Retired Jerseys

[Sħãlïq™]

You can't take my number haha.

So why you chose #50?

[Jenneral]

Where do you guys see the 10,000 post requirement?

[Paul]

That was my basketball number. I have been 50 since I came to OTR.

[Dash]

Well, right now, we'd have 20-21 people at 10k or more, and that's quite a few.

 

Holy crap when did that happen?

[Dr. Feelgood]

I don't think dibs can be called on numbers (or shouldn't). Should be first come first serve on numbers. :-/

[Nitro]

I hate the post count requirement. After a few thousand posts, you made your impact and contribution of quantity. It's kind of like giving Derek Fisher the nod in the HoF over Penny Hardaway because he had a much longer career, overlooking the fact that for many years Penny was lightyears beyond Fisher in terms of quality play. It is especially perplexing since the "quality over quantity" thing is preached so heavily on this site, but this retired jersey thing seems to contradict it.

[Sħãlïq™]

I hate the post count requirement. After a few thousand posts, you made your impact and contribution of quantity. It's kind of like giving Derek Fisher the nod in the HoF over Penny Hardaway because he had a much longer career, overlooking the fact that for many years Penny was lightyears beyond Fisher in terms of quality play. It is especially perplexing since the "quality over quantity" thing is preached so heavily on this site, but this retired jersey thing seems to contradict it.

So you suggest a '10,000 quality posts requirement'? Good idea. Who would be judging if a member's posts count as 'quality' or not though? And how to separate 'unquality'-posts from the post count?

[Nitro]

So you suggest a '10,000 quality posts requirement'? Good idea. Who would be judging if a member's posts count as 'quality' or not though? And how to separate 'unquality'-posts from the post count?

 

I suggest using observation and deciding by that who the best posters were. I've seen on far too many forums a few of the members with the highest post counts being little more than spammers on hyperdrive. That shouldn't be rewarded over a guy like, say, Erick Blasco, who was arguably the best poster on the site for multiple years.

 

If you want to use strictly stats, then why not use reps per post for members with over like 2k posts? That's a bit more telling than having 10k posts with little substance.

[Sħãlïq™]

I suggest using observation and deciding by that who the best posters were. I've seen on far too many forums a few of the members with the highest post counts being little more than spammers on hyperdrive. That shouldn't be rewarded over a guy like, say, Erick Blasco, who was arguably the best poster on the site for multiple years.

(...)

With all due respect, our members with the highest post counts are NOT 'spammers on hyperdrive'. I don't know what those 'too many forums' are like but OTR is different. Like Real Deal, OTR is about quality, and not quantity:

 

(...) I'm really glad I have a strong core for our community...even if we're much less active than we were back in the day. I'd rather talk basketball with you guys, than dive into a board of thousands of active members, barely getting a word in and having almost everything I type ignored.

 

I may have created the site, but you guys decided to build it along the way. Thanks everyone. (...)

OTRbasketball is not your typical average forum. It's nothing like you've ever seen before.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Šhãłïq

[Jenneral]

Where do you guys see the 10,000 post requirement?

[Nitro]

With all due respect, our members with the highest post counts are NOT 'spammers on hyperdrive'. I don't know what those 'too many forums' are like but OTR is different. Like Real Deal, OTR is about quality, and not quantity:

 

 

OTRbasketball is not your typical average forum. It's nothing like you've ever seen before.

 

My point wasn't that there are a bunch of spammers with 10k posts on OTR. My point is that a high post count doesn't make you a better member than members with lower post counts. And yes, there are members here with 8, 9 and 10 thousand posts who I wouldn't consider some of the best posters on this site, while there are other members with just a few thousand who definitely deserve the honor.

 

And if OTR is about quality, not quantity, then why are we restricting who gets their 'jersey's retired' to just 20 members? And I bet a good number of those members haven't posted in years, either. As I said, if you are going to use a stat to gauge who gets in, why not use reps-per-post as the most important benchmark (I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of that, though, with over 2k active posts and below 70 reps)? That's what will show quality over quantity, although I feel there should be a 2-3k post minimum to qualify.

