Putting the Community list on hold....

by beastball on Nov 25, 2007 12:02 PM EST

Given the amount of trouble we've had recently regarding the community list, I'd suggest that we put it all on hold for a bit.

I think the site has grown in popularity so that the incidents of trolling and ballot stuffing have increased accordingly. We're only on #16 and have already had 2-3 suspect votes and a few obvious trolls, both of which are ruining the exercise.

First, I think we should put the whole process on hold until we have some moderators appoints.

Then, once the moderators are appointed, only they can initiate new community list polls. Or they can publicly appoint someone who will post the polls, and have all other polls deleted.

That person or the moderators will be the final judge of ballot stuffing, which would be the final problem once the trolling polls are removed.

To this point, in my opinion, the list is a bit of a mess, and the process is so muddled by trolls, that I'm hesitant to involve myself in the process until it gets some organization behind it.

Thoughts?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

On top of that...

I'd suggest we start the whole process over once it gets a bit more organized. I think the site traffic has gotten to the point where some formal organization is required.

by beastball on Nov 25, 2007 11:47 AM EST reply actions

I pretty much disagree

no offense, but that's an extreme measure for something that's not irreperably broken, and that is meant to be fun anyway. I think most would agree that the value in this is in the discussions.

Furthermore, I'd probably not be so active on this site if there were material that could only be posted by a sub-set of select people. The populist aspect of this site can be a hassle, sure, but it's also pure gold in other ways. I'll take the bad with the good, and hope to tweak this process instead of scrapping it.

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Nov 25, 2007 11:52 AM EST reply actions

I don't mean to cancel it completely...

As I agree, the community list was one of the better things that happens on this site. My problem is that the list is being ruined by a small sub-set of the community, which drives lurkers and active posters (like myself) away.

Maybe starting over is a bit much, but all I'm saying is put the list on hold until the moderators are appointed and can administer it. John said we should have moderators sometime after the holidays, so I'd expect within a week or so we should have moderators who can referee the process, and help keep it a positive community activity.

The problem is with different definitions of fun. I think semi-serious debates are fun, I think honest, fair voting is fun. Some people think clowning the process, trolling the debates and ballot stuff is fun. The community just has to decide which way they want it because those two points of view stand in conflict. I enjoy taking part in the one, and not in the other.

by beastball on Nov 25, 2007 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

I do agree, however

with your assessment in #16 that the whole poll was pretty much placed as a troll. Cut off early, that statement that Marrero had won it "going away", and then the comment that nobody had been requesting Fernando Martinez....I think you wree right, that was just meant to knock us off our perch. Let's not let it subvert the whole process.

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Nov 25, 2007 11:58 AM EST reply actions

I guess that's my point...

Leaving it open and unregulated keeps the process open to subversion.

Lurkers or new people to the site are going to be confused and discouraged by the process, since we've had several false community poll posts, and and do-overs, something which can decrease number of the positive contributors you have.

All I'm suggesting is that we get an "official" stamp to these things, either by having a list adminstrator or having the moderators take care of it.

Then, maybe you're right, let's not start over, but let's wait until we can do things right.

by beastball on Nov 25, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree

I think we should keep going.

...NJASDJDH...

by Fabian on Nov 25, 2007 12:08 PM EST reply actions

I'm kinda new at posting here

wasn't around for any previous listings but I am enjoying this. I was annoyed that Kerhsaw was 4th and Snider was 9th but I figure so what - that stuff is what it is I mean how much difference can there be between 5 and 15, 15 & 25, etc.? When there was something really weird (Joba) going on it was snuffed out. I like the discussions the best I don't worry if my guy finishes off a few spots or so, the debating is how we or at least I am learning. I do think its better if just one or two people handle the posting of the polls. But I'm in favor of slogging thru, instead of stopping or starting over; and yeah the poll for #16 was way too early (last time I looked it was a two-way tie).

It does seem that sometimes guys (Martinez, etc.) may fall thru the cracks when the choices are getting tough; who gets cut if 3 or 4 players each have 7%? Maybe we should have a cutoff for amount of votes received. Someone said 5% earlier but I'm not sure that would create enough room; maybe 10% would, and if a player(s) that was dropped gets enough mention he's back on the next poll. I just think some of us are going to have some widely varying opinions once we get past the top 40 or so, really its kinda starting now. But you guys have been thru this before I assume, so I yield to the general consensus (whatever that may be)...

Mulder: Babe Ruth was an alien? Arthur Dales: sure; all the great ones were aliens.

by dew on Nov 25, 2007 12:54 PM EST reply actions

It's not so much the placement of players...

but just the confusion surround the process. There are certain people who want to derail the process, either through ballot stuffing, which just kinda discredits the process, and through trolling polls.

While I wasn't at first, I'm more interested now in jpahk's polls. One guy running the show, compiling the results, and he can monitor the integrity of the votes on his own, tossing suspect voting patterns and whatnot.

I have to say that the detractors of the community list have done their job on me. I'm now disinterested, I plan on just taking the debates to jpahk's polls, which while a bit more labor intense, at least is somewhat organized and I can respect the results. The recent BABIP, LD%, and GB% debate was one that used to come out of the community polls, but now I've just lost confidence in the posters and the process.

by beastball on Nov 25, 2007 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

How about

Just having everyone email your top list to Slurve and let him sort it out?

That way all the ballot stuffing, trolling and other junk can be ignored.

Unless of course, some posters create multiple accounts and send X number of lists to Slurve.

I'll leave it to him to decide which is real and which isn't. Having said that, I occasionally comment but never even vote on the polls because I realize quite frankly that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about in determining whether Ellsbury is a better prospect than someone else.

I won't get married until the Red Sox win the World Series. AGAIN!!

by Shep on Nov 25, 2007 1:50 PM EST reply actions

Community List

As someone who doesn't visit the site quite as frequently as in the past, I will definitely say that this year's community list is harder to follow than last. A little more disorganized. The community list is flawed in the process, but I still think it is such a great idea.

by mcq fesijiba on Nov 25, 2007 2:06 PM EST reply actions

+1

The guy was addicted to the site before. I imagine he still is. I await Goofy's and zorro's protestations to the contrary.

by Flynn Blake on Nov 25, 2007 3:31 PM EST reply actions

I suspect that too

But I have no idea how those things work it's just true that he was addicted to the site. I wonder about guys like that; I suspect they have little influence in things in life so they hover over a computer keyboard hoping to stir up stuff in order to be noticed, heard, whatever and they don't have the self worth to do it constructively so they always try to start stuff up so even if people disagree with them and come to dislike them at least they got noticed.

IMO

I won't get married until the Red Sox win the World Series. AGAIN!!

by Shep on Nov 25, 2007 3:41 PM EST reply actions

Our list

Last years list was linked to several sites as a top 50 prospect list. If this community is wanting to be seen as somewhat articulate in their discussions, and be referenced under John's name and reputation, I belive our list must start again with some control. If we are a sarcastic bunch with little self control, let the banter continue. The site is really slipping in quality discussions and trending toward personal "I love me blogs".

by ByANose on Nov 27, 2007 8:51 PM EST reply actions