100 Posts of Solitude

[JHawk 0]

Her philosophy for TSM was to make it open to everyone and encourage newcomers, with the hope that the variety of opinions would lead to good discussion. I agreed with that philosophy, and so she offered me an admin spot. We wanted the best posters on merit (Czech, o.p.a., Edwin, Cheech, etc.) to be mods who led the discussion in their respective folders.

 

But, the Maffs have a different vision of what TSM should be. They like being the Stonecutters, with elite, closed membership and insider rituals. And most of TSM likes being a part of the Stonecutters, even though they have double- or triple- digit member numbers. I respect this philosophy as well. It's fun for the people who are a part of it.

Actually, "the Maffs", as you put it, were upset that A:) They were never given the chance to match/beat Leena's offer and B:) Mike sold control of the board to the person who had done more to hurt the board (stealing passwords, hacking accounts, repeatedly coming back after repeatedly being banned -- sometimes after intentionally being banned, etc) as a way of trying to help the board.

 

It also amazes me that people are bitching because they're trying to keep it a private board. Real life organizations are private. Moose lodges, Elks lodges, etc. I think it sucks they won't let you in, but calling them elitist because they won't do so is pushing it.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

Real life organizations? It's a fucking wrestling forum. The entire notion that a wrestling discussion board should be treated like an Elk Lodge is the reason people like leena are willing to pay real money to piss you guys off. I can't see how anyone wouldn't get a headache from that idiocy.

[chuck415 0]

Have you applied for membership?

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

Didn't need to.

[chuck415 0]

Its a pretty rough initiation process.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I agree with Battlenuts 100%

 

It also amazes me that people are bitching because they're trying to keep it a private board. Real life organizations are private. Moose lodges, Elks lodges, etc. I think it sucks they won't let you in, but calling them elitist because they won't do so is pushing it.

 

The metaphor I was thinking of was it was more like a high school clique where the members were picked based on popularity.

 

These are the folks who had a tournament to get people kicked off of TSM for fuck's sake.

 

(Before someone calls me a hypocrite for my attitude towards MikeSC a few years ago, let me point out that I long ago changed my mind about that and admitted I was wrong. Yes, there are circumstances under which people should be banned, but posting opinions--even bigoted ones--is not, inmy opinion.)

 

Leena, despite his/her whining and hypocrisy, was right about one thing: too regularly a poster would get ganged up on because they refused to back down from an unpopular opinion and the majority's response was to throw insults at that person at every opportunity.

 

That's an unfortunate by product of free speech and I can live with it, but then giving the majority the power to exclude the people they disagree with from the discussion will inevitably lead to a homogenous board where the highest priority is to conform. Once I found out they were keeping the board private, I lost interest and never applied.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

I must say, after all the drama happened, Leena told me what her payment agreement with Mike was, and I can guarantee that the Maffs would have paid more. Mike simply didn't want them in charge anymore, for his own reasons. It is for the best that they started a new forum that ensures the stability of TSM. The problem is their belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority. You know what I did there? I just copy/pasted the definition of elitism from dictionary.com. To me, the 'real' TSM is about self-reference, not elitism.

 

51. NFL Draft Saturday is the real Christmas for me. It's the best day of the year. I had a lot of fun this year, as usual. I'm happy with the Vikings' draft. Leelee is happy with the Bills' draft. Although, after my 2007 win, my 'mock draft grand prizes' losing streak is now at two. I did have Darrius Heyward-Bey to the Raiders, though. The Sourced Mock will now return to doing nerdy analysis and philosophy. Here's the entry I wrote today.

 

How should mock drafts be scored?

 

There are a variety of scoring methods for NFL mock drafts:

 

1. NFL.com's game emphasizes draft order. It awards 100 points for predicting the exact draft slot of a player (e.g., Mark Sanchez at 5), 50 points for one slot off, 20 points for two slots off, and 10 points for three slots off. ESPN (RIP) used a similar system. NFL.com, however, also awards bonus points at the end based on the number of correct picks (further emphasizing draft order).

