The CardBoard
Saturday other games - 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: Saturday other games (/thread-14705.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Re: Saturday other games - Goose - 10-29-2017

I think Leach replaced Falk because he has a touch of Chryst disease. He isn't reacting to the play fast enough, is holding the ball, and gets sacked. In the Air Raid, you can't do that. Trouble is, you may also throw 4 picks. Falk has been in this offense long enough to see its dangers, and he now thinks too much. You probably have to be a bit crazy and have a short memory to be the WSU QB.

Re: Saturday other games - 2006alum - 10-29-2017

I have no skin in the present feud, but I would note that from what I've seen, the disagreements have not risen beyond the "attack ideas, not people" rule for the Board. Having a "problem" with a comment may not be the most courteous way to phrase it, but it's different from saying, "My problem with you is..."

As for...
(10-29-2017, 07:51 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[P]eople on this board are so freaking judgmental, and so holier than thou, and so self-righteous, that anyone who says something in a way that doesn't conform to some prim and proper notion of what acting like a Stanford person is, will be marginalized and attacked.  There is no room for respectful opinions if they in any way take away from or call into question anything Stanford does.

Well, 1) this is a forum for Stanford fans, which is largely Stanford alums, and of course we're partisans. That's kind of the point of this board. If I want straight down the line commentary from a neutral third party, there's plenty of other places to go. I come here because it's a group of largely thoughtful and righteously supportive fans of the Cardinal.

Which leads to: 2) If folks want to trash Shaw repeatedly, no one's going to stop them, but we don't have to like it, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to push back and disagree. I can only speak for myself, but on the rare occasion I down vote a poster, it's not because they think Shaw needs to hire a dedicated OC and I'm offended beyond all words. It's because the poster is being antagonistic in a way that I think brings the tenor of the conversation down. I am skeptical whether or not the reputation score is an overall net good for the site, but I do think it functions, perhaps, to modulate behavior. I notice when I'm voted up and down, and of course that makes me think about how I could post more of what gets me voted up, and less of what gets me voted down. If that means we are gravitate towards a "prim and proper notion of what acting like a Stanford person is," then I guess, so be it. That could also be rephrased as "a mode and tenor of conversation that enables people who often disagree with each other to do so happily, thoughtfully, and civilly." I happen to like this community very much, and find invaluable the views of many of its contributors. Posters here are largely smart, thoughtful, eloquent, and reasoned beyond measure as compared to 99% of the troll farm that is the internet these days. Is it for everyone? No. But it seems to be working pretty well and it beats the heck out of every other fan board I've ever visited.

Re: Saturday other games - stupac2 - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 07:29 AM)Phogge link Wrote:Hey Stupac, what is your deal with Outsider? You have a "problem?" Perhaps state your position/argumentative assumption but "problem?" I thought this wasn't supposed to be Thunderdome where we bite the heads off of trolls and rib each other like HS sophs.

Jesus, talk about overly reactive. I like OF! I said my problem with that post was [whatever I said]. I disagreed with his premise and stated my disagreement. Isn't that... exactly what you think we should do here? Wasn't this reaction... exactly what you're complaining about? I dunno, man, you do you.

(10-29-2017, 07:51 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:That's all fine and good.  But you are completely missing my greater point.

That point is people on this board are so freaking judgmental, and so holier than thou, and so self-righteous, that anyone who says something in a way that doesn't conform to some prim and proper notion of what acting like a Stanford person is, will be marginalized and attacked.  There is no room for respectful opinions if they in any way take away from or call into question anything Stanford does.

This just isn't true. Name a person who you think believes that there's no room for respectful opinion and I'll find a post of theirs criticizing the team. What I think you'll find people arguing (including myself) is that there's no room for inane poop-throwing. It's all well and good to highlight problems with the team or whatever, but to post something like "This team will never win a natty" with nothing else is just pointless and useless.

Quote:Teejers is a perfect example.  His takes are never disrespectful to anyone, yet he's got a -58 "respect" score.  Who the hell are we to say whether we respect him or not?  Do you know him personally?  Does he kick dogs and murder kittens or something? He's got opinions just like the rest of the conformists around here, yet because he dares to criticize and/or say unpopular things, and colors outside the lines, he's treated as an outcast.  Why is this necessary?  Y'all already ran off JohnnyO, who was one of the most insightful and colorful characters this board has ever had.  I hope Teejers has the fortitude to stick around.

Well, what are you saying here, exactly? If it's a comment about respect scores, check out ours. I'm pretty sure most everyone here would count me among the prigs or whatever, but I ain't exactly rollin' in respect points, ya dig? Meanwhile I updoot you pretty much every chance I get because I think it's silly you're negative. So, what does that all mean? I dunno, who cares? We'd probably be better off if that feature were removed anyway, if it's causing people to reconsider whether they want to be here or not.




