Crosswords, Temptation ratings are in

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163567\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:28 PM\']
You know what?  I would LOVE it if more than half of the messages in this thread actually talked about the two new shows.  I've wasted minutes of my life reading posts that really don't mean anything.
[/quote]
(allow me to keep this as civil as possible, because I'm about to address a serious Internet pet peeve of mine)

You know what? I would LOVE if people didn't get riled up and mess their diaper every time a conflict arose, or a topic gets off-tangent, as if the topic belongs to them?

Message boards aren't made just to suit your preferences, no matter how much we may like it. There are lots of message boards where the topics go on separate tangent, either for arguments or just because of a different path. Whining about the tangent makes you look like an self-centered crybaby, and is quite annoying.

If you want the thread back on topic, make your post, and keep the backhanded commentary unless it's necessary.

[Patrick S]

Hmm...yeah, I don't see any posts from you that make you look like a crybaby (oh, wait, maybe I should read the post you just wrote).  And since you seem to like getting on your high horse too, I'll assume you're not insulting me, unless you're also insulting yourself.  So thanks for the compliment.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163571\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:38 PM\']
Hmm...yeah, I don't see any posts from you that make you look like a crybaby (oh, wait, maybe I should read the post you just wrote).  And since you seem to like getting on your high horse too, I'll assume you're not insulting me, unless you're also insulting yourself.  So thanks for the compliment.
[/quote]
Um...I don't know what kind of psychology you're trying to use, but it's not working. Don't get defensive with me because I had something to say about your little rant. You only make yourself look even more immature.

You come in here crying about the topic going off-tangent, then when someone brings it up, you try to turn the tables and take the focus off of you. Yeah, whatever, use as much sarcasm as you want to pass the buck.

[Patrick S]

I'm not getting defensive.  In fact, by going off on a tangent I kind of already conceded to you and invalidated my earlier argument.  I guess you were too busy writing out another whine to notice that.  All I did was point out your gross hypocrisy in calling me a crybaby, when from what I've seen all of your posts are crying about something.  And your needless slam on my original post is also very immature.

Also, stop editing your messages.  It would be a good idea to actually think out all you want to say before hitting the "post" button.

[ChuckNet]

I'm STILL trying to figure out when BFG's behavior has descended to that of the "fanboiz", I've never heard him whine because, say, Claudia Jordan wasn't asked to co-host Temptation...

Chuck Donegan (The Puzzled "Chuckie Baby")

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163573\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:52 PM\']
In fact, by going off on a tangent I kind of already conceded to you and invalidated my earlier argument.  I guess you were too busy writing out another whine to notice that.
[/quote]
I'm not about to turn this into a pissing match, but being condescending isn't the same thing as conceding.

All I did was point out your gross hypocrisy in calling me a crybaby, when from what I've seen all of your posts are crying about something.

Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans, because I seriously doubt you went through even 1/20 of my posts, to see what I talk about here.

And your needless slam on my original post is also very immature.

Okay, perhaps I should've made that a more general statement instead of implying that I was singling you out. For that one, I will apologize.

Also, stop editing your messages.  It would be a good idea to actually think out all you want to say before hitting the "post" button.

Again, don't condescend me, then try to consider that "conceding", esp. when I read your post before, and it appears you added a few more comments to look like you had the upper hand.

Yeah, who's the hypocrite now? And with that, I've said my peace. This debate is not going to have a good outcome at this point.

[quote name=\''ChuckNet'\']I'm STILL trying to figure out when BFG's behavior has descended to that of the "fanboiz", I've never heard him whine because, say, Claudia Jordan wasn't asked to co-host Temptation...
[/quote]
I cry myself to sleep over it very very quietly. ;-)

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163573\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:52 PM\']
In fact, by going off on a tangent I kind of already conceded to you and invalidated my earlier argument.  [/quote]
Which is how I see it.  You came into the thread not to talk about the shows, but to complain that nobody was talking about the shows.  And when you were called on it, you added even more to the clutter.  You really need to step back and ask yourself what you thought you were trying to accomplish by complaining in the first place, because almost by definition, you became a major part of what you were complaining about.