 

2. Mock Draft Central also focuses on draft order, but it uses ranges. If you're sure that Darrius Heyward-Bey is going at 7, you pick a range of zero. If he goes at 7, then you get 11 points. Otherwise, you get nothing. If you're not sure, however, whether Aaron Curry will go third, fourth, or fifth, then you can put him at 3 with a range of two, or at 4 with a range of one. In the first case, you'd get 7 points if he went 1–5. In the second case, you'd get 9 points if he went 3–5.

 

3. The Huddle Report focuses on the bigger picture. The primary objective is to match teams with players (2 points each), and the secondary objective is to understand who the first-round prospects are (1 point each).

 

Let's step back and think about why we do mock drafts. It's not about getting the order approximately correct. Doing so does not demonstrate knowledge. The goal is to demonstrate the best understanding of what each team will do.

 

It's very easy to see the flaw in NFL.com's scoring system. Here's an example: the winner of NFL.com's 2009 contest—Chiefs Fan 2002—predicted that the Jets would take Josh Freeman at 17 and that the Bucs would take Robert Ayers at 19. He earned 150 points for those two players. I predicted that the Bucs would take Josh Freeman at 19 and that the Broncos would take Robert Ayers at 18. I earned 120 points for the same two players. I was right on matching both players to the correct team, and he was wrong on both! But, since the Bucs moved to 17 for Freeman, he earned 100 points and I earned 20.

 

The range system is a partial success. But, there's a problem here. What if I pick a range of zero for Josh Freeman, because I know that he's going to the Bucs and not the Jets? When they move up to 17 in order to ensure that they get him, I go from 11 points to zero. The entrant who was sure that the Jets would take him gets 11 points.

 

The matching system makes some sense, but it also has its flaws. First, it doesn't allow conditionals like the range system does. It's simply 2 points or none. I know that Aaron Curry is going to the Seahawks if the Chiefs take Tyson Jackson. But if I have Curry going to the Chiefs, then I get a cascading failure, because I'll have Michael Crabtree going to the Seahawks, and so I can't have Crabtree going to the 49ers later. Additionally, the 1 point per first round pick is rather useless. Almost everyone will get somewhere around 26–27 of the 32. It proves little.

 

The following is the scoring system that I propose, which shall be known universally as XavierScoring. Mock drafters should focus on matching teams to their targeted players, but they should also have flexibility so that one incorrect pick doesn't automatically entail a series of incorrect picks. Thus, for each team, the mock drafters should pick, in order, the three most likely choices. Scoring will be 4 points for the first choice, 2 points for the second choice, and 1 point for the third choice. No bonuses. The tiebreaker is most correct first choices. The same player cannot be in the (1) slot more than once, and so a standard mock draft could be formed from it. A sample mock:

 

1. Detroit Lions (4 points)

(1) QB Matthew Stafford (Georgia)

(2) OLB/ILB Aaron Curry (Wake Forest)

(3) LT Jason Smith (Baylor)

 

2. St. Louis Rams (4 points)

(1) LT Jason Smith (Baylor)

(2) LT Eugene Monroe (Virginia)

(3) QB Mark Sanchez (Southern California)

 

3. Kansas City Chiefs (2 points)

(1) OLB/ILB Aaron Curry (Wake Forest)

(2) 3-4 DE Tyson Jackson (Louisiana State)

(3) DE/OLB Brian Orakpo (Texas)

 

4. Seattle Seahawks (2 points)

(1) WR Michael Crabtree (Texas Tech)

(2) OLB/ILB Aaron Curry (Wake Forest)

(3) QB Mark Sanchez (Southern California)

 

5. Cleveland Browns (0 points)

(1) DE/OLB Brian Orakpo (Texas)

(2) OLB/ILB Aaron Curry (Wake Forest)

(3) QB Mark Sanchez (Southern California)

 

And so on. The Browns' pick was worth zero instead of 1 point because their first pick was C Alex Mack at 21, not QB Mark Sanchez at 5. However, if the mock had had Sanchez as the third choice for the Jets at 17, then the Jets' pick would be worth 1 point. ###