To pull back a bit, something that I find distasteful in sports fandom in general is the sort of reflexive negativity. Game threads on reddit, especially NFL ones, are a great example of that. Look in a thread on /r/patriots to see what I mean, if the team is losing or makes  a bad play you'll see dozens of comments to the tune of "this team will never win the super bowl" or "turn it off we've already lost", which are brutally idiotic considering what that team has done the past few years.

In general this board is pretty light on that, which is incredibly refreshing, but it's still there. I keep harping on that "This team will never win a natty" thread because it's so reflective of this tendency. Will Stanford win a national title under David Shaw? Probably not, the odds are really stacked us for a whole bunch of reasons, plus even Nick Saban needs a healthy dose of luck despite a team littered with 5* talent. But you can't rule it out! We've been a couple unlucky breaks away from having a shot a couple times in the past 7 years. Is it really that hard to imagine that we'll get those breaks some season?

And, even if we never do, this team is still among the most successful of this decade! This current run is probably completely unrivaled in Stanford's history given how much the deck is stacked against us now. But based on some commentary, you'd never guess that. At some point it becomes a little, I dunno, grating? (And, for the record, I don't think you do this.)




Also, on the general discussion, what 2006alum said. At some point a negative tone is infectious and makes the whole place worse. Another forum I'm on just had a big fooforah about their quarantined political topics because some people thought the negativity was leaking out. It's hard to find a balance.

Re: Saturday other games - Phogge - 10-29-2017

OK. Really didn't like the word. But no problem. Carry on.

Re: Saturday other games - 81alum - 10-29-2017

I find myself not understanding the present feud, and not wanting to read deeply enough to figure it out.

I can say that I like and appreciate the posts by Outsiderfan and Teejers, and can't understand the high negative scores.  I find myself voting up their reputations sometimes just to try to balance it out.  I do wish that the system would allow comments to be voted on rather than the overall reputations of posters.  The latter is itself a kind of ad hominem attack via minus button, and it personalizes disagreements that should not be personalized.

While I appreciate the posts by Outsiderfan and Teejers, I don't always (maybe even usually?) agree with them.  But this board would not be much fun if 100% of us just extolled the merits of Stanford athletics, found the most positive spin on all events, and never questioned the coaches.  To me, the greatest merits of a board like this lie in my learning more about the sports I like to watch, so I can deepen my understanding and appreciation of the games.  Part of doing that is learning about the contrasting coaching philosophies so I know what is distinctive about my team.  And to do that, we need a diversity of points-of-view.

Re: Saturday other games - CowboyIndian - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 07:51 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:That point is people on this board are so freaking judgmental, and so holier than thou, and so self-righteous,

Is this generalization part of your " I could understand if I called people out personally, but I never do that."

Re: Saturday other games - Goose - 10-29-2017

I think most of us here in the board like and expect a diversity of views. What I personally don't like to see is a post that says something like "X is true and if you don't agree with me, you are a moron". No facts, no reasoning, just a statement and a challenge. Fortunately, we don't have may of these. I don't think that Outsiderfan and Teejers do this. I sometimes agree with them, and sometimes do not. However, we do collectively waste lots of emotional energy arguing about things that are unknowable (and in some cases, not even defineable). That is fine, we seem to enjoy it. But we all must remember that many of these issues are not objectively knowable. They are opinions, hopefully well reasoned from documented facts. Sometimes, we get a good deal less, but YMMV :).

Re: Saturday other games - TreesAndBirds - 10-29-2017

FWIW, I mostly upvote people who do research/analysis for our benefit, or share an article that I enjoy, or clearly gave a lot of thought to their post; rarely do I do so just because I agree with their opinion. And I mostly downvote people who post something that seems overly sanctimonious, know it all, condescending. Rarely do I do so just because I disagree with their opinion.

That said, I dont do much down or up voting because it can be misunderstood, and in any event I have a high threshhold in both directions, but this is my philosophy. I thought I'd share it because we probably all have our own philosophy and may not be aware of what others do.

Re: Saturday other games - dabigv13 - 10-29-2017

Just an FYI, on the mobile version of the site, I'm not even sure you can up or down vote and you have to click on a profile to see reputation. So, I hardly see it. If my opinions are trash, the rep score will do nothing to contain them. Sorry folks.

Re: Saturday other games - Spiny_Norman - 10-29-2017

Short quiz.  Based on the stats, which team won the game?

Team A
13 first downs
2 for 9 on 3rd down
22:38 time of possession
ran 51 plays

Team B
32 first downs
37:22 time of possession
ran 101 plays (!)



Of course Team A won.  Team A = Arizona which averaged nearly 11.5 yards per play (585 total yards) and intercepted 4 WSU passes.

Stanford may need to score 50 to beat WSU next week. And the defense better be ready for a lot of time on the field chasing the QB and receivers.  WSU threw 84 passes last night.



Re: Saturday other games - BostonCard - 10-29-2017

I miss the days when you could up or downvote individual posts rather than people. First off it made things less personal.  Secondly it was more helpful; a long post with a bunch of upvotes was likely to have good content and worth a read, while a long post with a bunch of downvotes was usually drivel.

