Rate Physique And Brand New Posters

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:

Someone made an outrageous claim. When that claim (but not the author) was attacked, T-Nation published an article mocking all of the “critics.” All of the arguments made in opposition to the author’s argument were misrepresented; the better ones were omitted. When people tried posting under the “critic” article with anything other than, “This is awesome!,” they were denied. They were told to go post someone else in the forum.

I was actually shocked by that move. I understand protecting one’s authors, but if you are going to purport to reproduce the “critic’s” arguments, at least have the intellectual integrity to accurately reproduce them. Building false arguments and then denying the opportunity for a rebuttal was a bitch move.

It’s been a nice run. They did stay mostly true for almost 8 years. But all things eventually come to pass. T-Mag has decided to change direction. They want to cater to clueless newbies rather than sophisticated lifters. They want what their authors write to be taken as Gospel.

I don’t think their decision was motivated by money. It was caused by hubris. “How dare you people question the ideas of authors I have published.”

As X, noted, above, many people who have questioned some of the more controversial ideas on this site have advanced degrees, C.S.C.S. certifications, etc. But when you have a nasty case of hubris, you ignore or consciously disregard that.

In a year or so when the site is completely populated by “Pee Wees” who don’t lift, I think they’ll realize their mistake. Even if Biotest’s bottom line isn’t hurting, someone will be reflective enough to realize that they have become what they used to mock.[/quote]

May I ask what the article is that made the outrageous claim and prompted this change?

I’m serious. I have no idea which article you’re talking about.

And CL, I have to call you on this one. You don’t question, you mock. If you were standing face to face with one of our authors–or any man worth his salt–and you addressed him the tone you use on the site, he’d pop you one.

And again, it’s the NEW authors tha have prompted this change. Who cares if they’re acting out of hubris? I want their knowledge, and I think you would, too.

But lastly, I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I hate to admit weakness, but I will. It’s sometimes gut-wrenching when somebody attacks your thougths, ideas, and philosophies.

If it’s done with logic instead of emotion and personal attacks, no sweat, but when somebody comes at your underbelly, you just want to gut them alive.

[quote]TC wrote:

May I ask what the article is that made the outrageous claim and prompted this change?[/quote]

It was this one:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1361916

[quote]

I’m serious. I have no idea which article you’re talking about.[/quote]

There was a huge discussion about it on this forum. I know I received SEVERAL private messages about posts that weren’t allowed through by other posters. That led to this thread:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1362698&pageNo=0

and this one:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1363119

[quote]

If it’s done with logic instead of emotion and personal attacks, no sweat, but when somebody comes at your underbelly, you just want to gut them alive.[/quote]

I thought this one was done with logic and I didn’t insult the author in question…AT ALL. I questioned what he wrote…and to this day never had my question answered. Instead, I was treated as if by even questioning him, that I was hopelessly ignorant or that I crossed some line by even holding a conversation with him.

I mean, not only do I treat patients daily as a DMD, but I used to be a personal trainer. I have also lifted regularly with no extended breaks for over 11 years. If I can’t question something written by a trainer, who the hell can?

[quote]TC wrote:

All I’m asking–and it’s a lot–is that you trust me (us) for the time being.

I promise you, there are no grand schemes to change the tone of the site.

Many of the new authors I approached didn’t like the fact that we allowed attacks on the author.

So we changed that. Isn’t it better in the long run that we get more authors and more information?

Besides, I have an idea where we can still have that reader-author interaction that most of you seem to like.

The “Rate my Physique” thing is just an experiment.

If it turns out to be weenie, we’ll get rid of it.

[/quote]

Ah well that’s fair enough, and thanks for the response. My Mom always taught me not to trust strange men but I’ll make an exception here.

I don’t want to speak on behalf of everyone else, but I hope it’s fair to say we all do want to trust the decisions that are being made, but seeings how we don’t know what the goals are, some of them really aren’t making much sense right now. But I’m all in favour of more information, so bring it on!!

