More live games

[Blancito21]

Nick, count me in on the bases lesson this Sunday.

The three previous posts about the pros and cons of each style and the true value of our league were well thought out and reconfigured my thoughts on the topic.

For anyone who wants to practice live-game style hitting, if my arm is not falling off on Sundays after our normal games, I am willing to throw live-style BP in order to prepare for future live games. I love pitching, anybody who wants to work on their catching can get behind the dish and people can have simulated at bats until my arm is jello. I don't think it's wrong to assume that others who want to pitch will also take this as an opportunity to work on their craft. Think of it as what we did on Sunday when the game was over but have it done every week if possible.

[AntMoOAK]

This like other topics has gone WAAAY overboard and I attrribute this to emotional outburst where there frankly need not be. I've watched this thread over the last two days and could only chuckle at the juvenile outbursts and attempts at argumentative logic (FYI... Some of the "logic" would be ridiculed as logical fallacy in a a real debate). A good start on logic and fallacies- Read Plato's Euthydemus

I voted for all live games all the time because I would welcome playing live games with you all because I feel we know one another enough to be too condescending and accepting of our occasional foibles in the field. However, I want to reiterate that I enjoy the original set up of OPB. When I trolled CL almost two years ago and saw the post for OPB, I was ecstatic. I could play baseball again at a pace that would suit me.

I am guilty of not having contributed much- especially being a so-called regular. My apologies. I think we should institute a system of contributing- either cash or in-kind. This would not sully the mission of OPB at all. Other leagues like ours (The Sunday softball group at Montclair comes to mind) institutes the first game free and then $ 2 / game. I see nothing wrong with this. OR some of who come regularly can get off our butts like Scott. Nick, Rich, Paul. et al and hit eBay for some baseballs or bases or whatever. Those with financial issues should not be shamed (I've been there- No frontin' here) but should be willing to put some sweat equity in. I for one apologize for leaving games w/o helping out although to be fair, I was usually rushing off to go home to change for work. I do remember in the good ole days of OBP at DeFrem. after the handshake lineup, I would help out after games.

That being said... I will see ya'll on the forthcoming Sundays and hope we can have some good games and put this all behind us. We normally do.[/b]

[dtrizzle]

The real issue is about league governance. Granted, it has taken the form of a live vs non-live debate. But the real question to be addressed is how the league comes to its decisions. Say a majority of people want live games all the time but Scott and a few others don’t. What happens? It seems like people are going out of their way to avoid directly answering this question.

The overwhelming majority (10-3) of those voting so far want live games at least every other week. Since a majority of people want this, is it going to happen? Or are votes going to be allocated by how much money one has put in? That is somewhat implicated by Scott’s post, which would otherwise be out of place. Or is it whatever Scott and Nick or whoever else says goes? I am interested in hearing from Scott so we don’t have to speculate as to how he feels about this thread.

I favor a democracy. But I write this post less to advocate my viewpoint, and to draw attention to the actual issue underlying the entire discussion. Note that once the governance question is answered, the live vs. non-live issue becomes one of process. People either vote or someone unilaterally makes the decision and it’s over.

Again, the real question is about governance. How do we come to decisions as a group?

[AntMoOAK]

Good point D. I think people may have been put off by Scott's initial response. Or rather the way the response came off in the thread. I know if I were Scott, my answer would be "You're free to start your own league." In fact Rob C. did (Alameda Hard Ball). But again, it's how it reads that makes garners the different reactions.

[Southpaw Slim]

Dorian, I hear you, but I think you missed the point. It isn't about how much money one puts into the league, but how much commitment is given. Scott spends several hours per week on outreach, organizing, website updates, etc., not to mention the general fire-squelching that goes with being the organizer. His responsibility is to make the league as fun as it can be for everyone involved, but if it isn't also fun for him then what's the point of putting all the work into it? Besides, you've played with us before and know how decisions are made. Why are you even posting in this thread if you're in Tennessee? I know you still like playing with us when you're around, but you aren't affected by the final decision. Your post appears to have been made with the sole intention of stirring shit.

There are people who have been here since the beginning and their voice carries more weight than someone who has just arrived, but if the newcomer is putting a lot of effort into benefiting the league, their voice will outweigh a long-time participant who only shows up to games and leaves afterward or doesn't even play at all. This is my interpretation of things, but I could be wrong.

[dtrizzle]

Dorian, I hear you, but I think you missed the point. It isn't about how much money one puts into the league, but how much commitment is given.

Maybe I missed the point of Scott's post (the one I referenced). Note that I didn't take a hard stance on what Scott meant. In fact, I invited him to elaborate because it is unclear. However, I disagree with your characterization of what he meant, unless you have information or psychic powers we should all be aware of. Scott's post spends double the space on monetary issues than it does on commitment (time). Therefore, I reject your characterization of what Scott meant over my interpretation of it.

