jim wrote:Radbird wrote:TimeForGuinness wrote:I will never forgive you for that.
/No offense popeye
At least no one has brought up Gibby and Clemens
<< D'OH !! >>
Okay, time to get serious. An interview is an activity that can affect the outside world's perception of GRB. As such, there are probably some controls needed. Here is a suggestion:
Maybe in the future an "interviewer" could be designated (not necessarily a mod) and all questions could be pm'd to that person, who would then pick from the questions submitted and conduct the interview ("this next question is from Leroy.."). Just a thought. Some fun questions like "Which Jessica?" could be included in the mix. The interviewer would be responsible for gathering background information about the interviewee. For example, if we were to land an interview with Maroth, his site contains a wealth of information about him (married, 2 kids, lives in Fla, likes pizza, etc) - so for him, you'd work in a Disney World or "what's your favorite pizza?" question instead of the Jessica one.
Just some thoughts for the future.
I like it.
The only problem I have with it is that I have a tough time believing that certain posters would never be able to pass through that filter, and others would get through like they were going through the Rams O-Line.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that all posters get equal treatment, and I'd be fine with that if it were based on content-only, but sometimes it's based on name and post count.
I suppose I'm a little frustrated about things that aren't really anybody's fault. I start a thread and get few replies unless my thread gets hijacked, others get people to read their threads, which I find eerily similar to mine, like it's going out of style. Nobody's fault really, but it sucks when it happens.
I also don't know if this is the right place for this or not, but a few pages back in this thread we got back to the discussion of BT being intimidating. I don't think it is as much anymore, but it's my personal observation that it gets intimidating when you've got obstinant people.
Popeye said it once before on here that some knowledge is often more dangerous than no knowledge, like the kid in a 200 level college class correcting a professor because of something he learned in the 100 class.
All too often, I think people misapply statistics or use them backwards. It usually goes something like "Player A has a .900 OPS. He is a good player." I don't think this is true. Player A could in fact be a good player, but that .900 OPS is a product of him being a good player, not the reason why he is.
Sorry, just had to vent. You can move this to rants if you need to.
