former mod, would be making this accusation.



> I disagreed with several of mixum's points in the past few days, but I didn't consider to be baited. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY have been baited by posters (when people have brought up Bonzi Wells, for example) and people have admitted it in the thread, but nothing was done.
> 
> People responded to mixum with name calling and multiple ****'d out statements. I find those reactions more offensive than anything mixum ever did.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> although mixum did go overboard on occassion he was picked on for being overly negative of the team huh? anyone ever paid attention to how much grief damon , da , van exel , sheed , Q caught on here? but it was ok cause it was 'majority' *****ing , since mixum is ripping on telfair , nash , webster etc everyone in the majority now takes exception?!? lets face it if he just spit all the same homer crap most of the people here do he would have just fit in nicely - but really who is more delusional...
> 
> its a shame to see the other side of the coin gone imo
> 
> i dont agree with how he always got his point across , but a lot of his points i agree with.


how come ed isn't banned then? I disagree with ed over a lot of things regarding the blazers.

how come stomp isn't? or tlong? or wanker?

Oh I know, because they don't insult fans constantly.

To act as tho this is just because he didn't "spit out the same homer crap", is insulting to not only the fans here, but those who actually have the cognitive ability to be objective fans. 

There's a HUGE difference between saying that you don't like the moves a team made, and constantly making every stupid little thing out to be john nash's fault. And then changing what you said one time, to be the complete and utter opposite the next (and this again, isn't about changing your mind. It was about making John Nash and the Blazers look inept).

I know a lot of people here want to blame this on homers being mad, but what about the people who aren't homers, who are glad he's gone? What about Minstrel? He's no where near a Blazer homer, or even a "things are great" guy, is he? But he was ok with the banning.

Someone explain that to me?

And why would the people who are in charge, who if you know how the mod forum works you'd see that it takes a LOT of people to OK a banning, just let a poster be banned because a few people don't like how he is? 

As I said before (in this post) if this was about the accusations you made (and ed alluded to)..why are there still a lot of people who are on that "side" of the arguement? How come they're still allowed to post freely?

Oh, I know, we just "picked" on Mixum! that's it! It was a team effort! We'd have schilly send him a message asking him to tone it down...and then mixum would..and then 3 games into the pre-season, mixum would return to mid-season form! All the while, mixums ally Schilly is on vacation!

It was brilliant!! But you all caught us!! 

damn, now we're gonna have to let all the other guys back on the board who we just banned because they don't agree with us..

:boohoo:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

How about 'dem Trail Blazers!!!!

This horse has been beaten into dogfood.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> How about 'dem Trail Blazers!!!!
> 
> This horse has been beaten into dogfood.


:cheers:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Can't believe that anyone would STILL think mixum was banned due to dissenting opinion. We have a lot of people here is dissenting opinions, people.

Ed just likes to argue / debate.

PBF


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

the funny thing to me is that there are so many people who can't stand the guy, and yet some of the longest threads on this board have either been by him or about him.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> bottom line is, you have some posters who just hate mods and purposely push the envelope.
> 
> you have some who hate mods, but don't push the envelope. Generally, those are 2 of the groups of people who complain when someone is banned (you all know who these people are).
> 
> ...


With all due respect, that argument just pushed more to the thought of it was wrong to ban mixum. Should have just stuck with the "shame you aren't in charge" argument.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

theWanker said:


> the funny thing to me is that there are so many people who can't stand the guy, and yet some of the longest threads on this board have either been by him or about him.



That may be true Wanker...However I'd rather see long posts revolving around the Blazers team and not who\who is not a homer...jerk...troll...etc...

And quite frankly 9 out of 10 of Mixum's posts either started or disintegrated into that...I don't see how that is a benefit to this board...

Good riddance IMO


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

i agree on the good riddance. more trouble than he was worth. 

it just seems a little odd that so much gets said about somebody few seem to like. when I don't like somebody, they rarely hear a peep out of me unless they directly step on my toes.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> With all due respect, that argument just pushed me more to the thought of it was wrong to ban mixum. Should have just stuck with the "shame you aren't in charge" argument.


and with all due respect, you've been here since october. of this year. And haven't seen, or read, what mixum has done.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> and with all due respect, you've been here since october. of this year. And haven't seen, or read, what mixum has done.


Well, I've been here since 2003 and I've never seen it either.

His typical thread starts out like Nash is an idiot...we need to sign Pierce, trade Telfair...the sky is falling...

The first *REPLY* usually is nothing more than a personal attack on mixum, who seems to not have the protection everyone else here does.

Then the thread dissolves into a series of posters trying to outdo each other by calling him names and generally ridiculing him, usually referring to some vague past transgression of mixum's as justification.
"
Bottom line is he's a glass is nearly empty" kind of person, but the facts (past and present Blazers performances) support nearly all his views quite nicely.

By banning him you give him total victory.

Just as the Patriot Act gave Bin Laden victory.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Just as the Patriot Act gave Bin Laden victory.


Did you really just say that? Wow. Rediculous. And way out of line.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

The Professional Fan said:


> Did you really just say that? Wow. *Rediculous.* And way out of line.


You realize, of course, that that's exactly how mixum spelled 'ridiculous.' Hmmmmm....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I agree to a certain extent but when you get pulled over on the highway you can't tell the officer there are many more cars going as fast as yours and expect not to get a ticket.


OT Just responding to your annalogy, and don't worry your point still came across... but actually thats not how things work in Oregon, at least not back when I was getting my licence. In Oregon, the posted speed limit is the suggested speed. Drivers are supposed to take into account weather/road conditions that may warrent them going slower then this limit... they are also not supposed to be a rock being pushed along in a stream's current (so to speak) sticking to the limit while everyone else is wizzing by. Unless they've changed the laws, not only would this be an OK thing to say to an officer, but it would be a legitamate defense for exceeding the posted speed limit in court.

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Well, I've been here since 2003 and I've never seen it either.
> 
> His typical thread starts out like Nash is an idiot...we need to sign Pierce, trade Telfair...the sky is falling...
> 
> ...


Are you saying Mixum is now a martyr or something...no offense but that makes me chuckle just a wee bit.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> ......The first *REPLY* usually is nothing more than a personal attack on mixum, who seems to not have the protection everyone else here does.
> 
> Then the thread dissolves into a series of posters trying to outdo each other by calling him names and generally ridiculing him, usually referring to some vague past transgression of mixum's as justification.
> 
> ...


Mixum's biggest problem was his inability to "discuss" points of view. He was great at starting threads and then walking away. Rarely, did he come back into his own discussion topic to discuss and debate. He just made "I'm right" statements and wouldn't/couldn't provide support to his point of view. No one likes a person who always has to be right - on everything. Hopefully, this serves as a small Life-Lesson for him. I would bet $ that he has had this little problem come to the surface in other areas of his life.