[Patrick S]

So what exactly was the reason for your post, Matt?  To teach me a lesson that, by your own post, I already learned?  Look, I noted that I was wrong, and now that fostergray has apologized for singling me out, I too will apologize for singling him out.  So now we've both made our points and hopefully can kiss and make up.  I already pointed out I was wrong, so I'm not sure what else you want me to do Matt.

Also, I very much came into this thread to talk about the games.  How in the world would I have known that it went off tangent before coming in?  You're saying I saw the thread title and just thought, "I have no idea what's in that thread, so why don't I just post a complaint about people going off tangent?"  That makes no sense.  (And yes, by the way, I edited this paragraph in after my original post, so it looks like I have a triple dosing of egg on my face right now).

[Matt Ottinger]

<sigh>

So this is the way you want to play it, huh?  I've watched as you've changed this post three times, I can only hope you're done now.

[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163583\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 10:23 PM\']Also, I very much came into this thread to talk about the games.  How in the world would I have known that it went off tangent before coming in?  You're saying I saw the thread title and just thought, "I have no idea what's in that thread, so why don't I just post a complaint about people going off tangent?"  That makes no sense.  [/quote]
I'm going to go with the theory that you truly didn't understand me, and aren't deliberately being difficult.  "Came into the thread" as in "posted to the thread".  Naturally, I don't have a clue which threads you've read or haven't read.  I can only go with what you post.  And your first post to the thread, your first post in four months in fact, was a post that managed to criticize the thread while adding to the very thing you were criticizing.  (And you want to say that I'M making no sense?)  I take these criticisms seriously, and personally.  As a moderator and co-founder, I'm entitled.

[Patrick S]

Matt, and everyone, let me apologize.  I won't try to make excuses for my sour attitude.  That's just the mood I was in at the time.  I was rude and conceited.  As a law student I have strong opinions about everything and I don't like being out-argued by someone else; however for the same reason I should know when to stop before I make a fool of myself (something I'm obviously still learning).  Anyway, geez, that's a lot of talk just to say I'm sorry.  I hope none of you will hold a grudge against me for this.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163595\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 10:56 PM\']
Matt, and everyone, let me apologize.  I won't try to make excuses for my sour attitude.  That's just the mood I was in at the time.  I was rude and conceited.  As a law student I have strong opinions about everything and I don't like being out-argued by someone else; however for the same reason I should know when to stop before I make a fool of myself (something I'm obviously still learning).  Anyway, geez, that's a lot of talk just to say I'm sorry.  I hope none of you will hold a grudge against me for this.
[/quote]
It takes a big man to do that. (That's what she said!)

Seriously, it's all good here. :-)

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163599\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 10:59 PM\']
Seriously, it's all good here. :-)[/quote]
Absolutely.  And if I stopped every time I was about to make a fool of myself, I'd probably

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'163541\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 06:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLDude\']It counters because Henke knows damn well what he's doing, just like Horan did. Henke just isn't as arrogant about it as Horan was.[/quote]
I'd love to know how you can prove this.
[/quote]

Simple. He's been yelled at before, right? He's been shown that he's done wrong, right? He keeps doing it anyway, right?

He knows what he's doing is wrong, and either is as mentally incapable of realizing it as Zink says he is, or just doesn't care (what I think). Maybe if he does it once or twice, up to maybe five times, I can see Zink's argument. But when it becomes a pattern that extends over a multi-year period, I believe that it's hard to argue that he doesn't have SOME idea that what he's doing is wrong and doesn't care.

[quote name=\'Zinkin\']If you want to continue to ignore all evidence that contradicts your position, you're entitled, but that's not going to stop us from continuing to do what we think is best.[/quote]

I understand there's a lot of contradictory evidence. What I think you don't understand is that as long as you keep giving him an opportunity to make posts that are either inflammatory or ridiculously off-topic (re: Charles Burlingame's daughter, Wheel of Fortune slot in Katrina coverage), eventually he will slip up and say something insensitive. And it doesn't matter how much you tighten your reigns on him. You're not going to change what he does. Only he can do that, and from what I can gather he has no plans to do that.