[quote]TC wrote:

And you’re still welcome to be pissy to newcomers when they deserve it…
[/quote]
yay!!! There’s just so MANY of them, where to start?!?

[quote]TC wrote:
…but let’s not drive away all newcomers. You and I were newcomers once and we didn’t know a damn thing.
[/quote]

Shhhh - don’t let the Hot or Not Forum see crazy stuff like that, much easier to let them believe we’ve always been brilliant, gives them something to aspire to.

In seriousness though, thanks. And at the end of the day all the bitching just boils down to us giving a crap. So when your spleen starts to rupture from all the stress caused by this stuff, remember - it’s because we care. Aren’t we worth sacrificing an organ or two for??

yeah, yeah I’m pushing it now, I know… :smiley:

[quote]TC wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Maybe we could have a “Rate My Physique” forum and a separate normal “Physique and Performane Photos” forum?

You can still post any pics you like.

You don’t have to participate in the “Rate My Physique” thing.

However, I was of the mind that the “Rate my Physique” thing would give you guys what you want, in addition to solving one of our problems.

I was bellyaching that you guys were driving away some poor newbie slobs who had the gall to post pics of their often underdeveloped bodies.

However, if they post pics in the “Rate My Physique” thread, they’re giving everyone their consent to blast away. They come into it with their eyes open.

Anyhow, as always, it the feature doesn’t work, it’ll go away.

[/quote]

I know. I guess we’ll all have to see how it plays out.

[quote]TC wrote:
I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask Lowfat Matt to set up some sort of algorithm that randomly interjects the phrase, “cuz you’ll get all SWOLE” into articles.

That way, you’ll be happy.
[/quote]

Happen to agree with you here. SWOLE and other 90’s gym talk should be avoided at all cost.

I know that you’ve taken a lot of heat for this lately, but IMO (many will disagree with me), moving articles like “The Figure Body Part Checklist”, “The Figure Program”, and “Sexy Female Training” to an alternate site for women is a step in the right direction. There were a few times I thought I had accidentally logged onto MsFitness.com by mistake.

I just don’t see these type articles as being much, much better than “How to Squat 900 lbs”, “Bustin’ Ass 101”, “The Top 10 For Mass”, or “The Bulk-Building Workout”.

Again, though, this is just my opinion.

Ooh, impressively witty colloqualism!

After the 1000th time you’ve used that one it’s still hilarious.

(hint get some new material hint, yeah I’m flipping you some shit, but you’re a big guy and can take it.)

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
TC wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Maybe we could have a “Rate My Physique” forum and a separate normal “Physique and Performane Photos” forum?

You can still post any pics you like.

You don’t have to participate in the “Rate My Physique” thing.

However, I was of the mind that the “Rate my Physique” thing would give you guys what you want, in addition to solving one of our problems.

I was bellyaching that you guys were driving away some poor newbie slobs who had the gall to post pics of their often underdeveloped bodies.

However, if they post pics in the “Rate My Physique” thread, they’re giving everyone their consent to blast away. They come into it with their eyes open.

Anyhow, as always, it the feature doesn’t work, it’ll go away.

I know. I guess we’ll all have to see how it plays out. [/quote]

I’m patient.

Lets hope the vets can be too…

[quote]TC wrote:
<<< And you’re still welcome to be pissy to newcomers when they deserve it, but let’s not drive away all newcomers. You and I were newcomers once and we didn’t know a damn thing.
[/quote]

Unless I’m really misreading some guys who’s personalities I’d like to think I’ve come to understand to a degree, I don’t believe anybody is looking for newcomers to get pissy with.

It’s more along the lines of “at what point did the atmosphere here become such that the public now believes that this is the place to ask about stuff that is unrelated to what we have been coming here for”

Guys looking to be spectacularly large, spectacularly strong, spectacularly badass or any combination therein thought they were safe from casual, kinda fitness types when they logged in here.