Secondly, I cannot believe you stooped so low on your other "quote". I'm afraid it tells me much about you. And your point of view is very sad.

Go Blazers!
Go BBB.net!
Go U.S.A.!


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I'll miss Mixum's posts, the world is boring enough as it is. And in my humble opinion there is no reason to ban anyone if they aren't using profanity or insulting other posters.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ukrainefan said:


> I'll miss Mixum's posts, the world is boring enough as it is. And in my humble opinion there is no reason to ban anyone if they aren't using profanity or insulting other posters.


Agreed. This stuff about "baiting" is baloney.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I was never all that bothered by mixum's posts and threads.

If I wasn't in the mood, I didn't read them. Though not having read all of his posts I can't say with any accuracy what the body of posts by mixum represents. I may have missed or quickly ignored some doozies.

I can see though, that he did bother a lot of people.

If a "baiter" is defined by the reaction one produces in others, then you would have to say that Mixum was a baiter. He sure did get a reaction out of some people!! Even inducing many a poster to violating board rules about personal insults. I wouldn't be surprised if mixum has been the recepient of the most personal insults.

mixum could dish it out, but took it, seemingly without complaint, just as well. Of course, if he was the troll he has been accused of, the insults wouldn't have upset him - quite the opposite.

Oh well.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Secondly, I cannot believe you stooped so low on your other "quote". I'm afraid it tells me much about you. And your point of view is very sad.
> 
> Go Blazers!
> Go BBB.net!
> Go U.S.A.!


Merely stating that the obvious victory Bin Laden achieved (by striking enough fear into the weaker segments of our society so we gave up a HUGE chunk of the freedom that WAS America) is not unlike the victory mixum achieved when you made a martyr of him to anyone with an unpopular opinion here.

They both got the exact reaction they were trying for.

If you feel he was baiting the mods, well, it appears they swallowed it.

Hook, line and sinker.

Later, mixum.

It'll be a bit duller here without you. :brokenhea


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> It'll be a bit duller here without you. :brokenhea



Oh, man.. I about lost my lunch over that.. :boohoo:


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Scout226 said:


> Oh, man.. I about lost my lunch over that.. :boohoo:


Co-Sign


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Merely stating that the obvious victory Bin Laden achieved (by striking enough fear into *the weaker segments of our society *so we gave up a HUGE chunk of the freedom that WAS America) is not unlike the victory mixum achieved when you made a martyr of him to anyone with an unpopular opinion here.


So, you are stating that Bin Laden is victorious, and a winner because he succeeded at Terrorism. I call him a coward. You're right in one way - that I think mixum's methods were very similar to Bin Laden's. Strike and create terror - then hide for periods of time so that no one can discuss or debate with you about your twisted interpretation of your religion. Refuse to hear other points of view.

Interesting. :eek8:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Merely stating that the obvious victory Bin Laden achieved (by striking enough fear into the weaker segments of our society so we gave up a HUGE chunk of the freedom that WAS America) is not unlike the victory mixum achieved when you made a martyr of him to anyone with an unpopular opinion here.
> 
> They both got the exact reaction they were trying for.
> 
> ...


OH MY!! You did call him a martyr... 

*This is not an english class. Let's act like adults here. Maris is entitled to his opinion afterall.*

To call him a martyr is just ridiculous, Martin Luther King was a martyr, Grand Duchess Elilzabeth of Russia who was killed by the Bolsheviks is a martyr, Dietrich Boenhoffer a pastor killed by the Nazis was a martyr. Mixum clearly was not. 

Martyr is not a term to be used loosely like you have done so IMO.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

Mixim hacks me off once in a while, but mostly I just roll my eyes and move on to another thread. But that's not to say that he was always wrong, either, 'cause he wasn't.

Personally, for the things I'm aware of, I wouldn't ban him. It's good to look at both sides of the story, IMO. As pointed out above, there's plenty of 'baiting' happens on this board. 

That said, I'm not upset that he's gone. Pretty much a shrug. Interesting how much discussion it generated, though.

I'm think'n Mixim is a psych major at the U. (and probably laughing his *** off.) :eek8: 

Go Blazers


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Fact is, this is crap! Let's ban the guy because he has a different opinion :dead: 

I enjoyed his opinion, and it was refreshing that he opted to take off the rose colored glasses.

This place is going to be pretty boring when you ban everyone who doesn't share the Hap crews opinion :nonono:


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I will enjoy BBB less without dissenting opinions. I did not care for most of Mixums threads and posts, but I am 10 times more offended by the freaking wimpy attitude of so many posters here who just could not deal with Mixums opinions. Sometimes I think Nash sucks, sometimes I think he is only a little below average. But to cause a tissy and have a hissy fit cause someone does not like the direction the Blazers are heading is lame. Grow up and get some basketballs.

Love Thylo


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Todd said:


> Fact is, this is crap! Let's ban the guy because he has a different opinion :dead:
> 
> I enjoyed his opinion, and it was refreshing that he opted to take off the rose colored glasses.
> 
> This place is going to be pretty boring when you ban everyone who doesn't share the Hap crews opinion :nonono:



Could you show me where it has been stated that someone else has been or will be for having different opinions. Stay on topic, you are making this into something that its not and thats not fair to Mixum. Also, what do you mean by "Hap's Crew"?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> OH MY!! You did call him a martyr...
> 
> *This is not an english class. Let's act like adults here. Maris is entitled to his opinion afterall.*
> 
> ...


Adults don't use the term martyr lightly, frankly it's offensive to do so IMO. I was simply trying to educate said poster on the true meaning of the word so the mistake would not be made again. 

Your request is duly noted, I will refrain from anymore Mariam Webster citations in the future.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

BEEZ said:


> Could you show me where it has been stated that someone else has been or will be for having different opinions. Stay on topic, you are making this into something that its not and thats not fair to Mixum. Also, what do you mean by "Hap's Crew"?



Guy has a different opinion of what's going on with the Blazers and you ban him for baiting. He is very critical of the Blazer organization, and it is his right to be. The Team sucks, and he points it out and says what he thinks needs to happen to make it better. He also points out to all of the lock steppers that this is not a great team, even thought they seem to think so. He also points out the failings of John Nash, which when it comes to getting players he leaves alot to be desired. So, he is being banned for having a different opinion. The only problem with Mixums post were all the little babies whining because the didn't like what he had to say. They all said they put him on ignore and the next thing you know they are slamming him in his thread. HTTY slammed him before he became a mod all of the time because he didn't like what he had to say. You should have told the whiners to keep on scrolling if you have a problem! Ignoring him is easier then crying to the mods :boohoo: 

As for the Hap crew remark, well all of the mods do seem to be his buddies. I have not ever seen a post on this board asking for moderators when there is an open slot. Why do all of the mods have to have the same point of view? I think that Ed O did a great job, ABM is good also, and Hap has his moments, but why can't we get someone who doesn't have the rose colored glasses on. You gave the last slot to some 19 year old kid who went around and censored the hell out of the board for a week. The guy posts like he is the second coming, he will take care of your problem and make you dinner too. Let's Get real here!


