PDA

View Full Version : Dbr...i Have A Problem, And Is Probably Going To Get Me Kicked Off...i Do Appologize



obsesseddukefan
03-23-2008, 02:01 PM
OK...like I said I do appologize...to everyone. You can all say what you want about me when I get done with my rant, maybe it will be harsh, maybe not, but I feel I need to say some truth. Either you will agree or you wont. EVERYONE is entitled to thier opinion.

DBR...I think you took a very childish and absurd direction in closing the forums for a bit. The reason I say this is because the last time I checked we all have an opinion and have a right to say whatever we want regarding this team, wether we want to single out a player for a lack of hustle, or just plain not shooting well.

When we win a game we all single out a player for his game winning shot, or how a player performs, but when we lose all of a sudden we cant single out a player for his inability?? I think that is a double standard among us ALL, and frankly, quite silly.

I also am dissapointed in DBR. We ALL come here to vent our frustration because we ALL hate the feeling of losing. A site and forum like this helps us get over a wonderfull and yet frustrating season. This site is the cure for us and when you shut down our ability to speak and vent and try to get over the loss, I must say it is dissapointing to us all. No matter how bad the bashing gets, I am sure that NO ONE feels that way in thier heart. We are venting and trying to cope...lighten up a bit.

I'll be the first to admit...I have issues with the playing recently of a certain player..i have been open about it, but you know what, I am still proud of that player. I am glad we have him on OUR team, and I hope he doesnt go to the NBA.

Look guys and gals..we have all said some harsh things...some warranted some not...but DBR, to shut down because you cant handle some harsh
critism or we got out of control from time to time hurts us all. The truth is this, we have a right to say what we want...just like you have the right to boot us, I just hope in the future you guys lighten up a bit...please. Yoiu have no idea how you help us.

I am sorry if I offended anyone of the staff, alumni, of fans of DUKE. But I feel that this had to be said. Thanks for taking the time to read my rant...and yes...... I do feel better.:)

BCGroup
03-23-2008, 02:03 PM
Please. We are guests in DBR's home. It's that simple. They were totally within their rights, and from the bit I saw before they shut it down, they certainly needed to do something. Again, we are guests....

Channing
03-23-2008, 02:10 PM
posting on DBR is not a right. The creators have facilitated a forum for Duke fans to gather and enjoy each other's company. If they want to set the rules - that is their prerogative and they have the right to expect them to be followed.

Instituting a cool down period was good for me - I was fuming yesterday and probably would have posted some things that I would later regret. If it wasn't useful for you, there are plenty of other outlets where you could vent your frustration.

Look at it like this: there were many fans, myself included, acting like juveniles yesterday - hurling personal insults against players, all of whom are at least 3 years my junior. Since many Duke fans were acting like children I saw it as DBR treating us like children and putting us in the proverbial "time out."

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 02:13 PM
This is a privately owned website. As such, Julio and Boswell can do whatever they want. If they want to change the background to purple polka dots, they can do that. If they want to require all posters to show a valid driver's license before posting, they can do that. If they want everyone's signature to read "I love monkeys," they can do that.

We have no "rights" here. Our only right is to play ball by their rules. Most of us are happy for those rules and are glad to abide by them. If you don't like the rules, there are two wonderful options: 1) You can post on one of several other Duke message boards or 2) You can start your own website with your own rules.

This is not a place to vent. Yes, we were all upset yesterday. I'm sure we all got frustrated privately and maybe even had a conversation with a friend or a spouse where we let off some steam. But this is a public forum that, for better or worse, represents the Duke community and is read by players and families. If you really need this forum to "vent," I suggest reevaluating your priorities.

pfrduke
03-23-2008, 02:16 PM
The reason I say this is because the last time I checked we all have an opinion and have a right to say whatever we want regarding this team, wether we want to single out a player for a lack of hustle, or just plain not shooting well.

Look guys and gals..we have all said some harsh things...some warranted some not...but DBR, to shut down because you cant handle some harsh
critism or we got out of control from time to time hurts us all. The truth is this, we have a right to say what we want...just like you have the right to boot us, I just hope in the future you guys lighten up a bit...please. Yoiu have no idea how you help us.

You do have a right to say what you want, but not wherever you want. DBR has a right to exclude whatever they want to from their private site, and since they own the place, their right trumps yours. They have extended us the gracious privilege to use this forum to discuss Duke basketball. They extend us this privilege at their discretion, and they are well within their rights to decide to shut the forum down for a bit - with or without justification. This is not the only site dedicated to discussion of Duke basketball, but many of us happen to think it is the best, largely because of the owners' policies regarding civility in posting, and the way that policy was manifested in decisions like shutting down the board last night when posters were behaving like screaming panic howler monkeys.

DevilAlumna
03-23-2008, 02:17 PM
As the inimitable Sgt. Hulka once said,

Lighten up, Francis.



DBR and the mods are human too -- a bunch of individuals who do this from a love of the sport and the school and the fans. Keep that in mind that each one of them was pretty upset yesterday too, and then they had to come here and play pooper-scooper.

I'm just surprised they opened up the boards as soon as they did; I know I have better things to think about on Easter Sunday than moderating a bunch of adults with unrealistic expectations of perfection for a team of valiant young men.

EarlJam
03-23-2008, 02:20 PM
This is a privately owned website. As such, Julio and Boswell can do whatever they want. If they want to change the background to purple polka dots, they can do that. If they want to require all posters to show a valid driver's license before posting, they can do that. If they want everyone's signature to read "I love monkeys," they can do that.

Wow. What a storm.

I think the recent lack of success in the NCAA Tourney is more a function of the evolving college game (i.e., parity, recruting) than it is in Duke's "not performing."