[SuperJerk 0]

I don't really view the new board's elitism and the legitimacy of the grievances people have over the Leena fiasco to be the same issue. Whether or not they were right to get mad that Leena was placed in charge of the board has nothing to do with whether or not the other TSm should have an exclusive membership.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

[bob_barron 0]

I don't really view the new board's elitism and the legitimacy of the grievances people have over the Leena fiasco to be the same issue. Whether or not they were right to get mad that Leena was placed in charge of the board has nothing to do with whether or not the other TSm should have an exclusive membership.

 

It's not really a private board. At all. Register and post. Partake in discussion. Have fun.

[LuckyLopez 0]

I just wanted to say that. I'm registered on the board and have been active. I am in no way, shape, or form one of the "cool kids" on this board nor have I ever been. I have been on this board for years and probably barely been noticed. I haven't made friends and I haven't become part of the community. I'm sure some people liked me and some people disliked me because that's basic human nature. I both had someone suggest I'd make a nice member there and had someone nominate me in the "worst poster" tournament. But in the end I doubt many if any of the "Maff Clique" would really even know who I was, but I'm pretty confident none of them saw me as a member of the "elite."

 

That's not elitism on display. One of the very issues had over here was that the admin changed PMs because he deemed posters as "spamming" the board. They weren't picking and choosing the best of the lot, they were inviting anyone they deemed possibly worthwhile. They selectively passed on a few for some reasons. Is that rude? "Wrong"? Distasteful? You're free to call it what you will but at its heart its a practice most every group or messageboard does to some extent or another. Banning a poster because you deem what he brings to the board to be a negative. The problems simply arise where people feel differently about who and what constitutes a worthwhile negative. But that's not elitism, its selectivity. And its actually a pretty common practice in almost any group situation. Somewhere there is some line in which you say "He is not welcome because he'd make us uncomfortable or make things worse."

 

And I'm willing to bet that some of the initial rejections (most likely made by 1 or 2 posters) done in the opening day or two of that board wouldn't hold up now. That board was just taking shape and was probably not seen by many to have the potential to get as big as it has in so little time or to affect this board as it has. I know there's at least 1 poster I saw rejected in the opening days who ended up joining since. In a lot of ways its a big game of gossip. Person A mentions Person X, Person B says he dislikes Person X and doesn't want him there, Person A doesn't object because he has no reason to. Person Y tells Person X that he's been rejected, Person X opts to not register, Person A would have pursued the issue and possibly overruled Person B if he had.

 

Not to say that WILL happen with anyone in particular as I'm sure there remains any number of people not wanted. Were I pulling together a board there'd certainly be some people I deemed undesirable or who bring more harm or risk than good. But my guess is that the initial drama of those opening days and the issues had with Leena and Mike ended up leaving some messages and ideas out there that have faded in the weeks since. And that many of the continued hard feelings seen could be smoothed over with a civil conversation, if that was what anyone wanted. But that also doesn't mean you would be reconsidered. Because lets face facts. I think I'm a nice guy who is fairly intelligent and who presents reasonable opinions. But someone doesn't like me and there's at least one messageboard out there where I would not be welcome. Be it because of who I am, because of bad impressions, because of guilt by association, or any number of other things. That is life.

 

EDIT: Just cleared up some weird wording.

 

Just my 2 cents as a guy who has kind of observed this a bit from the outside. And honestly, as I find myself visiting this board less I think it has less to do with the inactivity of the board and more to do with how much of the activity is a lot of name calling and complaining about a board, some of which just seem irrational such as the idea that board is made up of a "clique" of "cool kids" that number in the hundreds.

[chuck415 0]

That pretty much sums it up.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

LuckyLopez, when people go to that site, what do they see? They have to make a decision on you, before you can make a decision on their forum. In the world of internet discussion, that is as elitist as it gets. The position that the forum is beyond judgment from someone who wants to check it out before actually signing up is as arrogant as it gets.

