Jump to content


Matt's Photo

Matt

Member Since 04 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Mar 02 2015 02:54 PM
****-

Posts I've Made

In Topic: CapGeek shuts down

05 January 2015 - 09:47 PM

First RWC, now this? I'm starting to fear LGW will go down. What's ever going on I hope the best for Matt.

 

No plans to shut anything down, though I am looking into a new host for the site.

 

Had to hit the Wayback Machine for this one: 

 

https://web.archive....chart/index.php

 

I used to block away an hour or so every Sunday night to update that thing by hand. What a monster pain in the butt that was. Matt Wuest got his automated on CapGeek and I thought it far better to save my hour(s) and, eventually, help out on the CG user interfaces.

 

Wishing him all the best and a never give up attitude.


In Topic: CapGeek shuts down

03 January 2015 - 10:05 PM

I've kept in touch with Matt on and off for years (for a short time he wrote about the Red Wings' prospects on this site before the turn of the century and branching out to Rivals.com and eventually RWC). We worked a bit on CapGeek together and this is truly sad news.

 

Please keep him in your thoughts and prayers. I know the decision made tonight was an extremely difficult one for him....


In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

16 October 2014 - 12:27 PM

 I remember new threads on signings/trades being discouraged during free agent frenzy and the trade deadline, and I found it hard to participate in the discussions when the thread are too long to follow and make an informed post.

 

This is exactly what I want to change. I have no problems at all with trades/signings having their own threads. Doesn't matter if it fills up the front page because the ones that are deemed comment-worthy float to the top, anyway.


In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

15 October 2014 - 09:21 PM

Would anyone like to address my concerns?

 

We have. Repeatedly. But you've chosen to drone on like it hasn't already happened. 

 

 

Maybe it'd be possible to let the person know before you change it. It would give them a chance to rework or reword a post in a way that would be more suitable.

 

While it sounds nice in theory, it would only work in rare instances. When it comes to personal attacks and such there's no time given since things can spiral out of hand (and it's against the forum rules anyway), but for others you're still working in a time-based fashion where a member may no longer be signed in, etc.. In some instances, sure, it could work, but mostly no.

 

 

No -- just split a thread when part of it is no longer about hockey and move that part to the non-hockey forum.  Or, you know, lock the thread if you have to.  But leave the offending posts as they are, if for no other reason than as examples of bad behavior so people understand and so you don't seem unaccountable to the community for the decisions you make.

 

I don't think this would "ruin the thread for everybody."  New threads pop up all the time.

 

This has been done in the past and I personally don't have a problem with it. 'Offending' posts would be handled as they would normally. Attacks on other members, etc., have no place here -- even in locked threads.

 

 

Looking through the recent deleted posts, they're all things that we wouldn't be split into a new thread, like insults, but in the right instance I guess it could work.  It's definitely something we've done in the past, it just doesn't seem that often that a thread splits into clear enough, substantial enough topics to split.  But it's something we could keep in mind. 

 

fellow mods?

 

I'm not a fan of giving free passes to people that have actively derailed threads. Myself and all of the moderators here shouldn't be babysitters to topic progression here as I feel that members should know when a topic is going off the rails and needs to have its own thread started. The Abdelkader example above makes it easy. Someone just has to take the initiative to go "hey, this should be it's own thread" and start it. Heck, even plop a link in the original thread pointing to the new one so those that wish to continue to discuss it go there. It shouldn't require moderator handholding to know when to pull the plug.

 

There have been threads that I've split in the past -- the bulk of them are offseason or trade-rumor/re-signing related where the situation can change every few days. I'm not a fan of mega "All Offseason Signings Thread"-type deals. They're a mess. There's no way I, as a casual visitor, would want to click on that thread and try to find the reaction to a signing three days ago. Those should be separate topics. I've broken up massive all-in-one topics like the Parise/Suter fiasco a few years ago whenever it hit significant 'news' benchmarks, just so it's easier to navigate.

 

This isn't something new. I do feel, however, that members here to have some level of responsibility to know the basic forum etiquette here as well.


In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

15 October 2014 - 03:49 PM

I do think it's important to note that all mods are not created equal.  For example, haroldsnepsts seems much more reasonable than vladdy16.  I know, as fact, that vladdy16 has edited posts and even whole subjects not because they broke forum rules (which are excessive anyway) but because he or she simply did not approve of the formulations -- in fact, a long time ago I was banned for seven days for politely pointing this out.  Check the history if you can, rather than just assume your mods are beyond reproach.

 

Sorry, no one needs you to point out that all moderators are not created equal.

 

If you find the forum rules "excessive" then all I can do is simply suggest you post elsewhere where you're not so heavily oppressed on a day-to-day posting basis. It must be a struggle for you, I know, but you're not obligated to post or be an active member here.

 

I'd love to see the polite dialog you had as well. But why should I bother, right? Because according to you -- and your apparent inability to read my previous posts in this thread -- I just 'assume (my) mods are beyond reproach.'