On the other hand the more big brotherly side of me whispers in the other ear “what’s the harm if some lemmings wanna drop in and provide some entertainment? Or what’s the harm if somebody wants some general fitness pointers? They’re trying to improve so give em a hand for Pete’s sake”. This latter point, appears at least, to be where you guys want to go.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but it isn’t “dangerously hardcore” which is where I think the rub is stemming from. These guys want a sweaty, smelly, locker room filled with intimidating T types to hang out in and they are finding it increasingly populated with manicured aspiring underwear models who “don’t wanna get callouses (I’m not kidding)”, “don’t wanna look like a meathead”, don’t want any development that isn’t somehow “functional”, wanna know how to “drop about 15 pounds for spring break” and definitely “don’t wanna eat too much”

I say all this only to try n help promote understanding between client and server here. I can’t help, but get the feeling that you guys are missing where the foundational complaints are coming from, unless I’m missing that too.

I’ve only been here for a little less than 2 years, but I too can see a difference in the overall posting quality.

There will always be trends in the way to train and people that advocate different methods (different programs work for different people). I am not questioning the integrity of the authors or the articles, as I read about 75% of them (you can only say eat/train a certain way so many times), but as many vets on this thread have stated, the new members are “overwhelming” the boards and compromising thread quality.

I remember when I didn’t know about this site and stayed clear of bb.com because I was sick of seeing guys that looked basically how I do (I don’t train for mass currently) and get complimented about how they’re looking “cut.” After a couple years, I found T-Nation and learned so many principles of nutrition and training along with overall knowledge of physiology/kinesiology/etc.

Along with this information were great posts informing new members how they should eat and train. Sometimes, posts were harsh, but when you’re asking somebody how you can look like “sexy kenny dancing to 50 cent,” you shouldn’t expect nice replies.

I don’t feel the site is terrible in regards to editor, author, contributer quality, but the leniency endowed to new posters seems a bit ridiculous. Either that or the strictness on old members critiquing/criticizing. Before it just seemed people could rip into new members if they got out of line and they had to accept it or leave, and now that feel just isn’t here as much anymore.

[quote]TC wrote:
And CL, I have to call you on this one. You don’t question, you mock. If you were standing face to face with one of our authors–or any man worth his salt–and you addressed him the tone you use on the site, he’d pop you one.[/quote]

Actually, I have praised many articles and authors. I remember noting that one person was the “next Mel Siff.” That’s about as high a compliment as I think can be given.

Some things written are ridiculous. E.g., that everyone over 200 pounds is fat; and that anyone who is making gains on anything but total body training is on steroids or is a genetic freak. I have no reluctance noting that those claims are absolute nonsense. If someone wants to punch me over that, then that reveals their own insecurity. (And also their poor judgment.)

I also have no problem noting when something is stupendous - regardless of the author. I guarantee you that if you showed me any “negative” comment I wrote about some article, I could show you an example where I praised a different article written by that same author. I guarantee it.

I don’t “love or hate” individual authors. I am neither fan or anti-fan of anyone who writes for the site. I only note my beliefs about what is written in any given article.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Professor X wrote:
There were no-filler articles on steroids. Now we have post after post about creatine and its “side effects.”

.

Dude, how goes it? Can I please ask your advice on something? I’m going to be writing some steroid articles for T-Nation, over the summer (as long as TC thinks they’re good enough, lol). I respect your no bullshit posts, and after seeing this, I wanted to ask you what you meant.

Basically, I would really appreciate hearing what you (I assume, non-juicer, but hey, I don’t care about that either way) would consider to be good material for a steroid article(s)… All your thoughts are appreciated, but please keep this very ‘under your hat’, as it’s early days. Many thanks. Bushy.[/quote]

I don’t know if this was directed towards me or X, but I PM’d you.

[quote]g’em wrote:
TC wrote:

In seriousness though, thanks. And at the end of the day all the bitching just boils down to us giving a crap. So when your spleen starts to rupture from all the stress caused by this stuff, remember - it’s because we care. Aren’t we worth sacrificing an organ or two for??

D
[/quote]

Yes, you are.

