Mo Washington Spill-Over Thread

desertshox said:
nominate everyone violating the sanctity of the db hof thread and turning it into a mo washington discussion when there is a perfectly good thread about him on the football board.
Click to expand...


Seconded. I honestly wondered when and why this turned into the Mo Washington thread. 

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Meh. Mo was being a douchebag, so it works.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif


 
It's pretty annoying reading a couple articles and then having someone show up arguing "but I beleev dis!!!" and they don't know what they're talking about because they didn't read s#!t and they're going off of a cobbled mess of random posts they read.

 
Moiraine said:
It's pretty annoying reading a couple articles and then having someone show up arguing "but I beleev dis!!!" and they don't know what they're talking about because they didn't read s#!t and they're going off of a cobbled mess of random posts they read.
Click to expand...
This is one of my biggest pet peeves on this board. Has been ever since I joined. It's why I often won't get involved in threads that go beyond 2-3 pages if I wasn't there from the beginning.

It's especially frustrating when you get monster threads like the MW one. The same conversations have been had multiple times by people intelligently following along, and then you get some imbecile who jumps in with a herp derp take about some BS we've already all decided was wrong 10 pages ago.

This might be an abuse of moderator powers, but I've often thought of photshopping a dunce cap onto people's avatars when they do dumb s#!t like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
It's pretty annoying reading a couple articles and then having someone show up arguing "but I beleev dis!!!" and they don't know what they're talking about because they didn't read s#!t and they're going off of a cobbled mess of random posts they read.
Click to expand...


Well not everyone is going to seek out the same articles.  In fact, most people in there are taking posts as fact when most are opinion.  And articles are written by people with different opinions and different information.  So varying opinions are inevitable.  I would just suggest relaying the article you read to a post you don't agree with, maybe that would help add some stability.

 
Redux said:
Well not everyone is going to seek out the same articles.  In fact, most people in there are taking posts as fact when most are opinion.  And articles are written by people with different opinions and different information.  So varying opinions are inevitable.  I would just suggest relaying the article you read to a post you don't agree with, maybe that would help add some stability.
Click to expand...
I think it's more that the thread has become so long that posters aren't willing to read through the whole thing. I understand why they don't want to but then they also shouldn't come in with a "hot take" either.

 
RedDenver said:
I think it's more that the thread has become so long that posters aren't willing to read through the whole thing. I understand why they don't want to but then they also shouldn't come in with a "hot take" either.
Click to expand...


I think some of the hot takes are misinformed, or behind the news.

I think some of the hot takes are from people who are entertained by watching people get riled up.

 
RedDenver said:
I think it's more that the thread has become so long that posters aren't willing to read through the whole thing. I understand why they don't want to but then they also shouldn't come in with a "hot take" either.
Click to expand...


Well who in the hell has time to wade through that monster.  Hard pass.  I'm merely suggesting if someone has a misinformed opinion it would be beneficial to everyone to cite a source rather than try to change that opinion.  Then again it's spiraled into our current obsession until Miles gets s#!tcanned.

 
Enhance said:
This is one of my biggest pet peeves on this board. Has been ever since I joined. It's why I often won't get involved in threads that go beyond 2-3 pages if I wasn't there from the beginning.

It's especially frustrating when you get monster threads like the MW one. The same conversations have been had multiple times by people intelligently following along, and then you get some imbecile who jumps in with a herp derp take about some BS we've already all decided was wrong 10 pages ago.

This might be an abuse of moderator powers, but I've often thought of photshopping a dunce cap onto people's avatars when they do dumb s#!t like that.
Click to expand...


Another board I used to frequent would do that exact thing for people who got a certain amount of warnings/warning points. 

 
Redux said:
Well who in the hell has time to wade through that monster.  Hard pass.  I'm merely suggesting if someone has a misinformed opinion it would be beneficial to everyone to cite a source rather than try to change that opinion.  Then again it's spiraled into our current obsession until Miles gets s#!tcanned.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I'm also saying that maybe posters shouldn't jump onto page 5+ and then post like there hasn't already been many pages of discussion.

 
RedDenver said:
I agree with you. I'm also saying that maybe posters shouldn't jump onto page 5+ and then post like there hasn't already been many pages of discussion.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree with that wholeheartedly.  But it's the nature of the beast, we are all guilty of it at one point or another.  Though some make it a habit.

 
Redux said:
Well not everyone is going to seek out the same articles.  In fact, most people in there are taking posts as fact when most are opinion.  And articles are written by people with different opinions and different information.  So varying opinions are inevitable.  I would just suggest relaying the article you read to a post you don't agree with, maybe that would help add some stability.
Click to expand...




In general I agree with this. But in the MW topic I don't, because the things I've been posting are the facts of the case, and I often times have been quoting them. And I'm not talking about people disagreeing with my opinion on it. I've obviously posted several opinions about it as well, and people have disagreed with me, but that's not what I'm complaining about right now (I did that earlier). That's fine. I'm talking about people who didn't read s#!t about it then came up with assumptions that are not based on the facts of the case. Then they go on and on arguing in ignorance with people who actually did read the facts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top