The CardBoard
THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT (/thread-14200.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - ChicagoCard - 09-04-2017

(09-04-2017, 11:31 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=17302.msg199064#msg199064 date=1504549410]
I'd be disappointed if he modified his style at this point.

You won't be disappointed.
[/quote]

Turns out I am a little.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - BostonCard - 09-04-2017

(09-04-2017, 12:09 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:Of course the result of that throw was fortunate, but although there were three defenders there were two receivers in front of them (I actually think Rosen was throwing to the other receiver and that Theo Howard alertly moved in and caught it instead.)

One of the points of the fivethirtyeight crew (and many other advanced analytics folks) is that quarterbacks should be throwing more interceptions when behind late in the game, at least compared to what they normally throw.  If they aren't, then it is a sign that they aren't taking big enough risks in throwing the ball downfield, and while it might lead to more interceptions, it also leads to more touchdowns and a greater chance of a comeback.

I don't know if they still do it, but at one point they awarded a "gunslinger of the week" award:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tony-romo-is-skeptical-footballs-gunslinger-of-the-year/

Quote:The Gunslinger award goes to the quarterback who takes the kinds of risks necessary to maximize his team’s chances to win, even if they’re unpopular with the commentariat and regardless of whether they pay off or not. Generally this means a quarterback who is willing to throw interceptions (or otherwise be very aggressive) when his team is down to improve its chances from dire to just not so great.

So, yeah, normally, a bad throw.  But down two touchdowns with about 4 minutes left, it was brilliant.  It gave his team a chance to win, which they actually did (whereas an interception doesn't change the outcome as at that point, ATM still had a 99+% chance of winning, per ESPN).

BC

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Sonof80sCard - 09-04-2017

At the very least, Jonny shouldn't be allowed to post multiple threads about the exact same topic within 30 minutes.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - FarmBoy - 09-04-2017

(09-04-2017, 12:28 PM)Administrator link Wrote:He's in time out for a little more than a week.

I hate the all-caps, but this seems a tad harsh. What's the rationale? What types of grammar and punctuation merit a ban?

My solution to the all-caps was to just not read any of the posts that were in all-caps. It would be great if there were an all-caps filter, though.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - admin - 09-04-2017

It was not merely the all caps, but an ad hominem attack. Also, the CardBoard software no longer supports modifications. I can attempt to refresh the software to fresh state — don't worry, messages and users will remain — however, that would mean removing the style templates and recreating them from scratch.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Phogge - 09-04-2017

Wow. Groucho's best line might turn out to be appropriate.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - JJJ - 09-04-2017

(09-04-2017, 03:52 PM)Administrator link Wrote:It was not merely the all caps, but an ad hominem attack. Also, the CardBoard software no longer supports modifications. I can attempt to refresh the software to fresh state — don't worry, messages and users will remain — however, that would mean removing the style templates and recreating them from scratch.

You have my support 1000%. Thanks for all you do.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Hurlburt88 - 09-04-2017

Same here.  really enjoy this board! 

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - 2006alum - 09-04-2017

+100. In a world of increasing insanity, this is one of the few places remaining that has retained sanity, sharp commentary, and thoughtful conversation. Thanks for all you do to maintain it.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - pefloresjr - 09-04-2017

There was also a political comment/joke in one of his most recent posts.  That was not a rookie error; he is more than aware of the rules and has admitted that he tones it down when posting here.  Some people seem to thrive on being provocative.  That's fine in a drinking buddy (at times) but the Cardboard is a precious oasis in an internet desert of obnoxiousness and political divisiveness. 

I find the all caps obnoxious but it really just reflects on him.  I can deal with it and wouldn't want anybody punished for it.  Trying to ban or change it feels like it is overly sensitive in terms of enforcing the intelligent, respectful culture of the Cardboard.  I like some of the substance of his comments but don't know how much longer I will keep bothering with sifting through the shtick to get to the substance.  I hope he comes back and plays by the rules of this sandbox.  If not, I hope he finds a sandbox where he can be happy. 

Cheers,
Pete F

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - 81alum - 09-04-2017

(09-04-2017, 03:52 PM)Administrator link Wrote:It was not merely the all caps, but an ad hominem attack. Also, the CardBoard software no longer supports modifications. I can attempt to refresh the software to fresh state — don't worry, messages and users will remain — however, that would mean removing the style templates and recreating them from scratch.
Thank you for all you do to make this place a spirited but civil playground.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - FarmBoy - 09-04-2017

Thanks for the additional context. Since I don't read all caps posts, I missed the inflammatory post.

I appreciate the efforts to keep the board civil.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Hey - 09-04-2017

+1.  Thank you for the timeout.  100% of support from on this. 

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Hank 91 - 09-04-2017

Thanks for bringing this up. I thought about starting a similar thread a few days ago when it began to bother me, but I didn't have the heart. I knew it would all come to a boil eventually.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - JohnR34231 - 09-04-2017

(09-04-2017, 12:38 PM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17302.msg199066#msg199066 date=1504549874]
[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=17302.msg199064#msg199064 date=1504549410]
I'd be disappointed if he modified his style at this point.

