Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[Brotherz]

The word "negative" would not confuse anyone is they simply left it in the context of the paragraph where I explain its meaning.

Don't be naive. They aren't confused. People take words and sentences out of context deliberately. It enables them to construct arguments that would make no sense unless they twist meanings.

You titled your thread "thoughts of a NEGATIVE poster" Oldfan. Why didn't you title it "Thoughts of a realistic poster"? How can you do that and blame the reader for the confusion?

[Inigo Montoya]

Why spend your time and resources being a fan then? Encouraging others to be angry with you? Misery loves company? WTH is the point... seriously? If I disagreed with everything my wife did, I would get a divorce. If you disagree with most everything the team does, move on. Makes me think of people who get angry when they drink booze, WTH is the point of that???

[kleese]

If I may interlude for a moment ..... Of my good man, indulge me if you will. Your a man of the World, and greatly experienced with it through the passing years. (Right amount of diplomacy? :pfft: ). Where would you bracket moi through getting to know me via my musings on here? Purely out of interest to me from someone I greatly respect. And it takes a heck of a lot to offend myself, so your usual forthright opinion would be greatly welcomed.

*Curious GHH.

Hail.

You didn't ask me, but I'll sit you on the couch anyway

GHH; to me you are a Kevlar Fan. You love the team so much, but have been emotionally roasted so many times that you are always sure to never leave your house without your bullet proof vest. You have convinced yourself that it will take eons to rebuild as a protective measure for yourself so that you can cope if it does indeed, take eons. And if things happen sooner, then you will be joyously and pleasantly surprised (like right now).

Just send me your address and I'll bill you....

[Captain Injury]

The word "negative" would not confuse anyone is they simply left it in the context of the paragraph where I explain its meaning.

Don't be naive. They aren't confused. People take words and sentences out of context deliberately. It enables them to construct arguments that would make no sense unless they twist meanings.

Don't call someone naive for criticizing where your communication fails you. Your ideas aren't bad, but your communication is elementarily unclear. I've showed you where. I don't care to assume the motives behind people's actions. We aren't privy to those and that is obvious. Here I could assume you are deliberately trying to shift the argument to "what people are trying to do with your posts." I'll stay on topic. Your ideas are good. Your communication is not clear.

[SirClintonPortis]

Why spend your time and resources being a fan then? Encouraging others to be angry with you? Misery loves company? WTH is the point... seriously? If I disagreed with everything my wife did, I would get a divorce. If you disagree with most everything the team does, move on. Makes me think of people who get angry when they drink booze, WTH is the point of that???

If you like being happily ignorant and stupid, be my guest. Other people can still derive joy from winning without having stupefy themselves and let their heads float into the clouds. Being critical is necessary to decrease the likelihood of misappraising the situation.

Prevention

It has been thought that groups with the strong ability to work together will be able to solve dilemmas in a quicker and more efficient fashion than an individual. Groups have a greater amount of resources which lead them to be able to store and retrieve information more readily and come up with more alternatives solutions to a problem. There was a recognized downside to group problem solving in that it takes groups more time to come to a decision and requires that people make compromises with each other. However, it was not until the research of Janis appeared that anyone really considered that a highly cohesive group could impair the group's ability to generate quality decisions. Tightly-knit groups may appear to make decisions better because they can come to a consensus quickly and at a low energy cost; however, over time this process of decision making may decrease the members' ability to think critically. It is, therefore, considered by many to be important to combat the effects of groupthink.[10]

According to Janis, decision making groups are not necessarily destined to groupthink. He devised seven ways of preventing groupthink:[3]:209-215

Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.

Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.

The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.

All effective alternatives should be examined.

Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.

The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.

At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.

By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, President John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis using "vigilant appraisal."[9]:148-153 During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, to partially break the group cohesion. Kennedy was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[Skinsinparadise]

I wasn't. But you said you thought the negativity was balanced.

Not balanced on every issue or trade -- it can be skewed one way or another item by item. But on the aggregate, I think you got a fair share of homers and critics. Really depends on the week, its volatile, more negative when things are going poorly during the season and conversely positive during winning streaks. There have been plenty of critics for example of Cerrato and Danny probably more so than defenders. Even Gibbs had his fair share of critics.

I've spent more time discussing the Skins with you than I have with any other poster -- and for the same reason. I know you are trying to be fair and realistic. It doesn't matter that we often disagree.

thanks and ditto. for me the key is agree or disagree is not the bottom line for me -- I like it when the member puts some thought and rationale behind their point, you do so and do it well, and most importantly at least for me -- you do it in an entertaining way. And if part of your point is we shouldn't feel obligated to toe the company line as fans -- I agree 100%.

