Official Extremeskins moderator position on "objectivity"

[Tarhog]

I don't know if this is an answer, but I think it's great that iheart posted what he did on the front page. I think the main reason that people might feel "stifled" at times is that the mods seem to be pro-organization the majority of the time. Or even pro-"wait and see" approach. And I think people take you suckers too seriously.

This site has been amazing for people to vent their frustrations and I think they sometimes get very testy when hearing an opposing view from a mod. They feel that it's an arm of the organization telling them that things will be great on the other side, when really they don't believe that.

Maybe you should all be more transparent with you financial holdings so that everyone can be sure you're not on the take. :laugh:

Theres a certain double-standard, but it may not be the one people sometimes allude to I've gutted the front-office repeatedly, openly ****ed about the lack of attention the site gets from the team, and loudly said many number of things that, if the team cared, have the potential to piss them off. I've never been 'spoken to' once. I think what happens is, when those kinds of criticisms come from a staff member, no one takes notice, but on those occasions where we agree with a particular move, or show support for the front office or team, folks assume theres an agenda there, or that we're taking a position because we feel we have to.

As Art alluded to, we're fans - we sometimes believe even when perhaps we shouldn't - just like everyone else.

[Om]

I don't know if this is an answer, but I think it's great that iheart posted what he did on the front page. I think the main reason that people might feel "stifled" at times is that the mods seem to be pro-organization the majority of the time. Or even pro-"wait and see" approach. And I think people take you suckers too seriously.

This site has been amazing for people to vent their frustrations and I think they sometimes get very testy when hearing an opposing view from a mod. They feel that it's an arm of the organization telling them that things will be great on the other side, when really they don't believe that.

Maybe you should all be more transparent with you financial holdings so that everyone can be sure you're not on the take. :laugh:

To be honest, I'd be all right with that. It's gotten tiresome trying to convince anyone of our objectivity, regardless of the fact we've been the same since long before ES was even a gleam in the Redskins' eye.

I was naive in thinking most people would take that at face value now that we've gotten so big, and so many newcomers have no knowledge of what came pre-merger. This is particularly true in times like we're going through right now, when so many of our fellow members are in full revolt against everything that even sniffs of Redskins upper management.

If the team is okay with our discussing the particulars of the arrangement (which, by the way, I'm pretty sure have all been discussed at various times on the board before), I'd have no problem at all.

I do know it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, however. There are always going to be those who see monsters beneath every bed.

[33]

Theres a certain double-standard, but it may not be the one people sometimes allude to I've gutted the front-office repeatedly, openly ****ed about the lack of attention the site gets from the team, and loudly said many number of things that, if the team cared, have the potential to piss them off. I've never been 'spoken to' once. I think what happens is, when those kinds of criticisms come from a staff member, no one takes notice, but on those occasions where we agree with a particular move, or show support for the front office or team, folks assume theres an agenda there, or that we're taking a position because we feel we have to.

On top of it all, I have to believe that when the site is nuts with negativity like in recent weeks, it's your job to go around putting out fires. People are reactionary from the start with what they post, so they're bound to be reactionary when it comes to you guys. "You closed my thread, you must hate that I was bashing Snyder. You must love Snyder. Snyder controls everything. Damn him."

FWIW, anyone who takes the time to read the site can plainly see that you guys don't fall lock-step into line with the FO. But, when someone is always negative and has discussions or issues that a mod has to get involved with they are going to associate you with an opposite view point from their own.

[Jumbo]

FYI The guy I mentioned for Dauber may very well make a better Luther Van Damn.

Just sayin'.

Agreed. Next time use the code.

BTW

Look at this face. Is this the face of someone steeped in duplicity? Is this the face of unpaid slavish devotion to a man worth almost $200 million dollars for every foot he is tall? Is this the face of just another indentured peasant who dances only to the plucked strings of King Snyder's Lute of Greed? Doth this visage upon which you gaze liken itself to that of some souless zombie that Big Boss Voo-Doo-Dan raises from empty ether merely to type and click his bidding in the internet graveyard of NFL message boards for the damned?

Of coure not! This is the face of Craig mother****ing T. Nelson mother****er. Get a grip.

[33]

I've said this before...I don't think this is all merger related. A big part of it is backlash from the fact that the mods keep this board clean and organized. I've had friends who are fans of other teams amazed when they visit this site. The lack of trolls and (hard to believe but true) paucity of idiotic posts is amazing on here.

But to get that it means you guys are "policing" and striking down threads, NNTing, merging, etc. When there is a ton of negative reaction going on, the mods will be seen as suppressing that reaction. When there is a ton of positive reaction, the mods will be seen as suppressing that reaction. Lose/lose.