 

That isn't a message board looking for healthy, diverse discussion. That's some gay kid's tree house. I understand you think because you're there, they aren't elitist, but is a boss who hires a black man simply because of affirmative action really not a racist? It's not much different.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

We don't have a NHB section to flame and whine so Battlenuts would be pretty useless there anyway.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

It's amazing how you don't need certain sections when everyone agrees with each other.

[chuck415 0]

I don't see what the big deal is.

[TheFranchise 0]

I don't see what this is about, but I like the inclusion of Peter Crouch.

[JHawk 0]

It's amazing how you don't need certain sections when everyone agrees with each other.

But everybody doesn't agree with each other. It's just that people over there realize flaming doesn't accomplish anything and therefore refrain from it for the most part. Hell, they disagree with me all the time, but they do it with counterpoints and logical arguments instead of flaming and personal insults.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

Yeah, that's some heavy bullshit. I've seen racially exclusive forums with more diversity in opinions. At least be fucking men and acknowledge what kind of dicks you are. I'll respect any elitist dipshit who admits he's an elitist dipshit before one who won't.

 

And flaming has nothing to do with anything, people who seem to get distracted and angered by name calling and insults are the only reason people like me find them so fun to use. Loosen your assholes, and people won't find it so fun to fuck you.

 

 

[TheFranchise 0]

I'm an elitist dick.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

 

^You know what that is? Props. Mad props.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

Oh and if that's lost in translation at all here ya go...

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mad+props

[TheFranchise 0]

I don't think I am really. I get criticised for wearing a suit and reading the Daily Mail, though.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

See now I'm gonna have to take the props away.

 

A suit and the daily mail, you've at least got the appearance of an elitist dick. Own that appearance. Make it thefranchises's's....'s. I once asked IRS as a kid if he could do my taxes after an event. I knew he had nothing to do with the actual IRS but he owned the look so much I didn't even care. Plus, I was a kid, and I didn't have to file taxes.

[TheFranchise 0]

I wonder how many times IRS was bothered over the years by hicks who thought he was a genuine tax man.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

It's not really a private board. At all. Register and post. Partake in discussion. Have fun.

Is this statement directed only at SuperJerk, or is it for everyone? It seems to conflict with this statement, made one week ago:

 

TherealTSM is just where we pulled the good posters to the MLB (Major League Boarders) and left the rest of you in AAA to wallow.

I'm under the impression that I'm never getting in to the 'big league.' I was denied twice and haven't heard any indication that anything has changed. And it's not because of my posting quality or my personality or anything actually relevant to the forum, but because I enjoy conversing with my friend Leelee on Facebook and on my blog. Is that correct?

 

52. I wrote another NFL Draft entry on my blog that I'd like to share. I'll likely move on to another topic for post 53.

 

A useful draft grade: how much did Bill Belichick fleece his trade partners?

 

Most NFL teams use a form of the draft trade chart that was devised in the 1990s by Jimmy Johnson. This chart never made any sense to me. Based only on talent (instead of contract size), would you rather have pick 1 or picks 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 70? They're both worth 3000 points.

 

Bill Belichick understands that the Johnson draft trade chart severely undervalues players from the mid first round through the end of the third round. For example, look at the Patriots' trade with the Packers in the 2009 Draft. New England traded picks 26 and 162 (727.6 points) for picks 41, 73, and 83 (890). Even under the Johnson DTC, this trade is lopsided for New England. But it's even worse when a much better chart is used.

 

The Johnson DTC simply looked at a few trades that occurred in the late 80s and early 90s and figured out what picks were valued at. In 2009, we have advanced statistical analysis that can tell us what picks should be worth. Thus, in Pro Football Prospectus 2008, the FootballOutsiders.com writers offered us the Actual Draft Value Chart. According to this chart, picks 26 and 162 are worth 2355 points, whereas picks 41, 73, and 83 are worth 3335 points. The difference is the value of an early third-rounder under the Actual DVC, whereas it's only a late third-rounder under the Johnson DTC.