I agree that you accurately characterize your own post (two before Scott’s) as being about commitment. Is your solution workable? Based on your commitment benchmark, who is in and who is out? Who gets to vote (if there is a vote) and who doesn't? That's the type of question that needs to be answered before a real solution is reached.

[Southpaw Slim]

You played with us. How did we make decisions when you were here? If you think back, you'll find your answer.

[dtrizzle]

To accurately reflect the exchange we are having, when you make an edit to post AFTER I've replied to it, you should make a note of it. It's poor form and deceiving to edit your post after someone has replied without noting it.

Besides, you've played with us before and know how decisions are made. Why are you even posting in this thread if you're in Tennessee? I know you still like playing with us when you're around, but you aren't affected by the final decision. Your post appears to have been made with the sole intention of stirring shit.

It is funny how you want to have a cordial back and forth exchange until the real issue is brought up. Then, instead of addressing my points or arguments, you question my legitimacy. That’s a good way to redirect focus from the actual issue, but a) doesn't help solve the problem and b) isn't persuasive for those who can see through rather lame redirect tactics. The current debate is about how decisions are going to be made now. It is not about how decisions have been made in the past. If it was that simple, there would be no need for this thread and you realize this.

Now about the being in Tennessee. Since bringing that up is a cheap way to redirect focus from the main focus, I wasn't going to address it. However, I will so you can't accuse me of not addressing your actual points in the way that you avoid addressing mine. Although I'm in TN, I play baseball when ever I come home. I’m in finals now so that could be as soon as three weeks and I could be back for the entire summer. Therefore, as one who has come to baseball for over a year steady and will continue to come whenever possible, this conversation affects me. Furthermore, when in town, I consider myself one of the committed people and have brought balls, drinks, and given rides for the benefit of everyone on numerous occasions.

Look, I’m here to push the conversation forward, not take cheap shots at people. And honestly, my posts have been less about pushing an agenda and more about framing the debate. So I ask that you treat me with a little respect as I’ve treated everyone else in regards to this discussion. Oh, and it would be nice if someone tried to answer some of difficult questions of how we will govern baseball.

[Southpaw Slim]

To accurately reflect the exchange we are having, when you make an edit to post AFTER I've replied to it, you should make a note of it. It's poor form and deceiving to edit your post after someone has replied without noting it.

My apologies completely, Dorian. I had no idea you'd responded to the post already. I'm using a dial-up connection where I am, so everything happens at 1997 speed.

Besides, you've played with us before...

It is funny how you want to have a cordial back and forth exchange until the real issue is brought up. Then, instead of addressing my points or arguments, you question my legitimacy. That’s a good way to redirect focus from the actual issue, but a) doesn't help solve the problem and b) isn't persuasive for those who can see through rather lame redirect tactics. The current debate is about how decisions are going to be made now. It is not about how decisions have been made in the past. If it was that simple, there would be no need for this thread and you realize this.

That is absolutely true. I intended to write a response to your post, but thought I should wait for Scott's response first (since he does run the league), and ended up avoiding the real issue. Boy, do I have egg on my face.

Now about the being in Tennessee...

Dorian, I hope you can see where I'm basing my opinion. You've played two games in the past year. Whatever opinion you have about the way we play ball is not going to affect you nearly as much as it does those who show up almost every single week. So, yes. Being in Tennessee does have an affect on the weight your opinion holds.

Look, I’m here to push the conversation forward, not take cheap shots at people. And honestly, my posts have been less about pushing an agenda and more about framing the debate. So I ask that you treat me with a little respect as I’ve treated everyone else in regards to this discussion. Oh, and it would be nice if someone tried to answer some of difficult questions of how we will govern baseball.

I respect the coolness with which you present your statements, but as I stated before, since you're so far away and you aren't here for the everyday discussions that take place, your post in question appears to be made with the sole intention of stirring shit. I don't see it as an either/or scenario concerning votes and ultimate decisions. We've always been asked to give our input about topics, and decisions are made based on what works best for those organizing the games (namely, Scott) since their agreement is necessary for anything to happen at all. Since we're all quite obviously rehashing the topic while waiting for Scott to respond, I'd be inclined to think that his opinion is akin to the final word.

[Baseball=Life]

Hey, there has been a lot of relatively new people posting in this thread, so I should restate the way things operate. This forum (and the polls in the forum) help guide me on running the league. The threads and polls aren't binding in and of themselves. The fact that such a small minority of league participants use (never mind actually vote in) the forum reveals just how antidemocratic it would be to base decisions on the forum/polls. Another problem with the ideal democracy approach is that the more that participate in decision-making, the harder it becomes to administrate the decision. Pure democracy is rarely practiced, and, while intellectually stimulating, is a not practical concept at all for our league.