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

i know i dont really have alot of people here that like me but arguing is not gonna solve the problem they banned him because of some of his posts.rather or not it was a good desicion to ban he they must have had alot of talks about him and found that is was best to ban him from the forums.after all theyre the administators and the forum runs by theyre rules so all this arguing isint gonna get him unbanned.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Actually the first half of your post is incorrect. This as stated before is, and was not the first, the second, or the 3rd time that Mixum has had these issues. In speaking with Mixum I dont see a bad guy at all and as I stated to him I dont know him to be judgemental of him or to speak indifferently of him. All I care about is the site and the rules being upheld which he has broken many times, he would even admit that to you. Its unfortunate that you feel the manner you do but I cannot change that. In reference to you "telling" me what I should have done. I dont tell you how to post or what to do, so in turn I would appreciate the same type of understanding back. 

As far as the HAP comment. Hes a really good mod and I am glad to have him on our staff. Im a fan of Ed O and ABM as well. Mod appointments have always been from within and thats something we have had success with so its no reason to change. Your comments on HTTY seems that is something that you should take to PM with him if you feel so strongly about how he is as a member of this site. 

You can be upset with me, happy with me or indifferent, but my main goal is to make sure the site is the best that it can be and this situation was a problem that had to be addressed and I apologize if this is unpopular but it had to be done. 

If you want further details on this you could always contact Mixum via PM and discuss it further with him


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

i asume ur comments were aimed towards me.i guess i should stay out of this thread since i can't get my facts staight.
sorry to anyone is i offended u.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

NO Zidane, that was for Todd


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

alright then beez sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Todd said:


> Guy has a different opinion of what's going on with the Blazers and you ban him for baiting. He is very critical of the Blazer organization, and it is his right to be. The Team sucks, and he points it out and says what he thinks needs to happen to make it better. He also points out to all of the lock steppers that this is not a great team, even thought they seem to think so. He also points out the failings of John Nash, which when it comes to getting players he leaves alot to be desired. So, he is being banned for having a different opinion. The only problem with Mixums post were all the little babies whining because the didn't like what he had to say. They all said they put him on ignore and the next thing you know they are slamming him in his thread. HTTY slammed him before he became a mod all of the time because he didn't like what he had to say. You should have told the whiners to keep on scrolling if you have a problem! Ignoring him is easier then crying to the mods :boohoo:
> 
> As for the Hap crew remark, well all of the mods do seem to be his buddies. I have not ever seen a post on this board asking for moderators when there is an open slot. Why do all of the mods have to have the same point of view? I think that Ed O did a great job, ABM is good also, and Hap has his moments, but why can't we get someone who doesn't have the rose colored glasses on. You gave the last slot to some 19 year old kid who went around and censored the hell out of the board for a week. The guy posts like he is the second coming, he will take care of your problem and make you dinner too. Let's Get real here!


If you have any issues with me, take them up *with me*.

Send me a PM.

Otherwise, I'd respectfully ask you not make such comments about me.

Since I became a mod of the Blazer forum, I've made it clear that anyone that has taken issues with me is welcome to PM me and I'll try to explain my self.

You've never once PMed me.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Zidane said:


> alright then beez sorry for the misunderstanding.


 no harm no foul


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

BEEZ said:


> no harm no foul


Or, in the case of Ostertag, plenty of harm, no foul.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Todd said:


> This place is going to be pretty boring when you ban everyone who doesn't share the Hap crews opinion :nonono:


:rofl:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Todd said:


> As for the Hap crew remark, well all of the mods do seem to be his buddies.


Do you actually have evidence of this or are you just guessing?



> I have not ever seen a post on this board asking for moderators when there is an open slot.


We have asked for volunteers for mods.... you never responded!



> Why do all of the mods have to have the same point of view? I think that Ed O did a great job, ABM is good also, and Hap has his moments, but why can't we get someone who doesn't have the rose colored glasses on.


Do not confuse site continuity, supporting the user guildelines you signed up for and agreed to, and supporting the admins by the mods and community mods with harmonious opinions of the Blazers amoungst the Mods. We are each very different and I am sure offer different points of view on different aspects of our team.



> You gave the last slot to some 19 year old kid who went around and censored the hell out of the board for a week. The guy posts like he is the second coming, he will take care of your problem and make you dinner too. Let's Get real here!


You are sadly mistaken. The last mod added was Howie.. and I know he is not 19 years of age... pay attention next time and get your facts straight.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Todd said:


> As for the Hap crew remark, well all of the mods do seem to be his buddies. I have not ever seen a post on this board asking for moderators when there is an open slot. Why do all of the mods have to have the same point of view? I think that Ed O did a great job, ABM is good also, and Hap has his moments, but why can't we get someone who doesn't have the rose colored glasses on.


Ed O has "rose-coloured glasses on?" I thought Ed O was viewed as one of the more "negative" posters about the Blazers' current direction. Also, considering Ed O and Hap argue consistently, I don't see any basis to your "all moderators have the same point of view" assertion.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

BlazerCaravan said:


> Or, in the case of Ostertag, plenty of harm, no foul.


 Where is he these day. Good ol Ost'


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> So, you are stating that Bin Laden is victorious, and a winner because he succeeded at Terrorism. I call him a coward.


They don't come any yellower.

He did, however, achieve success beyond all his dreams as far as our reaction to 9/11.



RedHot&Rolling said:


> You're right in one way - that I think mixum's methods were very similar to Bin Laden's. * Strike and create terror *


 :rofl:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Todd said:


> Fact is, this is crap! Let's ban the guy because he has a different opinion :dead:
> 
> I enjoyed his opinion, and it was refreshing that he opted to take off the rose colored glasses.
> 
> This place is going to be pretty boring when you ban everyone who doesn't share the Hap crews opinion :nonono:


You rarely post here yet you all of a sudden chime in now and question the decisions of the majority of the board. You make claims about a "crew" that you really know nothing about.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> OH MY!! You did call him a martyr...
> 
> *This is not an english class. Let's act like adults here. Maris is entitled to his opinion afterall.*
> 
> ...


Don't take my word for it.

From "The Book of Martyrs" (Time-Life Books 2005)
_page 414_
#287 "*Mixum* 1977-2005
An unwelcomed, somewhat rude and crude screen personna who delighted in stirring up the pot of public discourse to a hearty boil and then just as quickly vanishing to leave his antagonees to grumble amongst themselves whilst he searched for new pockets of speech repression to open up. He sacrified his screenlife to defend the principle and practice of free speech."