 

Let's see how many points the Patriots gained overall according to the Actual DVC. The trade of Ellis Hobbs for picks 137 and 141 will be considered numerically equal. Thus, I will give them pick 99 with an asterisk to represent Hobbs. A 2010 pick will be considered to be worth the median value of its round (second-rounder = 45*).

 

Patriots' picks when the draft began (23, 34, 47, 58, 89, 97, 99*, 124, 170, 199, 207, 234): 9317.4 points.

Patriots' picks after the draft ended (34, 40, 41, 45*, 45*, 58, 83, 97, 123, 170, 198, 207, 232, 234): 11412.8 points.

 

The Patriots gained 2095.4 points this weekend. That's approximately the value of the 28th overall pick in the draft. The Patriots got the equivalent value of an extra late first round pick for free.

 

Patriots' draft grade: A+.

[JHawk 0]

Yeah, that's some heavy bullshit. I've seen racially exclusive forums with more diversity in opinions. At least be fucking men and acknowledge what kind of dicks you are. I'll respect any elitist dipshit who admits he's an elitist dipshit before one who won't.

 

And flaming has nothing to do with anything, people who seem to get distracted and angered by name calling and insults are the only reason people like me find them so fun to use. Loosen your assholes, and people won't find it so fun to fuck you.

So you're flaming me and trying to say flaming has nothing to do with anything. Nice. See, shit like this is why some people don't get approved for the other board.

 

I'm on the other board. People disagree with me all the time and give actual arguments as to why their opinion is different from mine. I say "Why do the Yankees get all the baseball coverage and not the other 29 teams, I think that's bullshit." I'll list "This team has good young talent, this team is exciting to watch." The arguments I get are about how big their fanbase is or the TV ratings or the standings. Something reflecting that people have something to back up their general point. I don't get "You're an idiot, you retard, fuck off."

 

You seem to think that unless you can say "You're an idiot, you retard, fuck off" then it's not a real message board or something. If you think I'm an elitist dick for preferring actual debates over flame wars, so be it. But then again, if I were an elitist dick, I wouldn't even bother to read this board, much less post on it and help improve Mike's precious traffic.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

No see that's where you miss the point, well, points.

 

For one, jumping right onto the flaming thing immediately proves the point I was trying to make, which shows me you missed it.

 

The point is, the retard and idiot stuff only comes into play when you get past the point of being able to intelligently discuss something. When people want to play games, end up over their head and become easy to rile up. You think a baseball argument somehow negates the notion of it being elitist, despite the forum being closed, despite registration being exclusive, despite actual members of the forum telling other people who tried to register they had to talk to someone they know on an instant messenger to be allowed in. Some have admitted they "don't want to let the trash in". It was because of stuff like this the word 'elitist' was invented.

 

My point is a good house produces plenty of trash, it's up to the people in the house to be smart enough to know how to deal with it.

 

I called you an elitist dick because you took up for and decided to represent elitist dicks. The notion that they have a diverse set of opinions represented or an environment that would encourage the growth of diverse discussion is idiotic, so now I'm gonna call you an idiot. Feel free to start your next post about that.

[JHawk 0]

If I were an elitist dick I would basically ignore you thinking I was better than you. If I were an idiot, I probably would have done a little worse on my IQ test and on my SAT and ACT tests. So it doesn't bother me when you insult because I know you're wrong.

 

See, point/counterpoint instead of flaming.

 

They're trying to keep shitty posters out regardless of whether their opinions are similar or diverse or whatever. Flamebaiting and trolling are flaming and trolling regardless of what the opinions actually are. You know what one of the discussions is over there right now? Whether to let a poster in who has a record of flaming and trolling. They're not discussing whether they agree or disagree with that person's opinions because it doesn't matter what the opinions are. The discussion is to whether they're intentionally going to try to piss people off.

 

But I suppose they're still being elitist dicks because they want to prevent somebody with a history of flamebaiting from flamebaiting people.

 

The rest of this related to comments Xavier has made recently.