But my understanding is that the post up voting extension is incompatible with the current version of the underlying software to run the board.

BC

Re: Saturday other games - Langdude - 10-29-2017

I would like for us to be able to up- or down-vote the following:

1) Individual words, paragraphs, or sentences within posts.
2) Grammatical skill within posts.
3) Our mood at time of posting.
4) Individual players on any Stanford team, current or past (or future, I suppose).
5) The picture/avatar posters use.
6) The epigraph posters use.
7) Tom Hanks (trying to think of the least controversial person in the world).
8. Dinner.
9) The use of up- or down-votes. (We could call this meta-voting.)
10) Lists that do not have ten ideas.

-m.

Re: Saturday other games - BostonCard - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 04:06 PM)Langdude link Wrote:I would like for us to be able to up- or down-vote the following:

1) Individual words, paragraphs, or sentences within posts.
2) Grammatical skill within posts.
3) Our mood at time of posting.
4) Individual players on any Stanford team, current or past (or future, I suppose).
5) The picture/avatar posters use.
6) The epigraph posters use.
7) Tom Hanks (trying to think of the least controversial person in the world).
8) Dinner.
9) The use of up- or down-votes. (We could call this meta-voting.)
10) Lists that do not have ten ideas.

-m.

What about rating Uma Thurman?

BC

Re: Saturday other games - Phogge - 10-29-2017

I prefer Maria Bello. And the reputation system, IMO, should be scrapped.

Re: Saturday other games - PalmTree - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 04:41 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=Langdude link=topic=17817.msg209173#msg209173 date=1509318413]
I would like for us to be able to up- or down-vote the following:

1) Individual words, paragraphs, or sentences within posts.
2) Grammatical skill within posts.
3) Our mood at time of posting.
4) Individual players on any Stanford team, current or past (or future, I suppose).
5) The picture/avatar posters use.
6) The epigraph posters use.
7) Tom Hanks (trying to think of the least controversial person in the world).
8) Dinner.
9) The use of up- or down-votes. (We could call this meta-voting.)
10) Lists that do not have ten ideas.

-m.

What about rating Uma Thurman?

BC
[/quote]

....As the French would say in rating difficulty of mountain climbs for bike racing...."Hors Catégorie!"


Re: Saturday other games - Langdude - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 04:53 PM)PalmTree link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17817.msg209178#msg209178 date=1509320476]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=17817.msg209173#msg209173 date=1509318413]
I would like for us to be able to up- or down-vote the following:

1) Individual words, paragraphs, or sentences within posts.
2) Grammatical skill within posts.
3) Our mood at time of posting.
4) Individual players on any Stanford team, current or past (or future, I suppose).
5) The picture/avatar posters use.
6) The epigraph posters use.
7) Tom Hanks (trying to think of the least controversial person in the world).
8) Dinner.
9) The use of up- or down-votes. (We could call this meta-voting.)
10) Lists that do not have ten ideas.

-m.

What about rating Uma Thurman?

BC
[/quote]

....As the French would say in rating difficulty of mountain climbs for bike racing...."Hors Catégorie!"
[/quote]

Oh! I remember that from the Tour de France! I became a fan back in the LeMond years, and then became a bigger fan in the Armstrong years. Stuck with it for a few years after he retired, but it had to go (along with other things) with the advent of children. Anyway, I remember that term being used for some of the stages, e.g., Alpe d'Huez.

-m.

Re: Saturday other games - BostonCard - 10-29-2017

The Uma reference is a bit of an inside joke in these parts; one that predates me.  I believe that one of Garvin’s more controversial positions, even more than his politics, was the contention that Uma was unattractive.  I think; as I said the Uma question predates me, and perhaps one of the old-timers can clarify.

And without Garvin here, I think it’s lost its punch.

BC

EDIT: My apologies to Glenn Garvin for misspelling his last name.  Perhaps I was thinking Gavin as in Gavin Newsom; a first name, when of course he used his last name as his handle.

Re: Saturday other games - martyup - 10-29-2017

Please, it's Garvin.  He is legend.

Re: Saturday other games - Langdude - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 06:04 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The Uma reference is a bit of an inside joke in these parts; one that predates me.  I believe that one of Gavin’s more controversial positions, even more than his politics, was the contention that Uma was unattractive.  I think; as I said the Uma question predates me, and perhaps one of the old-timers can clarify.

And without Gavin here, I think it’s lost its punch.

BC

That's so funny! I swear that one of the ten things on my list was "Garvin." But then I thought I'd better not stir up anything.

-m.

Re: Saturday other games - dabigv13 - 10-29-2017

I don't remember the specifics of the discussion, but yes, Garvin thought Uma's nose was too big. Dana Delany was his idea of female beauty. I don't remember the origin of the discussion however.

But perhaps the more we talk about Uma and Dana, we may yet be able to conjure his presence again.