:clap: :gbanana: :rock: :usa: :cheers:


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

Just reading this thread proves most of our points. The Mods are way to heavy handed and are guilty of more personal attacks and baiting than Mixum ever was. I've been on this board for a couple of years posting occasionally, and I am more offended by the way Hap, Shilly, and Trader Bob denegrate most of the posters opinions more than I am with Mixum's rants. This is a message board people. This is where fans are supposed to rant. I have never read Mixum call a Mod names or attack them. He came in, posted a thread, got a lot of reactions, and bailed. I rather read Mixum's posts more than another "Deal of the Day" or "Coke or Pepsi" post. What if we censored one of the Mods for all of there personal attacks on John Canzano or Jason Quick. Oh, that's okay, but Mixum stating Patternash sucks and Telfair blows is not acceptable.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Don't take my word for it.
> 
> From "The Book of Martyrs" (Time-Life Books 2005)
> _page 414_
> ...


Just when I thought you couldn't make me laugh any harder..


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

furball said:


> Just reading this thread proves most of our points. The Mods are way to heavy handed and are guilty of more personal attacks and baiting than Mixum ever was. I've been on this board for a couple of years posting occasionally, and I am more offended by the way Hap, Shilly, and Trader Bob denegrate most of the posters opinions more than I am with Mixum's rants. This is a message board people. This is where fans are supposed to rant. I have never read Mixum call a Mod names or attack them. He came in, posted a thread, got a lot of reactions, and bailed. I rather read Mixum's posts more than another "Deal of the Day" or "Coke or Pepsi" post. What if we censored one of the Mods for all of there personal attacks on John Canzano or Jason Quick. Oh, that's okay, but Mixum stating Patternash sucks and Telfair blows is not acceptable.


Just like in any other private organization or entity if you do not like the administrators you can choose to not participate. Although open to the public BBB.net is not a public organization.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Just like in any other private organization or entity if you do not like the administrators you can choose to participate. Although open to the public BBB.net is not a public organization.


Boy, great argument. I like the majority of the posters on this sight and I like some of the mods. I think ABM is great and Hap has a lot of good points, though I would rather see him starting discussion threads instead of always arguing with everyone's points. Opinions are great, know it all's are annoying.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Don't take my word for it.
> 
> From "The Book of Martyrs" (Time-Life Books 2005)
> _page 414_
> ...


Post your flags or whatever else you want to here but free speech actually does not apply here. BBB.net is a private organization not associated with the government thus the first amendment does not apply. The issue was recently raised over political placards and messages being placed on apartment message boards. 



> ''The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against governmental intrusion into the right of free speech,'' said Jay Nussbaum, a Manhattan lawyer who is editor of Community Association Management Insider, a professional journal. ''But it does not protect against private restrictions.''


So to claim Mixum was a martyr defending his right to free speech is a farce. By U.S. law he has no such rights when participating in the activities of a private organization.

Remember the ever-famous Blazer incident when they kicked out the woman with the "Fire Whitsit" sign. Bad PR for sure but not a violation of her first amendment rights.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

furball said:


> Boy, great argument. I like the majority of the posters on this sight and I like some of the mods. I think ABM is great and Hap has a lot of good points, though I would rather see him starting discussion threads instead of always arguing with everyone's points. Opinions are great, know it all's are annoying.


I don't disagree with anything you are saying..I am just saying if you don't like how a entity or organization is governed / run then don't participate in it. 

You can try to change it as well but they comments you are making is not the way to do that IMO.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> So to claim Mixum was a martyr defending his right to free speech is a farce. By U.S. law he has no such rights when participating in the activities of a private organization.


No, not at all. A farce has more intentionally comedic attributes than were present in the original claim put forth here. 

literalism rocks! (not literally, of course)

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> No, not at all. A farce has more intentionally comedic attributes than were present in the original claim put forth here.
> 
> literalism rocks! (not literally, of course)
> 
> barfo


not to be confused with farsi, a language.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> not to be confused with farsi, a language.


Or larsa, a pippen.

barfo


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Actually Beez, I am not really upset just kind of disappointed. This is the internet, and I am sure in person we would all get along. :cheers:


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

here's fun thing to do...
read through this thread out loud, making up a different voice for each post.
it's even more fun if you do it with a friend(my wife always makes me sound like Oprah).


i also just want to say that ya'll should really hear yourselves... :clown:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

DrewFix said:


> here's fun thing to do...
> read through this thread out loud, making up a different voice for each post.


If you can do 140 different voices, that would be fun. 



> it's even more fun if you do it with a friend


So many things are...

barfo


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

barfo said:


> Or larsa, a pippen.
> 
> barfo


Or larsa, apso.



barfo said:


> If you can do 140 different voices, that would be fun.
> 
> barfo


...and if you can't you're doing too many other things in your spare time.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

DrewFix said:


> here's fun thing to do...
> read through this thread out loud, making up a different voice for each post.
> it's even more fun if you do it with a friend(my wife always makes me sound like Oprah).
> 
> ...


Lol my g/f thinks this is silly as well...she reminds me regulary and quite easily how stupid it is to get offended / upset with people I have never met. 

Siliness that I get carried away in...plus I almost went to law school I can't deny I love to argue.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

barfo said:


> No, not at all. A farce has more intentionally comedic attributes than were present in the original claim put forth here.
> 
> literalism rocks! (not literally, of course)
> 
> barfo


well certain posts in this thread have been quite comedic IMO... :biggrin:


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

HearToTemptYou said:


> This wasn't about mixum not having a "popular opinion" *at all.*
> 
> This was about mixum posting in ways ONLY to annoy the rest of the posting base.
> 
> ...


Alrighty then. Thanks for the clarification. I guess it seems more appropriate now, although I don't know the full story. I guess that's why you guys are mods and I'm not though =]


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Just out of curiosity, why isn't Ed. O a mod anymore.........Was he voted off the island?......

I enjoyed his moderating...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Just out of curiosity, why isn't Ed. O a mod anymore.........Was he voted off the island?......
> 
> I enjoyed his moderating...


he left on his own accord (didn't picture ed being a hond driver, but thats a different joke). It was kind of a surprise to some, but at the same time, you could sorta see the writing on the wall. 

being a mod can burn people out. It's easy to go from a "normal" poster, to a bit jaded, all while being a mod. Certain factions of the site seem to think that mods can't argue with posters, and that because they're mods, those posters seem to think they can throw any accusation at the mod simply because they're a mod (as in, "you're doing this because you're a mod").