[quote name=\'Matt O.\']Man, that's just needlessly combative. Again, you have no idea how much of Brian's stuff doesn't get through. And again, if we decided who to banish based on requests, this would be a remarkably empty place. [/quote]

I apologize for coming off as unnecessarily combative, but my point is still the same. Yeah, I really don't know how much of Brian's stuff doesn't get through now that he's on permamod status- I could only imagine, considering what he's offered up in the past (hell, even in the present). I'm not requesting anything. All I'm saying is that no matter how tight you pull the reigns or whatever you don't let through, at least one of us (not me, just so you don't assume that) is going to have a problem with something he posts. Eventually, the problem will snowball, just like it always seems to do when Henke says something that someone is offended by.

I understand he's on modded status, and there's a lot that he posts that doesn't get through. I also understand that there's probably a lot more that we never see (good for it). But at the same time, how long can it be allowed to continue before he says something REALLY wrong?

[dzinkin]

G-d help me, I'm going to try one more time...

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'163609\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 11:36 PM\']
Simple. He's been yelled at before, right? He's been shown that he's done wrong, right? He keeps doing it anyway, right?

He knows what he's doing is wrong, and either is as mentally incapable of realizing it as Zink says he is, or just doesn't care (what I think).
[/quote]
And you're making the same mistake yet again.  "He's been shown" or "he's been told" does not necessarily equate to "he knows."  He thinks he's following the rules and merely is being picked on because he's Brian.  (We have had a few people who bashed Brian and, for that matter, Zach even when they made perfectly legitimate posts, just because they were Brian and Zach.  And while I won't name names, I'm sure you know who they are.)

What I think you don't understand is that as long as you keep giving him an opportunity to make posts

If the posts don't go through, then effectively, he's not making them.

All I'm saying is that no matter how tight you pull the reigns or whatever you don't let through, at least one of us (not me, just so you don't assume that) is going to have a problem with something he posts. Eventually, the problem will snowball, just like it always seems to do when Henke says something that someone is offended by.

Matt just got through telling you this, and I know I've said it many times before as well, but I'm going to try yet again: if "at least one of us is going to have a problem with something he posts" is the standard, many more people than Brian would be denied posting privileges.  And you would be among the first to go, not for what you've said about Brian but because of the ongoing feud you've been having with another member.  (And yes, by the same standard, he'd be out the door with you.)

I understand he's on modded status, and there's a lot that he posts that doesn't get through. I also understand that there's probably a lot more that we never see (good for it). But at the same time, how long can it be allowed to continue before he says something REALLY wrong?

And again, if you don't see it, how will you even know?  And what's to stop you from using the Ignore User function so that, even if we slip up, you don't see it?

The fact is, we are taking action, and as has always been the case, when it's not the action you want you proclaim that we're doing anything.  You are, of course, entitled to your feelings, but we're doing the best we feel we can do.

EDIT: And I'll add this: no matter what we do, Brian Henke will continue to (try to) make comments that are inappropriate.  Just as John Chartier will continue to proclaim that he knows everything about, and everyone in, the field of game shows; Zach Horan will continue to make irrelevant comments and hit on every woman he can find online; and Harvey Daye will compare everyone he doesn't like to a murderous dictator.  All Matt, Chris and I can do is minimize their effect on our board.  What you can do is face up to the fact that the less clueful will continue to exist on this planet, and not let it raise your blood pressure.  Trust me on this.

[Mr. Bill]

I am going to attempt to get this thread back on track -- and if it doesn't, Matt or David I think it might be time to lock this topic just to stop this flamewar that seems to be burning out of control.

I must agree that Crosswords and Temptation are going to need some time to hit their stride before any kind of judgement should be attempted.  I'm not going to be surprised to see one or both make adjustments as production continues.  These things can only be changed by trial and error, so let's give 'em the benefit of the doubt for now.

Another thing to keep in mind regarding Crosswords is this is strictly a Merv Griffin Enterprises production in association with Program Partners.  King World has nothing to do with it at this time, which I think is what accounts in the most part for the small prize budget.  It also means Crosswords isn't connected to King World's promotions department.  That said, I think they did a fairly good job of pre-promotion for the show with must have been a limited budget.

Just my pair of Lincolns -- YMMV