As far as I'm concerned, the OPB "community" is bigger than one might think---I send the email out to over 100 people each week, and there's even some without internet access. What constitutes participation in the group, what must one do to be a participant, ie who gets to vote? Does a handful of people agreeing on something constitute any sort of majority? I think not!

I'm not opposed to input from others... quite the contrary I encourage it. However, it would be unwise of me to make changes based on a handful of peoples' point-of-view. It's definitely useful, crucial, and recommended to seek group input before changing a policy--I mean, I will readily state that I don't have any monopoly on information or on a discussion. However, that input is just one ingredient in decision-making. As I believe Dan said, he who shoulders the work/liability/time/money, sets the rules for the game. (Actual statement: "you CHOOSE to incur these costs and responsibilities so that you can play the brand of baseball that you want to play") Let's be honest, I could pull the plug on this whole thing if I wanted to. Don't worry, I have zero intention to do that, but I will not be forcefed more live games, and especially won't have my integrity questioned in the process.

As per the prior discussion/dialogue, the status quo will continue: The goal is one live game a month (two if 3 doubleheaders occur in the month**). And, also stated in the past discussion, we will keep an eye on the live games, and I'll consider whether or not to increase their frequency if we can improve the games (less walks, less steals, more evenly matched between pitchers/hitters, etc.).

Also, it must be clearly stated: the purpose of OPB was to have non-live games for free. Think about it, the games aren't free for me so clearly that's not my motive. I'm motivated by playing non-live games in which I can mash the ball. Yeah, I can't hit that way against live pitching, so what!? I'm having fun! So while I may increase the percentage of live games if we improve enough over multiple games, it's never going to be the primary focus of the league.

If anyone's still confused, this league is not a democracy. These threads, posts, and polls merely guide me in my decision-making.

Now for my response to Ken. Ken, your post was, well... weak (at best). But seriously, your post was out of line. FIRST, I didn't refer to "free" baseball opportunites being out there---I referred to "live" baseball opportunities that are out there. Please read more carefully before responding. Then you said "that's total b.s. to say 'we can't even talk about this because I don't want to'. That's just crap Scott. That's offensive and childish." First of all, you manufactured a quote that I never said --quite creative of you-- scroll up, I never said that. And now, calling my never-stated, manufactured-by-you statement "total b.s."!?!??? What I actually did say, and even your apparent misinterpretation of my statement...... neither are BS or "untrue" as you later claim! It's absolutely true that you can go play in a league with live games only. Opportunities are abundant, in fact. And as for a free league, that's available too - but you have to create it. Come on, is Rob C. really that much more resourceful, and possessing of that much more initiative, than you, Ken? He didn't like the way the league operated, so he started one of his own. I love that you say you "don't envy me" after questioning the integrity of my statements.... yeah, you're right, that's not an enviable position to be in--good call on that.

Look, I run the league, others give input that I consider. We've talked about live games in the past, and we came to the once a month / watch-and-see idea. I just now added the ** 2 live games a month in months where there has been 3 doubleheaders. So that's what's up.

PS: This seems like a good time to announce that I'm on the verge of debuting an entirely new rules section of the website. There won't be major changes overall, but many ideas discussed in the forum for instance, have found their way into the new Rules page. I should have that viewable for everyone by next week at the latest, to be put into action the following week.

[dtrizzle]

your post in question appears to be made with the sole intention of stirring shit.

It is very telling that asking and bringing up questions about how the group should make decisions is considered "stirring shit." It also confirms my earlier suspicions that people were avoiding it for some reason. Does anyone else see that league governance is what this whole thread is really about?!? Accusing folks of starting shit when they are presenting and asking questions is the type of accusation that takes us a step backwards instead of forward to a solution.

Whatever opinion you have about the way we play ball is not going to affect you nearly as much as it does those who show up almost every single week. So, yes. Being in Tennessee does have an affect on the weight your opinion holds.

Fair enough, but it does hold some weight. It also holds the weight of anyone who may share my views. In addition, I may be showing up every week for the whole summer. Given that fact, how you can still maintain that the sole intention is to stir shit given you concede the outcome will affect me, albeit less than others? My last point is this: regardless of how much weight you decide to give my opinion, it says nothing of the strength of the arguments and the points I make. Therefore, I respectfully request that you give them your full consideration.

[dtrizzle]

Note that once the governance question is answered, the live vs. non-live issue becomes one of process. People either vote or someone unilaterally makes the decision and it’s over.