So a big part of me got why Ed might've left. He grew tired of the bad side of being a mod. 

apparently ed wasn't power hungry enough..oops! did I say that outloud? :uhoh:


----------



## Swerv (Jan 2, 2003)

First, I applaud what the mods did. 

Even though I do not post very often I have been coming here and reading almost every thread since Jan of 2003. 

Almost everyone complains about Mixum and his comments. He has been warned publicly, I am assuming privately, he has been asked by non-mod people to lighten up, sometimes nicely, other times rather harshly. I believe that the mods did what they thought would make the community better. In my opionion this has been long in the coming. 

I personally did not mind some of what he had to say....I wish he would have chosen a better way to put it sometimes. Maybe he had a hard time explaining the frustration that he was feeling with the blazers the way he wanted to. I also feel frustrated with the Blazers and I personally do not comminicate through written words how I feel very well....that is why I do not post very often. Basically, I think that Mixum should have learned to use his "edit" button and he never did. 

I like reading all your opinions on the Blazers from Hap to Thylo to the Zag guy (boo Zags), and all the rest of the bbb.net family. I might naught often agree with what you are saying but I like reading other peoples thoughts on the blazers...so with that said can we go back to talking about them rather than Mr Mixum.

Again thank you mods for trying to make this a better place to talk Blazer basketball. Someone once told me that there is no chance for improvment until there is change. 

Just my .02

Swerv


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Actually, DrewFix, I think it's lhasa apso. (I'm not a big dog fan but that's something I find in crosswords a lot).


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

crandc said:


> Actually, DrewFix, I think it's lhasa apso. (I'm not a big dog fan but that's something I find in crosswords a lot).


It's ok, crandc....those are small dogs.

Go Blazers


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> You rarely post here yet you all of a sudden chime in now and question the decisions of the majority of the board. You make claims about a "crew" that you really know nothing about.



This is a tough group. I've actually been reading for a while but posting has been more difficult than I thought. You all should know the feeling I get (and assume others may feel) is if your not with the "in crowd" then your opinion is worthless and you should not be posting.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> This is a tough group. I've actually been reading for a while but posting has been more difficult than I thought. You all should know the feeling I get (and assume others may feel) is if your not with the "in crowd" then your opinion is worthless and you should not be posting.


I've had the exact same experience. Most of the time when I post something I get the distinct feeling I am not welcome in the "clique". 

I've had responses to my few posts that have ranged from sarcastic, patronizing, and condescending to a response telling me not to even post my opinion because it would cause people's expectations about the team to get out of hand.

I have not felt welcomed nor have I felt that an opinion that doesn't conform to the popular posters views are tolerated on this board.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

furball said:


> Just reading this thread proves most of our points. The Mods are way to heavy handed and are guilty of more personal attacks and baiting than Mixum ever was. I've been on this board for a couple of years posting occasionally, and I am more offended by the way Hap, Shilly, and Trader Bob denegrate most of the posters opinions more than I am with Mixum's rants.


Heavy handed? Have they banned anyone besides Mixum in the past year or so? I sure don't recall it if so. They didn't even ban him completely from BBB.net, just the Blazer board. I also don't think I've ever seen Trader Bob say anything even remotely close to "denegrating" towards another poster. He's one of the least confrontational posters on this board.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Spud147 said:


> I've had the exact same experience. Most of the time when I post something I get the distinct feeling I am not welcome in the "clique".
> 
> I've had responses to my few posts that have ranged from sarcastic, patronizing, and condescending to a response telling me not to even post my opinion because it would cause people's expectations about the team to get out of hand.
> 
> I have not felt welcomed nor have I felt that an opinion that doesn't conform to the popular posters views are tolerated on this board.


Interesting. I know my opinions and posts are not popular, but I don't give a rip if people agree with me or not. If I read a post that I think is overly optimistic I may respond with something like "That's ridiculous!", but it's not meant as a personal attack. I think everyone is welcome in this "clique" regardless of their opinions.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> This is a tough group. I've actually been reading for a while but posting has been more difficult than I thought. You all should know the feeling I get (and assume others may feel) is if your not with the "in crowd" then your opinion is worthless and you should not be posting.


I don't disagree with your take on how this group functions...I certainly don't feel I am part of any special clique here though. I do feel my thoughts and posts are respsected though. I wasn't referring to this in my post though, I was just noting that someone who doesn't post here much really can't make accurate judgements on how the group functions or the decisions it makes. 

It would be like going to another country that you visit a couple times a year and voting for whom their President should be.


----------



## Swerv (Jan 2, 2003)

I disagree with you SA1177 just becase someone does not post does not mean they are not part of the community. If they were absolutely new that is one thing...If you do not post it doesnt even mean you are less informed...it could mean many things from not having the time to post, to not wanting to share an opionion that they have....I personally do not care what others here think of my opinions....that is why I dont usually post them (that and feeling like I can not get my point across in written words well)...The reason I come here is to read others opinions....and if I feel strongly enough on certain subject I will post.

If only people that were active in politicts voted our turn out would be like .05% of the population...just because you are not "Active" doesnt mean your are not informed


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

tlong said:


> Interesting. I know my opinions and posts are not popular, but I don't give a rip if people agree with me or not. If I read a post that I think is overly optimistic I may respond with something like "That's ridiculous!", but it's not meant as a personal attack. I think everyone is welcome in this "clique" regardless of their opinions.


Okay, you just proved my point. You have over 2,000 posts here and you are not new. You have two new posters who have just said they have not felt welcomed in the "clique". We've both had the same experience but because you haven't you basically imply that we are wrong.

And I have to clarify that for the most part, whether I agree with the "in crowd" or not, I get either no response (like my opinion isn't worthy) or a negative response (like my opinion is just downright stupid). 

Except for my friends from the ESPN board, I've had this kind of response the majority of the time and it has included at least one moderator.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Spud147 said:


> Okay, you just proved my point. You have over 2,000 posts here and you are not new. You have two new posters who have just said they have not felt welcomed in the "clique". We've both had the same experience but because you haven't you basically imply that we are wrong.
> 
> And I have to clarify that for the most part, whether I agree with the "in crowd" or not, I get either no response (like my opinion isn't worthy) or a negative response (like my opinion is just downright stupid).
> 
> Except for my friends from the ESPN board, I've had this kind of response the majority of the time and it has included at least one moderator.


I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I am not trying to imply you are wrong about anything. I am merely stating my opinion and how I perceive things. Trust me, I've had negative responses to my posts *many times.* It just doesn't bother me.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> This is a tough group. I've actually been reading for a while but posting has been more difficult than I thought. You all should know the feeling I get (and assume others may feel) is if your not with the "in crowd" then your opinion is worthless and you should not be posting.


What do you mean by the "in crowd"?

