Baseball is More than Baseball

[donzblock]

Occasionally, a moderator will complain about a thread straying from the topic of baseball. Recently one moderator claimed that a thread dealing with Carlos Delgado was coming "dangerously close to politics." Aside from the fact that the participants on this thread were never in any kind of danger, the fact remains that baseball is a fascinating subject primarily because it is rarely limited to baseball: it often strays into other realms, such as politics, religion, substance abuse, and constitutional freedoms.

For example, if you were going to talk about Curt Flood, you would inevitably have to discuss his refusal to be traded to the Phillies and his ultimate impact on free agency.

If you were going to write about Barry Bonds or Lenny Dykstra, you would need to discuss the related issues of steroid abuse.

If you were interested in Jackie Robinson, you would have to acknowledge that he was far, far more than his impressive statistics. In other words, Jackie Robinson transcended baseball, and you would be foolish not to acknowledge how powerful an influence he has been in all areas of civil rights. How can politics be ignored when Jackie Robinson is being discussed? How can one ignore the vicious kinds of discrimination he faced off the field as well as on?

How is it possible for a series of baseball forums to ignore the impact of the game on non-baseball areas?

In the future, shouldn't it be obvious that it may not be justifiable to delete a thread on the grounds that it has nothing to do with baseball? Baseball's grandeur partly stems from the fact that it is a game that is far greater than the sum of its parts. And one of the pleasures of discussing baseball is to discover those other areas where baseball can take us.

[shlevine42]

I accept that this is first and foremost a baseball forum.

But if we agree that baseball is far more than just hits, runs and errors…that it touches other themes in our lives that deserve thought and discussion, then it may not be justifiable to delete a thread on the grounds that it has “nothing to do with baseball.”

In fact, Fever Policy seems to be receptive to discussions that extend beyond baseball:

- Article VI of the Policy defines Appropriate and Inappropriate Topics, and states, in part, that “In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

- Article VII, discussing the role of the Moderator, states that “Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions.”

That doesn’t mean that it’s okay to start a thread that’s purely about politics or religion. But it does appear to make it acceptable for a discussion that begins about baseball to spill over into politics, religion, or other non-baseball areas.

After all, don’t many of the conversations we have each day start out on a specific topic and then branch out into other areas where the same theme applies? Of course they do; it’s natural, it’s healthy and it’s fun.

This forum has grown into one of the most literate, intelligent and stimulating sites on the web. The recent Delgado thread produced over 100 replies and more than 1,300 views (one of the highest totals ever for a single thread on any forum), proving that our members have opinions that they want to express and that other members obviously want to hear.

To delete such threads would be to shut down stimulating and illuminating conversations, and in the process, deprive some members of the opportunity to express their opinions on those important themes, and prevent others from being exposed to those different opinions.

It would be a benefit to us all if those kinds of threads were not only allowed to continue, but were also encouraged.

[Jake83]

It is the operator of the forums decision on what is discussed here. It may not be right, but it is their decision.

[donzblock]

It is the operator of the forums decision on what is discussed here. It may not be right, but it is their decision.

The question is not what the operator does but what the operator should do. If the operator makes the wrong decision, should his decision stand? Should the operator be permitted to delete before it is determined if his decision to delete was the correct one?

Because the Delgado thread remained open and was not deleted, I have a greater appreciation for the complexity that is Carlos Delgado,and I have a lot less respect for the New York Mets' organization. I am also extremely grateful that I live in a country where we still have freedom of speech.

[shlevine42]

It is the operator of the forums decision on what is discussed here. It may not be right, but it is their decision.

What if a large number of Forum members disagree with the decision to deletete a thread, and want the discussion to continue?

Should the decision still stand?

[ed hardiman]

Is it a case of miniscule power corrupts minutely?

[Brian McKenna]

.
How is it possible for a series of baseball forums to ignore the impact of the game on non-baseball areas?
.

i think the moderators are very lenient in many regards and like us to express ourselves and actually to join in themselves - i don't know about the specific case here - but if they felt it was necessary then i'm with them

i have discussed baseball's effects on society many times so i know it is not squashed here

[donzblock]

i think the moderators are very lenient in many regards and like us to express ourselves and actually to join in themselves - i don't know about the specific case here - but if they felt it was necessary then i'm with them

i have discussed baseball's effects on society many times so i know it is not squashed here

I agree with you that generally a discussion of baseball's effects on society has been allowed to continue on the forum. But what about the particular case when it has not been? Doesn't the specific case matter? Will you give to the moderators a blank check?

[csh19792001]

This forum has grown into one of the most literate, intelligent and stimulating sites on the web. The recent Delgado thread produced over 100 replies and more than 1,300 views (one of the highest totals ever for a single thread on any forum), proving that our members have opinions that they want to express and that other members obviously want to hear.

Since you mentioned it...
Question:

What is the longest thread in Baseball Fever history? (The top one that comes to mind is easily the "Sabermetrics vs. Traditional Opinions" thread of yore).

Which members have made the most posts in this site's history?

[538280]

Since you mentioned it...
Question:

What is the longest thread in Baseball Fever history? (The top one that comes to mind is easily the "Sabermetrics vs. Traditional Opinions" thread of yore).

Which members have made the most posts in this site's history?

I'm not quite sure about the first one. I think it is the "Numbers Game" thread in Trivia. I'm 100% sure it's not the "Sabermetrics Vs. Traditional Opinions". It's not even the longest one in the history forum (you can sort threads by replies on each forum).

Mattingly has made more posts than any other member. You can go to the members list and click on posts above and they will all sort in order.

[Mattingly]

Since you mentioned it...
Question:

What is the longest thread in Baseball Fever history? (The top one that comes to mind is easily the "Sabermetrics vs. Traditional Opinions" thread of yore).

Which members have made the most posts in this site's history?

In order to find out which is the longest thread in a particular forum, simply click on "Replies", and you'll see them in descending order. To my knowledge, the Bitter Rivalry Thread, which 5,083 replies so far, has the highest post count.

Check Trivia and SABR for other high-posting threads.

Unfortunately, as mentioned, I'm the highest poster in this site's history.

[ReignInBlood]

Lol that was worth mentioning 2 times?

[Mattingly]

Lol that was worth mentioning 2 times?

Only when the electronic contraption called a computer gets stuck.

I'll bow out of this thread now, so that it can get back on topic.

Thanks.