Heck forget this board, I hope with the Redskins front office/coaching staff, you have some people that are willing to challenge others where there is some back and forth as part of decision making - IMO its dangerous to have an organization littered with yes man, which purportedly was Vinny Cerrato's deal/relationship with Snyder. I liked it when RG III one time said some like to surround themselves with yes men, he likes to surround himself with no men.

Years ago there was a show called Redskins lunch where callers can talk to Joe Gibbs in a Q & A every week or so. I talked to him 3 times, and as much as I worship what he did during his first tenure, I challenged him on the calls. I recalled one of my calls, I told him "For a team that has had some success with third round picks like Chris Cooley and others, why is the team so willing to trade away 2nd and third round picks in deals so liberally. The Redskins have had less draft picks than any other team in the last 5 years, and have gotten burned on most of those transactions, is this going to continue?"

[Oldfan]

You titled your thread "thoughts of a NEGATIVE poster" Oldfan. Why didn't you title it "Thoughts of a realistic poster"? How can you do that and blame the reader for the confusion?

I didn't expect people to stop after reading the title.

[ldysknzfn1]

Can you be more specific? What part of my conclusion do you think I should retract? Here it is again:

I write this to encourage more negative voices in this forum. I'm not referring to those who enjoy second guessing every coach's decision that fails or those who trash players beyond reason. I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management. Don't worry that your opinions won't be popular with the homer crowd. Take solace in the fact that, so far in the Snyder era, the homers have been consistently wrong.

I just think "negative" is the wrong choice of words for what you're saying..I think you want more realistic or more grounded posters...not so much negative posters...which you actually say further in the post...I don't think you should retract anything in your post...I just think negative was a poor choice of an adjective for what you were trying to convey..and then I just spouted my own feelings...I think that's what this board is for...all of us as fans of this great team to voice our opinions whether it's agreeable to all or not..I enjoy your posts for the most part...you're grounded in most everything you post...so continue what you do...perhaps you're the ying to our yang..

[darrelgreenie]

I look at the team as if i'm part of the team, someone who can be objective and sometimes critical but always remaining stedfast in love of the team.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Here's an example: After the run to the playoffs in 2005, giddy optimism swept this forum. I was the lone pessimistic voice

Someone thinks highly of themselves....

ps....you were by no means the only person who knew that team was "smoke and mirrors" and would not last into future seasons.

Get over yourself.....

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

You didn't ask me, but I'll sit you on the couch anyway

GHH; to me you are a Kevlar Fan. You love the team so much, but have been emotionally roasted so many times that you are always sure to never leave your house without your bullet proof vest. You have convinced yourself that it will take eons to rebuild as a protective measure for yourself so that you can cope if it does indeed, take eons. And if things happen sooner, then you will be joyously and pleasantly surprised (like right now).

Just send me your address and I'll bill you....

'Kevlar Fan' I'm having that one, lol.

There's an element of truth in the above man, even if your probably generalizing a wee too much on things. But regardless, I appreciate the response, and think I may just pinch that line, lol.

Hail.

[Brotherz]

I write this to encourage more negative voices in this forum. I'm not referring to those who enjoy second guessing every coach's decision that fails or those who trash players beyond reason. I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management. Don't worry that your opinions won't be popular with the homer crowd. Take solace in the fact that, so far in the Snyder era, the homers have been consistently wrong.

This paragraph is the most interesting to me Oldfan. So let me try again here. Are you saying we aren't having enough debate? In other words, do you believe there are too many "homers" and not enough critics to have good discussion? Maybe I have missed the point of the thread.

[Kindred]

In the end, none of our opinions really matter. The only thing important is how well something is thought out and communicated whether it is positive or negative. There are definitely right ways and wrong ways for both. You have ra ra ra we're the greatest or woe is me this sucks, that sucks, everything sucks which are two sides of the same coin, and then you have: I think this is good/bad because of point a, point b, and point c.

Nobody likes the negative nancy's that strive for the ability to say 'see I told you so', but as long as you make an intelligent case for your argument, you should be fine.

[SirClintonPortis]

I didn't expect people to stop after reading the title.

It's the norm more often than not though. People work on autopilot rather than controlling their mind every second. A catchy thread title like yours would provoke an immediate, unconcious response. It's like seeing a catchy advertisement.

[Brotherz]

I didn't expect people to stop after reading the title.

Strawman

[darrelgreenie]

I didn't expect people to stop after reading the title.