 

BTW, I have seen sites like OTR before, specifically the old BBW. The biggest difference was the off-topic forums were a lot more raunchy, but the basketball discussion was every bit as good for quite a number of years, if not better.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Nitro

[Dash]

Where do you guys see the 10,000 post requirement?

 

In the OP.

[Smitty]

My point wasn't that there are a bunch of spammers with 10k posts on OTR. My point is that a high post count doesn't make you a better member than members with lower post counts. And yes, there are members here with 8, 9 and 10 thousand posts who I wouldn't consider some of the best posters on this site, while there are other members with just a few thousand who definitely deserve the honor.

 

And if OTR is about quality, not quantity, then why are we restricting who gets their 'jersey's retired' to just 20 members? And I bet a good number of those members haven't posted in years, either. As I said, if you are going to use a stat to gauge who gets in, why not use reps-per-post as the most important benchmark (I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of that, though, with over 2k active posts and below 70 reps)? That's what will show quality over quantity, although I feel there should be a 2-3k post minimum to qualify.

 

BTW, I have seen sites like OTR before, specifically the old BBW. The biggest difference was the off-topic forums were a lot more raunchy, but the basketball discussion was every bit as good for quite a number of years, if not better.

 

I don't totally disagree, but you're being a bit unfair towards some of us. I'd think most of our long time members didn't contribute by just posting alot. Because if that was the only criteria, xx would be in there..and he was a troll.

 

I mean people like me..yeah I'm not gonna be the type to get into a debate or make a long, thought out post all the time..but I don't see how that would make me a spammer. I mean, Brandon knows I'll help him out if I can..hell, I basically ran the site(though I wasn't totally experienced at being an admin at the time) in his place for a while at one point.

[Dash]

My point wasn't that there are a bunch of spammers with 10k posts on OTR. My point is that a high post count doesn't make you a better member than members with lower post counts. And yes, there are members here with 8, 9 and 10 thousand posts who I wouldn't consider some of the best posters on this site, while there are other members with just a few thousand who definitely deserve the honor.

 

And if OTR is about quality, not quantity, then why are we restricting who gets their 'jersey's retired' to just 20 members? And I bet a good number of those members haven't posted in years, either. As I said, if you are going to use a stat to gauge who gets in, why not use reps-per-post as the most important benchmark (I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of that, though, with over 2k active posts and below 70 reps)? That's what will show quality over quantity, although I feel there should be a 2-3k post minimum to qualify.

 

BTW, I have seen sites like OTR before, specifically the old BBW. The biggest difference was the off-topic forums were a lot more raunchy, but the basketball discussion was every bit as good for quite a number of years, if not better.

 

A bit outdated but the list we would be looking at would be similar to this:

 

http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/topic/20587-posts-per-rep/

 

Its flawed though, using a rep system would be a huge disadvantage for posters that retired (or now don't post as much as they used to like Smitty) before it was even introduced.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Dash

[Nitro]

I don't totally disagree, but you're being a bit unfair towards some of us. I'd think most of our long time members didn't contribute by just posting alot. Because if that was the only criteria, xx would be in there..and he was a troll.

 

I mean people like me..yeah I'm not gonna be the type to get into a debate or make a long, thought out post all the time..but I don't see how that would make me a spammer. I mean, Brandon knows I'll help him out if I can..hell, I basically ran the site(though I wasn't totally experienced at being an admin at the time) in his place for a while at one point.

 

I never said all the 10k+ posters were spammers or will get in just because they have that many posts. I never even said most of them. In fact, in my first response to Shaliq, I mentioned this thing should be done based on observation above all else. I think a post minimum is a good idea, but 10k is ridiculously high. 2-3k shows that member has been a very, very active poster over the years, and after that the member should be judged by quality of posts. I'm not talking just essay-like posts in the NBA section...it could include all the great topics they started which sparked great discussion, running different contests, being on the writing team, moderating, etc..