You won't be disappointed.
[/quote]

Turns out I am a little.
[/quote]
Well, if and when JohnnyO comes back to this board, it will be interesting to see if he does change his style of posting. He  has been posting this way for a decade now, so I'll be surprised if he does.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - fullmetal - 09-04-2017

I dunno, I find that johnnyO is a net positive in contributions to the board.  He has specific insights that few others here have, and if the cost of those insights be all caps posting, so be it.  I can deal with all caps posting; it's a rounding error in my life's inconveniences. 

To be able to pick the brain of a former Stanford football player and former NFL player is a special kind of access.  If y'all have connections to other former Stanford/NFL players who are specifically willing to contribute to this board, by all means, get them in here.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Trevmiesterj - 09-04-2017

I have never met Johnny O, but I absolutely hope he comes back.

Quote altered

Quote:JohnnyO53 came up through the ranks of Antioch youth football, playing at Antioch High between 1970-1973. He was MVP and team captain on the league champion Panther team, and was chosen for both Offensive and Defensive All East Bay Teams. His prep football career was capped by playing in the North-South Shrine Game at the L.A. Coliseum. Before graduating in 1973, JohnnyO53 placed first in the DVAL shot put and was MVP at the Stapleton Relays. Before earning a B.A. from Stanford in 1977, JohnnyO53 was the only non-scholarship freshman elevated to the varsity team for the “Big Game” against Cal. At Stanford, JohnnyO53 competed in shot put and discus, while playing inside linebacker and special teams in football. After graduation, he played linebacker for the Canadian Football League’s Montreal Alouettes. He was a starter in the CFL Eastern Finals and played in the 1978 Grey Cup game. JohnnyO53 came back home to Antioch in 1980 to play for the Antioch Hornets, earning MVP. The Kansas City Chiefs signed him in 1981 for special teams. In 1982 he played for the Chiefs during a strike-shortened season and was in the last game ever played at Metropolitan Stadium. JohnnyO53 was inducted in 1988 into the American Football Association Semi-Pro Football Hall of Fame.


Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - CompSci87 - 09-05-2017

(09-04-2017, 12:41 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17302.msg199071#msg199071 date=1504552156]
Of course the result of that throw was fortunate, but although there were three defenders there were two receivers in front of them (I actually think Rosen was throwing to the other receiver and that Theo Howard alertly moved in and caught it instead.)

One of the points of the fivethirtyeight crew (and many other advanced analytics folks) is that quarterbacks should be throwing more interceptions when behind late in the game, at least compared to what they normally throw.  If they aren't, then it is a sign that they aren't taking big enough risks in throwing the ball downfield, and while it might lead to more interceptions, it also leads to more touchdowns and a greater chance of a comeback.

I don't know if they still do it, but at one point they awarded a "gunslinger of the week" award:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tony-romo-is-skeptical-footballs-gunslinger-of-the-year/

Quote:The Gunslinger award goes to the quarterback who takes the kinds of risks necessary to maximize his team’s chances to win, even if they’re unpopular with the commentariat and regardless of whether they pay off or not. Generally this means a quarterback who is willing to throw interceptions (or otherwise be very aggressive) when his team is down to improve its chances from dire to just not so great.

So, yeah, normally, a bad throw.  But down two touchdowns with about 4 minutes left, it was brilliant.  It gave his team a chance to win, which they actually did (whereas an interception doesn't change the outcome as at that point, ATM still had a 99+% chance of winning, per ESPN).

BC
[/quote]

Yep, it's certainly a good point that when you're behind and time is short you need to take more risks to have a better chance of winning. The downside is that you might lose by a wider margin, but so what?

I make the same point to friends when playing cards. Sometimes you have to make a risky play because the more cautious play gives you much less chance to win. The game is nonlinear; it matters only (or mostly only) whether you win or lose, not by how much.

My $.02 worth - JohnR34231 - 09-05-2017

I think JohnnyO's content is fine; I agree that it is a net positive to the board. While I realize it is just a schtick, I do wish he would tone down his in your face posting style (of which the all caps is emblematic) to make it a little more compatible with the style of the Cardboard (where people are, for the most part, civil and polite to each other, a feature I appreciate).
If and when he comes back, we'll see if he does.



Re: My $.02 worth - ChicagoCard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 04:17 AM)JPRI link Wrote:I think JohnnyO's content is fine; I agree that it is a net positive to the board. While I realize it is just a schtick, I do wish he would tone down his in your face posting style (of which the all caps is emblematic) to make it a little more compatible with the style of the Cardboard (where people are, for the most part, civil and polite to each other, a feature I appreciate).
If and when he comes back, we'll see if he does.

Wow, I got down-voted for saying I hoped JohnnyO wouldn't change his style. I appreciate this forum a ton. JPRI's comment about his thing being just schtick is how it comes across to me too, and I can't help but appreciate a guy who played on a Stanford team in the '70s. I thought it was amusing that for him a point of emphasis is made in lower case :D.