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:

A lot of you guys sound like you have sand in your vaginas.

Ooh, impressively witty colloqualism!

After the 1000th time you’ve used that one it’s still hilarious.

(hint get some new material hint, yeah I’m flipping you some shit, but you’re a big guy and can take it.)[/quote]

Hey, I KNOW I’ve never used that before.

Heard it for the first time at my poker game Friday night and I kinda’ liked it.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I mean, not only do I treat patients daily as a DMD, but I used to be a personal trainer. I have also lifted regularly with no extended breaks for over 11 years. If I can’t question something written by a trainer, who the hell can?[/quote]

No one but other authors, I suppose. The irony, of course, is that I know for a fact that some people were writing about subjects they had no real-world experience in. So it’s sort of silly. If you actually train, you can’t say anything. But if you write some stuff that appears on the Internet, you are above being questioned. It’s perverse.

If we are going to elevate authors to guru-like status (a bad idea, but hey, let’s made lemonade), I’d like to at least see proof that each author has real-world experience in what they write about.

If they write about bodybuilding, let’s see 5 bodybuilders they’ve trained. If they write about football, show us some football players they’ve trained. Hell, Joe DeFranco has no problem proving that he actually has real-world experience in what he writes about. Neither does Charles Poliquin. We know when they write about subjects, they’re not just theorizing: They are basing what they have written on actual experience.

This would be a positive step in any event. It would certainly help put an end to the Era of the Internet Expert. No one would have any doubts that an author is just making stuff up based on what he thinks might work. And the author could speak from a position of authority earned in the real world.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On the other hand the more big brotherly side of me whispers in the other ear “what’s the harm if some lemmings wanna drop in and provide some entertainment? Or what’s the harm if somebody wants some general fitness pointers? They’re trying to improve so give em a hand for Pete’s sake”. This latter point, appears at least, to be where you guys want to go.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but it isn’t “dangerously hardcore” which is where I think the rub is stemming from. These guys want a sweaty, smelly, locker room filled with intimidating T types to hang out in and they are finding it increasingly populated with manicured aspiring underwear models who “don’t wanna get callouses (I’m not kidding)”, “don’t wanna look like a meathead”, don’t want any development that isn’t somehow “functional”, wanna know how to “drop about 15 pounds for spring break” and definitely “don’t wanna eat too much”

I say all this only to try n help promote understanding between client and server here. I can’t help, but get the feeling that you guys are missing where the foundational complaints are coming from, unless I’m missing that too. [/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote]itsthetimman wrote:

Along with this information were great posts informing new members how they should eat and train. Sometimes, posts were harsh, but when you’re asking somebody how you can look like “sexy kenny dancing to 50 cent,” you shouldn’t expect nice replies.

I don’t feel the site is terrible in regards to editor, author, contributer quality, but the leniency endowed to new posters seems a bit ridiculous. Either that or the strictness on old members critiquing/criticizing. Before it just seemed people could rip into new members if they got out of line and they had to accept it or leave, and now that feel just isn’t here as much anymore.[/quote]

I’m going to think about all of this.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:

Some things written are ridiculous. E.g., that everyone over 200 pounds is fat; and that anyone who is making gains on anything but total body training is on steroids or is a genetic freak. I have no reluctance noting that those claims are absolute nonsense. If someone wants to punch me over that, then that reveals their own insecurity. (And also their poor judgment.)

I also have no problem noting when something is stupendous - regardless of the author. I guarantee you that if you showed me any “negative” comment I wrote about some article, I could show you an example where I praised a different article written by that same author. I guarantee it.

I don’t “love or hate” individual authors. I am neither fan or anti-fan of anyone who writes for the site. I only note my beliefs about what is written in any given article.[/quote]

Whoa! Where was it written in an article that anyone over 200 is fat?

I’m well over 200 pounds, and I never would consciously let something like that be written in an article!

Any I also don’t remember a statement (presented as an absolute) that anyone who makes progress on anything but a total body program is on steroids.