If you perceive this to be a tough group, it may be that there are several regular posters that love to debate. Yet the debaters are not of all the same stripe. No matter your position, one of them may challenge.

You can still post whatever you like. Your choice too respond or defend. There is no rule that says you have to defend.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Spud147 said:


> I've had the exact same experience. Most of the time when I post something I get the distinct feeling I am not welcome in the "clique".
> 
> I've had responses to my few posts that have ranged from sarcastic, patronizing, and condescending to a response telling me not to even post my opinion because it would cause people's expectations about the team to get out of hand.
> 
> I have not felt welcomed nor have I felt that an opinion that doesn't conform to the popular posters views are tolerated on this board.


I am sorry this doesn't seem to be the place for you. It can't be all things to all people, and I guess you fall outside the lines.

I am not sure what you are looking for though.

I have strong opinions that I sometimes post and have been blasted in many a thread for them. Much of the time I answer back. I consider that part of the deal and wouldn't have it any other way.

I look at it as a virtual sports bar. Imagine spouting off your opinion to a group in a bar. Does everyone go "Yeah, right on!"? Of course not. And how boring would that get. It could drive a person to drink.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> I am sorry this doesn't seem to be the place for you. It can't be all things to all people, and I guess you fall outside the lines.
> 
> I am not sure what you are looking for though.
> 
> ...


Boy oh boy, I coulnd't agree more! :cheers:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Swerv said:


> I disagree with you SA1177 just becase someone does not post does not mean they are not part of the community. If they were absolutely new that is one thing...If you do not post it doesnt even mean you are less informed...it could mean many things from not having the time to post, to not wanting to share an opionion that they have....I personally do not care what others here think of my opinions....that is why I dont usually post them (that and feeling like I can not get my point across in written words well)...The reason I come here is to read others opinions....and if I feel strongly enough on certain subject I will post.
> 
> If only people that were active in politicts voted our turn out would be like .05% of the population...just because you are not "Active" doesnt mean your are not informed


Good points...I just find it odd that when these people do choose to make posts, they make posts that are derogatory about the community in general or about a certain portion of the community i.e. "Haps crew."


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Masbee said:


> I am sorry this doesn't seem to be the place for you. It can't be all things to all people, and I guess you fall outside the lines.
> 
> I am not sure what you are looking for though.
> 
> ...


You know, this board is a lot different than the ESPN board (and I'm talking about the ESPN board in its prime, not the watered down place it's become). I'm not sure that I can say that one is better than the other, but there are definite differences that Spud and others (myself included) have a hard time adjusting to. The ESPN board was a lot more, I guess "playful" is the word. Most of the hostility was saved for the trolls (of which there were many) and there was much less in-fighting than there seems to be around here on a daily basis. Off-topic stuff was not frowned upon, in fact it seemed to be a major source of entertainment and the overall mood seemed to be a lot lighter. This board seems to pride itself on having a greater depth of basketball knowledge and the overall consensus seems to be that the board should pretty much stick on-topic. Some of you have been on here since Day 1 and know each other socially. Perhaps because of that, it does seem that the mood is less welcoming and less open to entertaining new perspectives from new posters. IMHO, that should change. I do know this, I've posted on boards with Spud for something like 5 years now, and if you can't get along with her and if you don't value her opinions, you're really missing something.


----------



## Swerv (Jan 2, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Good points...I just find it odd that when these people do choose to make posts, they make posts that are derogatory about the community in general or about a certain portion of the community i.e. "Haps crew."



SA1177, That I totally agree with


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

crandc said:


> Actually, DrewFix, I think it's lhasa apso. (I'm not a big dog fan but that's something I find in crosswords a lot).


yeah i know , but if it where spelled corectly there wouldn't be a play on words.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

So a couple people have made the claim that they don't feel welcome here. How can we make you feel more welcome? I honestly try to treat everyone the same regardless of it they have 200000 posts or 2. Personally, I've been on this board for about a year (I lurked for a few months before registering and posting) and I never felt unwelcome, however that was a different time.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Masbee said:


> I am sorry this doesn't seem to be the place for you. It can't be all things to all people, and I guess you fall outside the lines.
> 
> I am not sure what you are looking for though.
> 
> ...


Okay, point taken Masbee. You're right, if I continue to post here I need to accept whatever comes back to me. 

Let me explain one thing to you. I work in a profession that is extremely adversarial. I have people challenging and disagreeing with me all day every single day and have developed a very thick skin. Trust me when I say that I can handle conflict and disagreement without taking it personally or getting upset. I do not expect nor do I want everyone to agree with me. If everyone agreed there would be no opportunity for discussion and there would be no point in even having a message board. However, there is a way to debate a point respectfully without bullying. 

With that said, "Virtual bartender, I need to cash out my tab"... :cheers:


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> You know, this board is a lot different than the ESPN board (and I'm talking about the ESPN board in its prime, not the watered down place it's become). I'm not sure that I can say that one is better than the other, but there are definite differences that Spud and others (myself included) have a hard time adjusting to. The ESPN board was a lot more, I guess "playful" is the word. Most of the hostility was saved for the trolls (of which there were many) and there was much less in-fighting than there seems to be around here on a daily basis. Off-topic stuff was not frowned upon, in fact it seemed to be a major source of entertainment and the overall mood seemed to be a lot lighter. This board seems to pride itself on having a greater depth of basketball knowledge and the overall consensus seems to be that the board should pretty much stick on-topic. Some of you have been on here since Day 1 and know each other socially. Perhaps because of that, it does seem that the mood is less welcoming and less open to entertaining new perspectives from new posters. IMHO, that should change. I do know this, I've posted on boards with Spud for something like 5 years now, and if you can't get along with her and if you don't value her opinions, you're really missing something.


Thank you E, I appreciate it. Keep in touch.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

One thing I learned by going to one of our Blazer bashes for the first time. Its very hard to communicate effectively and clearly online.. whether its in a forum or emails or ?.... sometimes the simplest of things can be taken out of context and a person can get bent out of shape. Like others have mentioned... in person it takes on a whole new meaning.

Meeting that person and talking to them in person sets a whole new perspective on how you interact with them.

One poster in particular I use to never understand where they were coming from and once we met.... I could understand a lot easier why they were saying what they were. They were just extremely passionate about thie Blazers. Easy to do right? We love or team.

Nothing wrong with a good debate, meeting new people, or challenging the way we all think and interact...

:ghug:


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

K_M_D & Spud,

Your feeling of this being a tough crowd/clique is right on. IMO, it has to do with a couple of factors. One, were you one of the first wave over from OL/fanhome. Two, if you get into a major tussle with one of the clique members, you may be looked down on...maybe permanently. I've mentioned it before, and you won't get anyone to acknowledge it. And, as far as that goes, who cares?