 

I used the example of spammers with over 10k posts strictly to get the point across that having so many posts doesn't make you a better or more valuable poster than a guy with half that many posts who makes higher quality contributions. The Derek Fisher/Penny Hardaway analogy I think was a decent one.

 

 

A bit outdated but the list we would be looking at would be similar to this:

 

http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/topic/20587-posts-per-rep/

 

Its flawed though, using a rep system would be a huge disadvantage for posters that retired (or now don't post as much as they used to like Smitty) before it was even introduced.

 

I never said it should be the only benchmark, but if we are going to have a set standard, I feel reps-per-post would be more useful in showing the quality of said member's posting as opposed to his raw post count. As I said before, I think there should be a minimum post count to qualify, but that number should be about 1/3 of 10k posts. It opens the field a lot, and after that you can use stats to show quality (like reps-per-post), and the most important of all....OBSERVATION!!! I just feel it is wrong that under the current system only 20 members qualify, when there are members below that 10k mark that deserve it over a number of those 10k guys. After a few thousand posts, you've made an impact by being a very active, dedicated member. After that, the votes should be made based on the quality of his posts and HOW he improved the board through his posts.

[Real Deal]

Well, if anything, I would rather just go with nominations over everything else...or the staff just making the decision (or even me). The rep/post idea can't happen, because there are numerous guys that have gotten older over the years and have been less active AFTER the rep system was installed.

 

ALCS is one of them. It shows he has 25,800 posts...with just 36 rep.

 

Same with my brother, who racked up over 10,000 posts all before rep was even used, and he has zero rep.

 

--------

 

So what I would be faced with would be putting SOME in there for what they did pre-rep, and then others using the rep/post idea...and it has to stay consistent.

 

Plus, the reputation handed out on OTR...a lot of it isn't given for the best posts. Plenty has been added for smart remarks to other people.

 

The bad thing about leaning towards nominations is that...some of you have no idea who Erin is (just an example), or you weren't around when Jammin was posting as much as I was.

 

Quite frankly, I don't really care much for the 10k post requirement, either...but what it does do is it promotes longevity (because nobody will be spamming OTR to get to 10k that quickly) and actual contribution.

 

I realize what Blasco did while he was here (he's probably done posting for good, I talked to him the other day), but he really did everything in a matter of two years, which I'm grateful for, but what does it say if I stick him in the HOF and ignore Dee, who has been here since 2005?

 

I just don't want to make this a popularity contest, and I don't want 40 members in there within the next two years. Considering we already have 20+ going in (and really, I could argue for all of them deserving it), it's going to be tough to apply a filter and leave them out, sticking others in there because they supposedly know the game more than others.

[Smitty]

It's up to you man. I'm cool with it either way.

[Sħãlïq™]

Well, if anything, I would rather just go with nominations over everything else...or the staff just making the decision (or even me). The rep/post idea can't happen, because there are numerous guys that have gotten older over the years and have been less active AFTER the rep system was installed. (...)

RD, when was the rep system was installed?

Edited January 28, 2012 by Šhãłïq

[Real Deal]

RD, when was the rep system was installed?

When I put the new board up, summer of 2009.

[Teletopez]

I realize what Blasco did while he was here (he's probably done posting for good, I talked to him the other day), but he really did everything in a matter of two years, which I'm grateful for, but what does it say if I stick him in the HOF and ignore Dee, who has been here since 2005?

Blasco left?!

[Real Deal]

Blasco left?!

Yep, due to work...he's trying to become a researcher, said he hasn't watched much basketball at all lately.

[YugoRocketsFan]

Needing rep in the HOF would be stupid. Time + posts is different on the other hand.

[Lkr]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. It isn't like Brandon is going to buy you an authentic jersey of your favorite team, with the number, put your username on it, and ship it to you

[Real Deal]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. It isn't like Brandon is going to buy you an authentic jersey of your favorite team, with the number, put your username on it, and ship it to you

Maybe I will, though? :o

 

Or not.

[Legacy]

So it's going to be 20 people going in each year? I think that would be cool. Induct a new person everyday for the next 20 days, right after the OTR anniversary.