Dodger Thoughts

I’ve noticed some confusion in the Dodger Thoughts comments lately about this guideline: “Thank you for not using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively.”

I suppose this guideline could have been written more clearly, though it’s never been an issue until recently.

In any case, this is not a ban against sarcasm. Saying something like, “Gee, the Dodgers are awesome this year” is not forbidden. The idea of the guideline is to prevent people from mocking each other. I learned ago that making sarcastic remarks about another person’s comment is a really effective way to breed bad blood in the comments, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid.

While we’re on the subject of comments, a reminder to abide by No. 8: “Thank you for not making the same point over and over again.” That’s a very easy thing to have trouble with in a year like this one, but it’s worth trying to heed.

Every one of the 12 commenting guidelines is designed to keep the banter at Dodger Thoughts thoughtful and friendly, including the ninth one, which keeps me from getting unthoughtful and unfriendly. With the new commenting system starting to build the commenting totals back to Baseball Toaster levels (Saturday’s 700-plus was our biggest total at ESPNLosAngeles.com), it’s important that, even if we disagree with each other, we respect each other. Thanks!

After a brief trial run Tuesday, ESPN.com introduced a new commenting interface today that Dodger Thoughts now will use.  If you haven’t tried it out, please do. And once you have, here’s a dedicated thread where you can offer your feedback, your praise or pique, about the new system.  Your reactions and suggestions will be passed along to the folks behind the scenes.

After getting over my initial disappointment, I’ve mostly come to terms to the decline of participation in the comments. I have what I think are pretty sound theories about the reasons — including the rise of alternative communities, technical hurdles to commenting here, the commenting guidelines now seeming restrictive, and general feelings about ESPN.

As we move closer to another baseball season, I would love to see the Dodger Thoughts community revive, but I’m wondering if the moment has passed. If you’re of a mind, let me know if there’s anything specific that would encourage you to comment more here. If so, I would push for solutions where I can, but if folks are content to have moved on, I’ll understand.

No one totally nailed it, but here are five March predictions for the 2010 Dodgers that came close in some ways, if not all:

plaza23 (3/29/2010 at 9:49 PM)
The Dodgers went 82-80 because their older vets were ineffective (Manny, Blake, Furcal, Kuroda, Ortiz, Padilla). Kemp, Ethier, Kershaw kept the team treading water at .500.

johnrjames25 (3/29/2010 at 2:17 PM)
I see the Dodgers going 85-77, a little worse than last year b/c of a slower start. The McCourts divorce overshadows the season and prevents a July acquisition for a final playoff push. They miss the playoffs.

Marty_Leadman (3/29/2010 at 1:56 PM)
The Dodgers go 77-85, but still finish second in 2010 as just about everything that can go wrong, goes wrong. The only player that significantly improves is Chad Billingsley who posts a 2.99 ERA despite only 9 wins.

MrCourt5782 (3/29/2010 at 9:42 AM)
The Dodgers went 85-77 in 2010 because of a lack of production anywhere in the lineup other than the 2-4 spots. Furcal did nothing from the lead-off spot, Loney wasn’t productive enough to drive in the Big 3, Russ continued to struggle, and Casey Blake was nothing without his beard. Kershaw and Billingsley performed brilliantly, and DeWitt was also a bright spot, but the bullpen did not hold up as imagined, and Kuroda and Padilla under-performed. The season was a disappointment compared to the last 2, but we all knew from the beginning that no Dodger team has ever made the playoffs 3 years in a row, and the McCourt saga negatively affected the possibility of trade deadline acquisitions. The core of Ethier, Kemp, Loney, Kershaw, Billingsley, and Broxton will press on though, and 2011 will be an entirely different story with new ownership and a renewed spirit.
Disclaimer: I am not the pessimist I may seem to be. I am a die hard fan that lives and breathes the Dodgers. Unfortunately, I just have a feeling about this season, and as you can tell, it’s not a good one.

foxcpa (3/29/2010 at 8:51 AM)
82-80, the bullpen failed to repeat its performance of 2009…yet we are not eliminated from the division race until the final weekend

With Dodger Thoughts’ move to ESPN.com/LA a week old, I thought I’d open the floor to your questions or suggestions about the site’s commenting logistics, its sidebar, etc.

I won’t be able to grant every wish on the list, but I promise to listen.

To comment on Dodger Thoughts (or anywhere on ESPN.com), register an account if you haven’t already. I highly recommend you register and make sure you’re signed in before making your first comment.

For past readers of Dodger Thoughts who are going to comment here under new screen names, feel free to let your online friends know about the change in this thread. (You can do so in any thread you like, but I thought it might be nice to have all the changes in one place.)

I hope new readers will join the existing Dodger Thoughts crew in the comments section. I do have some guidelines that have worked well in the past that I appreciate you following. I hope you’ll find that they become second nature rather quickly.

Thank You For Not …
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing “no-hitter” or “perfect game” to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn’t allowed when it’s just being disagreed with