Masbee said:


> I look at it as a virtual sports bar. Imagine spouting off your opinion to a group in a bar. Does everyone go "Yeah, right on!"? Of course not. And how boring would that get. It could drive a person to drink.


Good analogy. But it's a long established sports bar with a dozen or so regulars that have been there every night for years. And, they may not be too interested in new dissenters. (And, don't sit on Norm's stool.)

Go Blazers


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> You know, this board is a lot different than the ESPN board (and I'm talking about the ESPN board in its prime, not the watered down place it's become). I'm not sure that I can say that one is better than the other, but there are definite differences that Spud and others (myself included) have a hard time adjusting to. The ESPN board was a lot more, I guess "playful" is the word. Most of the hostility was saved for the trolls (of which there were many) and there was much less in-fighting than there seems to be around here on a daily basis. Off-topic stuff was not frowned upon, in fact it seemed to be a major source of entertainment and the overall mood seemed to be a lot lighter. This board seems to pride itself on having a greater depth of basketball knowledge and the overall consensus seems to be that the board should pretty much stick on-topic. Some of you have been on here since Day 1 and know each other socially. Perhaps because of that, it does seem that the mood is less welcoming and less open to entertaining new perspectives from new posters. IMHO, that should change. I do know this, I've posted on boards with Spud for something like 5 years now, and if you can't get along with her and if you don't value her opinions, you're really missing something.


I wouldn't say there's a clique. At one time, there may have been a perceived one because this forum was mostly made up of a group that had migrated en masse once or twice, from other forums (when those forums started to disappoint due to lack of moderation or whatnot). But that's almost completely gone as, over the past couple years, there's been a huge influx of new posters who weren't part of that original community. At this point, I'd say most of the people I see post are not part of that community. So I don't think there's an clique or "us vs. them" mentality.

I'm a bit surprised that some perceive a sense of "bullying." This is one of the most civil forums and sites I've seen. I think (and thought before I became a moderator) that moderation does a good job of straddling the line between keeping things conducive to productive discussion and otherwise not interfering. Other boards swing too much towards one extreme or the other.

Like in any other place where one might get into discussions, there are more strident voices and calmer voices. It's up to you to decide which people you want to engage and which you don't. I wouldn't say anyone really gets bullied, though.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I have to say I felt some cliquishness earlier on, but as my posts piled up I no longer really feel it. I sure have not seen the real hostility I've seen on espn, which is why I've largely left it. Debate is one thing, constant personal insults are another. And then there were the people with nothing but time on their hands; what had been a vibrant Oakland A's board was wrecked by *one person * who'd post as many as 100 off topic posts each day, got banned over and over and a day later was back with a new handle.
The worst, however, was (don't know if it still is) the Oregonian board. I once did try there, this was some years ago, and I'd get replies like "*****, go talk about the WNBA". The fact that I'm a woman made me unwelcome. Not to mention the constant vulgar trolls that make the ones on espn look like Emily Post.
What does bug me here is the seemingly endless two-way bickering that sometimes breaks out. You all know what I mean. Two people who disagree start sniping at each other and pretty soon the thread consists of nothing but their digs. Everyone else is gone.
Folks, polite discourse may be out of fashion, labeled politically correct in a derogatory fashion, but IMO it is not only worthwhile but necessary. Otherwise we look like TV talk shows where two idiots yell 15-second sound bites at one another. It very quickly ceases to be entertaining and it's never informational.
Spud, I'd sure miss you if you left us. Same with e_blazer.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

The word that was ***'d out was one that begins with b, properly refers to a female dog and is used in a derogatory manner towards women.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

BealzeeBob said:


> K_M_D & Spud,
> 
> Your feeling of this being a tough crowd/clique is right on. IMO, it has to do with a couple of factors. One, were you one of the first wave over from OL/fanhome. Two, if you get into a major tussle with one of the clique members, you may be looked down on...maybe permanently. I've mentioned it before, and you won't get anyone to acknowledge it. And, as far as that goes, who cares?
> 
> ...


Except that I reply to the post not the poster most of the time. Can't have a clique if posters like me are oblivious to the author.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Except that I reply to the post not the poster most of the time. Can't have a clique if posters like me are oblivious to the author.


From my perspective, there's no clique or cliques. There are ideological allies and a culture.

What do I mean about idealogical allies? Rather than break it up into approaches (emotional vs. logical) which might seem judgmental, it's clear that many of the board are more supportive of the Nash regime than others. While I think the majority of the posters fall into somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, there are those who are particularly negative and there are some that are particularly positive. It's hard for members of these groups to agree on things, although it's possible (and clearly preferable) to remain civil.

Ideological alliances can shift. Before the Bonzi trade, tlong and I clashed repeatedly over whether the Blazers were a playoff team. I swore up and down that they'd get in--even if they didn't get back to 50 wins--and he was convinced that they wouldn't. Well, after the Wells trade I shifted my stance because I knew that the Blazers had taken a big step back AND given a big step up to the Grizzlies, a conference competitor. tlong and I didn't instantly agree on everything--and still don't--but over time we've seemed to see more things similarly than we did before.

The culture here, I think, is that posters with more times on their hands are heard more. That's just the way this works. I could ration the number of posts that I make every day, or I could choose to only participate in _n_ discussions a day, or I could wait until my favorite (or least-favorite) posters post and respond to them. I don't do any of these things, however. 

As Masbee does, I tend to respond to the post, rather than the poster. That means I sometimes clash with Masbee while 99% of the time I might agree with him. It also means that I don't give new members much slack, and I don't care if a poster is only 14 years old. To me, the value of the post is the information and the perspective and not the person.

I'm not oblivious to who the poster is, and I don't claim to be entirely unbiased. There is one poster here--who I just can't stand what he says and can't recall ever being anything but bored or angry by his posts--who I simply ignore. It's hard not to peek and see what he has to say sometimes, but I put him on ignore for a reason and it lowers my chances for going ballistic.

Getting back to new posters: I can understand that there's a feeling of cliques, because the culture is one of bigmouths. If you see the existing posters as a bloc, and then that bloc either reacts adversely or (perhaps even worse) doesn't react at all, it makes it seem like you're excluded... while the real explanation, IMO, is that you stepped into something that people have been arguing about for a while and therefore either triggered something in someone who's argued it previously or haven't brought anything particularly interesting to a dead horse.

Failing to bring anything of interest to a topic isn't the domain of new members, by any means. I think that people who've been here a while simply know that a certain number of posts or threads are simply going to be duds for whatever reason.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> From my perspective, there's no clique or cliques. There are ideological allies and a culture.
> 
> What do I mean about idealogical allies? Rather than break it up into approaches (emotional vs. logical) which might seem judgmental, it's clear that many of the board are more supportive of the Nash regime than others. While I think the majority of the posters fall into somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, there are those who are particularly negative and there are some that are particularly positive. It's hard for members of these groups to agree on things, although it's possible (and clearly preferable) to remain civil.
> 
> ...