Then you expect much my friend.

[Oldfan]

Don't call someone naive for criticizing where your communication fails you. Your ideas aren't bad, but your communication is elementarily unclear. I've showed you where. I don't care to assume the motives behind people's actions. We aren't privy to those and that is obvious. Here I could assume you are deliberately trying to shift the argument to "what people are trying to do with your posts." I'll stay on topic. Your ideas are good. Your communication is not clear.

You don't care to assume the motives behind other people's actions? Have you no experience with online debates? Are you unaware that twisting the words of the opponent is common practice?

When I say people aren't confused by what I meant by "negative voices," I'm basing it on experience with internet debate.

Honestly, is this not clear enough?

I write this to encourage more negative voices in this forum. I'm not referring to those who enjoy second guessing every coach's decision that fails or those who trash players beyond reason. I'm encouraging those who try very hard to be realistic and fair to speak up and be heard when you don't agree with the decisions of Redskins management. Don't worry that your opinions won't be popular with the homer crowd. Take solace in the fact that, so far in the Snyder era, the homers have been consistently wrong.

[Brotherz]

Ok for the sake of argument a "realist" by your definition says the following:

"Rg3 won't workout because the style of play he undertakes won't translate to the next level."

Hypothetically - Rg3 wins rookie of the year and God forbid gets a Theisman like career ending injury on the last play of this season. Was the "realist" right?

I give this hypothetical to challenge the notion that the "homers" have been consistently "wrong".

[JMUSkins]

I made two claims: 1) The major moves during the Snyder era have been enthusiastically supported (I heard no opposition to that claim) 2) I have opposed most of them (My posting history is well-known by regulars -- no one disputed that claim)

Right... and, as I said, from the outside looking in you pointing out that fact and reiterating that the homers are wrong is a very smug and ego-driven thing to do. Was it necessary to effectively say nanny nanny boo boo?

So, when you said --

but it's also okay to be a blind homer if you really love the team that much

you weren't implying that homers love the Redskins more than other fans?

Not in any way, shape, or form. You read into that waaaaaaay too much. Why wouldn't it be okay to be a blind homer if that person likes the team that much? It's their heart that will be broken!

[kleese]

'Kevlar Fan' I'm having that one, lol.

There's an element of truth in the above man, even if your probably generalizing a wee too much on things. But regardless, I appreciate the response, and think I may just pinch that line, lol.

Hail.

When the bullets start flying in Cleveland this Sunday, I'm not gonna make it. I'll take a direct hit to the heart and die right there on my couch. But you? You'll be OK.... You brought your jacket. They can't hurt you anymore

[Oldfan]

Someone thinks highly of themselves....

ps....you were by no means the only person who knew that team was "smoke and mirrors" and would not last into future seasons.

Get over yourself.....

Are you claiming that you knew it and posted your opinions at the time?

[MustangSteve]

I don't want to take turn this thread into a debate over Gibbs Two. My opinions would serve no purpose here but to piss you off. We disagree on Joe.

You didn't like Joe oldfan?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Your threads always seem to spark some emotion, Oldfan!

[Brotherz]

Again just for clarification I read the entire OP multiple times. I have quoted different sections of it. I will stand by the use of "negative" as potentially confusing to the reader especially when it comes from the guy who admits he has "taken a negative position on most of the major moves of the Snyder Era". For what its worth I read Oldfan when he posts (basically because despite his often turse and superior tone I find him solidly intelligent and well thought out). So I am also in full agreement that he is almost always "negative" or "critical" of the organization. Again, I am trying to glean the ultimate point of the thread other than "think like me dummies".

Incidentally would the following be "major moves" that you take a negative position on:

Rg3 trade

Alfred Morris

Trent Williams at 4 overall?

Fred Davis

Will Montgomery?

Chester signing?

Shanny's hiring?

Kyle as OC?

The actions resulting in the cap penalty?

Perry Riley?

London Fletcher?

Santana Moss?

Pierre Garcon?

Darrel Young?

I just want to make sure we have you down for "anti" moving forward on these Oldfan.

[Oldfan]

Right... and, as I said, from the outside looking in you pointing out that fact and reiterating that the homers are wrong is a very smug and ego-driven thing to do. Was it necessary to effectively say nanny nanny boo boo?

Yes, it was necessary to point out that

Management decisions have always been enthusiastically supported by unthinking fans;

those fans have, so far, always been wrong;

Therefore,`a realistic and fair-minded fan should not be reluctant to brace popular opinion and become a negative voice opposed to management policies.