If anyone's still confused, this league is not a democracy. These threads, posts, and polls merely guide me in my decision-making.

I'm a prophet! Props to Scott for a well written post that addressed both the initial issue and the core issue being debated. See you all in three weeks...maybe (depends on what job I take).

[TheLegend]

As far as I'm concerned, the OPB "community" is bigger than one might think---I send the email out to over 100 people each week, and there's even some without internet access. What constitutes participation in the group, what must one do to be a participant, ie who gets to vote? Does a handful of people agreeing on something constitute any sort of majority? I think not!

It seems more than reasonable to assume that "what constitutes participation" would be... participation. If 100 people get the league e-mail and 16 people show up to the games, I would think that those who came to the game would be the ones who would be considered participants. I absolutely do not believe that the votes and voices heard in this thread/poll represent a small minority of the participants in this group. Do I think that this discussion in these forums should be the be all and end all of decisions made in this group? No- but I don't think that they should be cast aside and counted as irrelevent because you have a ridiculous number of names on your mailing list.

I'm not opposed to input from others... quite the contrary I encourage it. However, it would be unwise of me to make changes based on a handful of peoples' point-of-view. It's definitely useful, crucial, and recommended to seek group input before changing a policy--I mean, I will readily state that I don't have any monopoly on information or on a discussion. However, that input is just one ingredient in decision-making.

What's the point of us giving you our input if you're going to ignore what appears to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of our most active players?

we will keep an eye on the live games, and I'll consider whether or not to increase their frequency if we can improve the games (less walks, less steals, more evenly matched between pitchers/hitters, etc.).

What's baffling me is that aside from the majority of the participants in this group saying that they would prefer more live games, you are also ignoring the testimony from these people saying that these specific problem areas have improved.

Also, it must be clearly stated: the purpose of OPB was to have non-live games for free. Think about it, the games aren't free for me so clearly that's not my motive. I'm motivated by playing non-live games in which I can mash the ball. Yeah, I can't hit that way against live pitching, so what!? I'm having fun! So while I may increase the percentage of live games if we improve enough over multiple games, it's never going to be the primary focus of the league.

Not really much I can say about that, except that I did expect you to have more concern for the overall enjoyment of the people in the group. As it has been acknowledged before, this is your show... but many of us believe and would like to continue believing that you have the best interest of the group in mind... that's what leadership is really about.

These threads, posts, and polls merely guide me in my decision-making.

As far as I can tell, our voices are simply being ignored.

Now for my response to Ken. Ken, your post was, well... weak (at best). But seriously, your post was out of line. FIRST, I didn't refer to "free" baseball opportunites being out there---I referred to "live" baseball opportunities that are out there. Please read more carefully before responding.

Your post said that the point of this league is not to replicate opportunities that exist elsewhere. My point was that regardless of the style of play that we choose, this group will be unlike any other group that I've ever come across.

Then you said "that's total b.s. to say 'we can't even talk about this because I don't want to'. That's just crap Scott. That's offensive and childish." First of all, you manufactured a quote that I never said --quite creative of you-- scroll up, I never said that. And now, calling my never-stated, manufactured-by-you statement "total b.s."!?!??? What I actually did say, and even your apparent misinterpretation of my statement...... neither are BS or "untrue" as you later claim! It's absolutely true that you can go play in a league with live games only.

Firstly, what I was saying was b.s. was your attitude towards the desires of the people in the league (i.e. not caring), and yes... i still think it's lame that you're ignoring us. And yes, it is untrue that a place exists where we can play in live games with similar costs.

Opportunities are abundant, in fact. And as for a free league, that's available too - but you have to create it.

Yes. You're right, I/we could start a new league dedicated to live games only (there's clearly interest in that type of group), but that would be the worst result for all of us. With the group preferences being split the way they are, if those of us interested in live games only were to split off- neither of us would have enough people for a game. That's why we've come up with a compromise. Even though a lot of us would love to play live every week, we know that the group is what's most important to making any baseball game possible. Not me, not you, but the group.


Scott, this is your show and you can do what you want with it, but you have to see that a lot of other people care about what happens here, and yes, I think it's whack for you, as the leader of this group, to take such a selfish stance on an issue that so obviously affects everybody here.

[Baseball=Life]

Well, hey, thanks for stating your thoughts.

[retep]

I have so much to say, but I’m just home from fighting the Board from closing this elementary school, and I am physically and emotionally fried. Surprise, surprise, but I used up all my snazzy debating, arguing, and rhetorical skills at that, for a real cause, and have no shame in saying that I have nothing more that I feel like typing. Yes, I am double posting this comment, but if anyone really wants to know what I am feeling, call me at any time (415) 79344454.

And i'm not just saying that. I will explain every one of my comments if you wanna know.