 

I'm under the impression that I'm never getting in to the 'big league.' I was denied twice and haven't heard any indication that anything has changed. And it's not because of my posting quality or my personality or anything actually relevant to the forum, but because I enjoy conversing with my friend Leelee on Facebook and on my blog. Is that correct?

 

Now this, I hate to admit, is true, and this is definitely a dick move. I have no support for this.

 

I must say, after all the drama happened, Leena told me what her payment agreement with Mike was, and I can guarantee that the Maffs would have paid more. Mike simply didn't want them in charge anymore, for his own reasons.

 

And if he would have been man enough to flat out say this instead of doing things sneakily behind everybody's back, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. That's what pissed everybody off more than anything else. Mike was shady about it because he was upset his precious traffic dropped. Well, guess what. I was one of the top 20 posters yesterday with three whole posts. By being a sneaky fuck, Mike dropped his precious traffic even further. Two months ago three posts in a day wouldn't have sniffed the top 100, much less made the top 20.

 

Battlenuts wants us to man up and call ourselves elitist dicks. I want Mike to man up and admit he was being a shady fuck. Sounds like we're both in for a long wait.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

If I were an elitist dick I would basically ignore you thinking I was better than you. If I were an idiot, I probably would have done a little worse on my IQ test and on my SAT and ACT tests. So it doesn't bother me when you insult because I know you're wrong.

 

I'd have to imagine someone so intelligent, who sounds like their own mother when describing their intelligence, would find simple discussion as easy as stretching. Sadly it seems to be more a theme than describing it's difficulty.

 

See, point/counterpoint instead of flaming.

 

Pat yourself on the back. It's a little different from banging on your chest.

 

They're trying to keep shitty posters out regardless of whether their opinions are similar or diverse or whatever.

 

I call to the stand.... JHawk, the guy who later in this post will admit they won't let Xavier in. Why won't they let Xavier in, according to Jhawk? He has a different opinion on LeeLee. He thinks it's a person, you guys fear it like ancient cultures used to fear the sun.

 

Flamebaiting and trolling are flaming and trolling regardless of what the opinions actually are.

 

And denying access to people based on what you perceive them to be or what opinions they hold is elitism. Regardless of how many fancy forum words you can produce.

 

You know what one of the discussions is over there right now? Whether to let a poster in who has a record of flaming and trolling.

 

I bet it's one of the greatest threads of all time.

 

They're not discussing whether they agree or disagree with that person's opinions because it doesn't matter what the opinions are.

 

We just went over this.

 

The discussion is to whether they're intentionally going to try to piss people off.

 

Fantastic, I can't to hear how you guys decided to let him in only to ban him later for "flaming and trollling", or as it appears to people who can intelligently discuss something without falling back on "mommy he called me names!", having a different opinion. You guys get pissed off at the sight of diversity, I'm sure he will.

 

But I suppose they're still being elitist dicks because they want to prevent somebody with a history of flamebaiting from flamebaiting people.

 

Depends on whether that person has a point. I'm sure the patron saints of intelligent discussion can tell the difference between a man with a point and a knack for giving you a nick name and a 12 year old killing time with jibberish. They don't fear the twelve year old, they fear the guy with a point, who doesn't just come with reason, but a fun way to call you a bitch too. The easiest thing to do is say "well he's name calling so he has no point", but we all know, it's really easy to bring a point, intelligently discuss it, and call someone a complete bitch if you feel like it.

 

The rest of this related to comments Xavier has made recently.

 

It sure did, didn't it? Way to drive home that point by acknowledging the overwhelming truth to the contrary. If this wasn't a black and white situation that may be admirable. Now it just gives me another chance to call you a name, I'm gonna go with dipshit, and you another chance to ignore every good point made. Hey dipshit, Xavier is being left out of the hand job party because he doesn't share an opinion with you guys.

 

Mike isn't just a shady fuck, he's a lazy, sometimes stupid, fuck. But those problems became good qualities once the end result was a forum that has a chance at diversity again, a forum free of you bitches. Now go back to pretending you guys aren't here anymore.