I don’t believe that personally.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
TC wrote:

May I ask what the article is that made the outrageous claim and prompted this change?

It was this one:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1361916

I’m serious. I have no idea which article you’re talking about.

There was a huge discussion about it on this forum. I know I received SEVERAL private messages about posts that weren’t allowed through by other posters. That led to this thread:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1362698&pageNo=0

and this one:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1363119

If it’s done with logic instead of emotion and personal attacks, no sweat, but when somebody comes at your underbelly, you just want to gut them alive.

I thought this one was done with logic and I didn’t insult the author in question…AT ALL. I questioned what he wrote…and to this day never had my question answered. Instead, I was treated as if by even questioning him, that I was hopelessly ignorant or that I crossed some line by even holding a conversation with him.

I mean, not only do I treat patients daily as a DMD, but I used to be a personal trainer. I have also lifted regularly with no extended breaks for over 11 years. If I can’t question something written by a trainer, who the hell can?[/quote]

Prof, Tim lets me determine editorial policy, and I’m telling you that I did not institute any changes based on those threads or articles or, in fact, any threads or articles in particular.

Listen, what do you thnk of my idea for a new locker room?

It’s where we feature a particular author for a week.

First, we give links to several of his or her more influential articles, and then we make him available to field all questions for a week.

After the week is up, you get a crack at another author.

Part of the problem the way it was involved time management. Let’s say you posted a rebuttal to his article, or questioned some of his comments. Let’s say you did a damned good job and the author looked, in fact, bad, or worse, deluded.

If the author is too busy to answer your post, only to find it festering there a week later, it’s really, really, embarrassing to him.

That was the main complaint of current authors, not being pissed because someone questioned them.

[quote]TC wrote:
Prof, Tim lets me determine editorial policy, and I’m telling you that I did not institute any changes based on those threads or articles or, in fact, any threads or articles in particular.

Listen, what do you thnk of my idea for a new locker room?

It’s where we feature a particular author for a week.

First, we give links to several of his or her more influential articles, and then we make him available to field all questions for a week.

After the week is up, you get a crack at another author.

Part of the problem the way it was involved time management. Let’s say you posted a rebuttal to his article, or questioned some of his comments. Let’s say you did a damned good job and the author looked, in fact, bad, or worse, deluded.

If the author is too busy to answer your post, only to find it festering there a week later, it’s really, really, embarrassing to him.

That was the main complaint of current authors, not being pissed because someone questioned them.

[/quote]

I think that sounds like a good idea, however, like stated before, I RARELY even read these articles and am not looking for info to disagree with in them most of the time. I would likely avoid that area…unless like what happened in the article I linked, some fanboy calls me out specifically at which point I will likely read the article.

My whole complaint seems to be that there ARE educated and experienced lifters who give up their own free time to field questions that I can guarantee you I would get paid for elsewhere only to have the recent vibe of this place be that members who have been here for years are not contributing and are actually holding back progress. That sentiment is bogus and I am simply hoping that is being made clear.

I like CT and the way he writes. I haven’t seen him make one ridiculous claim of dogmatic exclamation like “one author in particular…who shall remain nameless…whose last name rhymes with “Quarter-Berry”…whose initials are CW”.

If I were going to read anyone’s writing, it would be his because I think I have similar goals (even though I don’t agree with EVERYTHING he writes). Other than that, I mostly avoid the area.

TC,

I understand that there is a problem with unnecessarily harsh replies and trolling. However, every post is moderated. Why not just give more deference to the moderators?

It’s easy to see if a post is trolling. If someone routinely is out to make trouble, then ban them and their IP address.

This seems like the easiest, least disruptive way to get to the problem.

[quote]ExNole wrote:
TC,

I understand that there is a problem with unnecessarily harsh replies and trolling. However, every post is moderated. Why not just give more deference to the moderators?

It’s easy to see if a post is trolling. If someone routinely is out to make trouble, then ban them and their IP address.

This seems like the easiest, least disruptive way to get to the problem. [/quote]

I second this