The seasonal bitcher initiative and how it relates to long-time members

[knapplc]

So we've been making an effort this year to curb the fly-by posting of that special brand of idiot that crops up only when the Huskers lose, seemingly to stoke the flames and enjoy the meltdown.

We've done a pretty good job of limiting this crap and I think the consensus is that the board is the better for it. Better discussion, better temperament, few hiccups.

One of the members brought up a couple of other folks in the Woodshed thread about the seasonal bitcher effort, and I thought it was worthy of discussion. Both people he mentions in this post are exactly what he says they are - negative people posting nothing but negative things about the players, the coaches and the team - exactly what we've tried to eliminate with the fly-by seasonal bitchers.

Po's post:

Im just wondering why guys who come on and b!^@h every so often get the ax, but then guys like Hunter94 and Robsker get to stay. Aren't they pretty much the same as the other seasonal bitchers? When things go well, they post minimally for that week, but its all still negative. When things go bad, they post much more during the week and its even more negative.

I can stand people like skersfan, TTTRA, The Dude, JJ, etc. because those guys actually give credit when it is deserved and criticism when it is deserved. I can respect that. But I have never seen a positive post by either of those other two posters and Ive been around for about three years. Im not mad about it or anything, Im just wondering why they don't get the ax like other seasonal bitchers get?

I replied to him that the difference is that these are both long-term members, not someone who just comes in when we lose to pour gas on the fire.

But his point is fair - they may not only post when we lose, but both seem to rather enjoy stoking the flames. I can't honestly remember anything positive they've each posted, and I suppose I'm saying that more about Hunter than Robsker. Hunter is just a curmudgeon, the very definition of the word.

I don't know that we want to be booting long-term members for griping all the time, though. People who have never made an effort to be part of the community, that's one thing. Both these guys have been here for years, and I think each has 1,000+ posts here.

Do we want to engage in the business of being only a positive, happy, sunshine place to discuss Husker sports? Would taking any kind of action against either guy "fix" anything?

There's always a place for a dissenting opinion, even when that opinion is wrong, or poorly-founded. But what if that's all you offer? What merit is there to that?

Even Waldorf and Statler were funny. These guys aren't even funny.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

I would really be opposed to that, for a couple of reasons. First, as noted, these are long-time members; while during the season they may be negative, they have posted (presumably, without going through all of their posts) in other areas. Second - and this is a big one to me - it would smack of trying to create a "sunshine-only" board. That would not only be boring, but eventually, it would lead to stagnation. Negative posts are necessary to generate replies. Take it away, and the lack of controversy causes a forum to die. I've seen that happen on two other forums over the year, albeit non-sports forums. We've always prided ourselves on welcoming competing and opposite opinions, and there have been a number of cases over the years where we've heard that members of other forums have found our willingness to hear dissent to be a real winner for the board. The difference with seasonal bitchers is that what they are really wanting to do is either vent (without benefit of having established their worth otherwise) or to flame.

The one exception to this is what I'll call the "formerfan rule". That was a guy that derailed threads with his venting about Callahan. If a long-time member does that, then they go.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Yes, both those members are ridiculous and it's really obvious. In fact Hunter has really started getting on my nerves recently with his negative b.s. I do agree with AR though that it would probably kill some discussion. I don't think we worry about them, eventually they'll forget to take their meds and hang themselves and give us a lock tight reason to get rid of them.

 

[zoogs]

I think it's reasonable for this disparity to exist. People talk more when things are bad, and that's OK. Negative nellies are OK. The guys who get angry and come on to flood the board and then leave I guess are the ones who are causing problems we don't want to see. These are the ones that haven't demonstrated any interest in being a member of the board, and putting a limit on that flood helps to keep the board a friendlier place.

The regs tend to know what's up and as a whole, are an easier group to deal with. When a deluge of new guys come out of the woodwork, I tend to not be very proactive about it, but I think our policy is fair. Most of them don't bother to ask for posting rights back.

 

[knapplc]

Unless there's a dissenting opinion, it sounds like we're all on the same page. Better the curmudgeon you know, and that sort of thing.

While Hunter in particular is never a ray of sunshine, he does not appear to have any interest in watching the world burn - or HuskerBoard, in this example. He just sees things differently.

 

[Mavric]

It would appear that huskers9495 got put on Mod Preview for being a seasonal bitcher. He's posted several times in the last 24 hours and it's more of the same an even a personal attack thrown in for good measure. I moved his posts to the Hidden thread.