Just an FYI Ed - Bonzi is still a cancerous *****! :biggrin:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Failing to bring anything of interest to a topic isn't the domain of new members, by any means. I think that people who've been here a while simply know that a certain number of posts or threads are simply going to be duds for whatever reason.
> 
> Ed O.


This was a point I was going to make earlier, but I had to cut it short.

This has been my experience as well. Some of the threads I have started have bombed completely or got very tepid response. And there seems to have been no relation to how much interest I had in the subject matter, how much time (sometimes a lot) I put into the original post, or how good I thought the essay or point was.

Yet on some of those same days, mixum would spend 30 seconds typing a one paragraph blast on some player or his fav John Nash and get get a 100 post thread going.

There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to it. And that's just the way it is.

Think of posting like being a streaky shooter. You may start off cold but you have to keep shooting. You may stay cold, but if you stop shooting, you are guaranteed to stay in a slump. And you cannot take it too personal or it will make you crazy - or want to leave.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Post your flags or whatever else you want to here but free speech actually does not apply here. BBB.net is a private organization not associated with the government thus the first amendment does not apply.
> 
> So to claim Mixum was a martyr defending his right to free speech is a farce. By U.S. law he has no such rights when participating in the activities of a private organization.


Martyrs typically die defending what they feel is right, NOT what is legal. Generally it's something that isn't legally protected at the time. 

"He sacrified his screenlife to defend the *principle and practice * of free speech".

No mention of US Law or other artificial boundaries of behaviour there.

God or Evolution, depending on your beliefs, gave you a brain and a mouth, and hopefully the power to work them in unison.

If you think ANYONE has the right to tell you when, where and how you can use them, I feel very sorry for you.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Time to make a martyr out of this thread.


Sooooo.......

Blazers/Kings.

Thoughts anyone?

:whoknows:


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

howd this thread turn from mixum to the kings and blazers?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> If you see the existing posters as a bloc, and then that bloc either reacts adversely or (perhaps even worse) doesn't react at all, it makes it seem like you're excluded... while the real explanation, IMO, is that you stepped into something that people have been arguing about for a while and therefore either triggered something in someone who's argued it previously or haven't brought anything particularly interesting to a dead horse.


To expand on this slightly, even when the board is split 50/50 on a topic, a new poster who takes a postion may be attacked by the 50% who disagree with him, but not defended by the 50% who agree with him. This makes sense because the first 50% smell fresh blood, whereas the second 50%, to argue their point of view, would need to re-engage the existing posters, with whom they've already beat the dead horse repeatedly. 

To the new poster, this looks like the whole board rising up to smite him, because there's no way for him to tell how the silent half feels, or even that there is a silent half.

barfo


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

CFFI's three (3) scattered thoughts upon reading thirteen (13) pages of venting, explaining, quipping, griping, advising, etc.:

1. I always found mixum hilarious. I found it even more hilarious that people took the bait every single time. I wish it hadn't progressed to where the mods felt it necessary to ban him from the Blazer board, but I can see why they did it.

2. Cliques? Definitely. But so what? Everywhere you post there are going to be some members that are good friends and maybe even know each other personally. That's very much the way it is here because so many people live in the Portland area and make a point to meet each other.....whether it be at official Blazer Bashes, at other Blazer games, for pick-up games, or draft parties, etc. Except for the Bashes, I'm not a part of those groups, but it doesn't bother me.

This is an internet forum. If you feel like posting about something, post about it (preferably in the correct forum). Why should you care if anybody else cares about it? Or replies to it? If I feel like writing an essay about Sabonis........guess what I do! Does it get any responses? Sometimes a few. Sometimes not. So what? Internet forums like this enjoy a lot of lively discussion and that's good. But a post is not necessarily validated by how many replies it receives. 

I have to admit, though, that I have been with this semi-nomadic group through a number of forum changes over the past 6 years. So maybe I feel a part of the group even though I am not a member of any clique except my own Sabonis clique of one member.....ME. 

3. Every once in awhile barfo writes a very solid, serious, and thoughtful post that shows that he isn't always the comedian. For some reason, I'm always left feeling disappointed. Love those one-liners. Plenty of serious discussion on here as it is.....not near enough barfo.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

barfo said:


> To expand on this slightly, even when the board is split 50/50 on a topic, a new poster who takes a postion may be attacked by the 50% who disagree with him, but not defended by the 50% who agree with him. This makes sense because the first 50% smell fresh blood, whereas the second 50%, to argue their point of view, would need to re-engage the existing posters, with whom they've already beat the dead horse repeatedly.
> 
> To the new poster, this looks like the whole board rising up to smite him, because there's no way for him to tell how the silent half feels, or even that there is a silent half.
> 
> barfo


i knew that you agreed that those who dis-agree are and where in the wrong!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> 3. Every once in awhile barfo writes a very solid, serious, and thoughtful post that shows that he isn't always the comedian. For some reason, I'm always left feeling disappointed. Love those one-liners. Plenty of serious discussion on here as it is.....not near enough barfo.


Certainly no one else knows, and I'm not sure CFFI remembers, but she was the first person to welcome me to the blazer board, a few years ago (one of the previous boards). If I remember correctly I hadn't even posted anything - she noticed me lurking and dragged me out into the daylight. 

Thanks, CFFI...   

The rest of y'all: _she's_ the one to blame for these last 2070 posts of mine.


barfo


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

some of it is a bit cliquey - only really makes a difference if you care about it though. i can see how some new posters find it a bit off putting here and although it is one of the more active forums etc its still not as good as it used to be even here and past boards. kinda hard to put the finger on it but thats just my feelings on it. actually an example , i dont post as much as my current impressions of the blazers arent that aligned with most of the diehards here and i dont really feel like defending what seems obvious to me with people that wanna stretch a simple statement out over 8 pages and disect it like a lab experiment. 

i still read the board a lot but its lost a lot of the fun i used to associate with it , and a lot of the posters that used to make it what it was. i still want the blazers to win every game but am realistic and stating the reality of things just gets too much grief here.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> 3. Every once in awhile barfo writes a very solid, serious, and thoughtful post that shows that he isn't always the comedian. For some reason, I'm always left feeling disappointed. Love those one-liners. Plenty of serious discussion on here as it is.....not near enough barfo.


I concur. More cowbell... er Barfo.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Man this thread is like an episode of Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil or something! I wish I was around for all this!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Man this thread is like an episode of Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil or something! I wish I was around for all this!


Man... a walk down memory lane. 



Ed O.


----------