Still, I was upset but hey, in the end it's basketball and these are great kids trying their best. Duke isn't going anywhere. We'll be just fine.

Jumbo, your last post "moved" me. See my new sig!

-EarlJam

Edouble
03-23-2008, 02:38 PM
Please. We are guests in DBR's home. It's that simple. They were totally within their rights, and from the bit I saw before they shut it down, they certainly needed to do something. Again, we are guests....

Yeah, they were within their rights. It's a privately owned website. Obsesseddukefan didn't say they weren't within their rights. He said they were absurd and childish. Do you think that shutting down the boards was not absurd and childish? If you do, then say so. But I don't think it's right to argue against someone's point if you're not really addressing what the guy said in the first place.

He also said that we all have the right to talk about individual players, which according the the board decorum and guidelines, is allowed, as long as it's done with civility and done in a constructive way.

Personally, I can't say whether it was childish or not. I don't really care. But it sucks when someone is being ganged up on for something they didn't say.

pfrduke
03-23-2008, 02:57 PM
Yeah, they were within their rights. It's a privately owned website. Obsesseddukefan didn't say they weren't within their rights. He said they were absurd and childish. Do you think that shutting down the boards was not absurd and childish? If you do, then say so. But I don't think it's right to argue against someone's point if you're not really addressing what the guy said in the first place.

He also said that we all have the right to talk about individual players, which according the the board decorum and guidelines, is allowed, as long as it's done with civility and done in a constructive way.

Personally, I can't say whether it was childish or not. I don't really care. But it sucks when someone is being ganged up on for something they didn't say.

Shutting down the boards was not absurd and childish. Several of the posts that appeared on the boards yesterday were.

And careful not to over-defend the original poster - he/she said that the reason DBR's decision to shut down the boards was absurd and childish was that "we all have an opinion and have a right to say whatever we want regarding this team." That very clearly indicates his belief that the "rights" of posters to express their opinions on DBR's site should trump the right of DBR to shut the site down. As several of us have pointed out, that's not true.

For what it's worth, I think this is a useful discussion. The original poster is not necessarily wrong to feel the way he/she does, and I'm sure several people shared that frustration with the board closure yesterday. It is helpful to remember at such times that we are permitted to be here at someone else's discretion, and rather than be angry that the boards are gone for fewer than 24 hours, we should be thankful that the forum is generally here for all of us 24/7/365.

DukeColonial
03-23-2008, 03:45 PM
This all just makes me laugh. The first poster said nothing regarding the rights of DBR to shut the boards down. He said we all have an opinion to talk about this team and its players. His opinion was that DBR should not have shut down the board because they have given us a place to discuss the team and its positive and negative attributes. Maybe he went overboard calling it childish and absurd and yes, I think he is at fault for his choice of words. But immediately a number of other people lashed out at him for expressing his frustration with not being able to vent, because that is all he was saying. When someone tries to defend him, that person is told to be careful not to over-defend them. Why? If you agree with someone, then why not defend them?

DBR does seem to regulate this board to an extent where they try to weed out all the negativity, which, in my honest opinion, is a wrong way to do things. But again, that is their right. They keep some constructive criticism, but when they do, one of the moderators immediately jump to Duke's and its players and this board's defense. And that is fine, that is great. I appreciate that some people are fans that want to hilight the positives of the program, of which there are many. But Duke hasn't been the same in the last five or six seasons as they were even 8 years ago, and instead of just saying "well, 28-6 is a fine season," why can't we vent a little about the fact that they haven't been playing to the expectations that Duke has built over its history?

DBR's front page post seems to lament the fact that, as fans of one of the best college programs in history, we can not accept a 28-6 season as a solid season unless it ends in a championship. I think its fantastic that there are people out there who would rather be 20 and 12 if it meant Duke was fresher going into March. Instead of lamenting the astronomical expectations that winning has brought Duke, why can we not cherish that Duke and its fans are one of a handful of programs that can actually expect to contend for the title year in and year out? So that when we fall short of that goal, we can, as fans, critique what went wrong and what they would like to see in the future? I come to DBR for my Duke news and game recaps for games I can not see in person. But I do take umbridge at the pointed comments towards fans like myself who are not afraid to critique a team who did not fulfill the expectations that they have created. It smacks of elitism to me; that because I critique a player or a coach or the team, that I am in some way less of a fan than the ones who cheer them on. I have watched as many Duke games as I could since I was 8 years old, I have sweated out the close games, I have cheered during the wins and the losses, but when the team does something that I do not believe is positive, or that confuses me, or upsets me, or just plain doesn't live up the expectations that I have cultivated after 16 years of being a fan, then I want to be able to express my frustration somewhere. Even though I am upset with the loss yesterday and think that some things could and should be done differently at Duke, does mean that I am not going to cheer them loud and long next year, or cheer for the players who I criticized to grow as athletes and people, whether for Duke or in any other endeavor in life.

BCGroup
03-23-2008, 04:16 PM
Yeah, they were within their rights. It's a privately owned website. Obsesseddukefan didn't say they weren't within their rights. He said they were absurd and childish. Do you think that shutting down the boards was not absurd and childish? If you do, then say so. But I don't think it's right to argue against someone's point if you're not really addressing what the guy said in the first place.

He also said that we all have the right to talk about individual players, which according the the board decorum and guidelines, is allowed, as long as it's done with civility and done in a constructive way.

Personally, I can't say whether it was childish or not. I don't really care. But it sucks when someone is being ganged up on for something they didn't say.

No, I don't think it was absurd and childish. Frankly, I believe they prevented more trouble than they caused--I would hate to think about college students reading the absurdity some of the posters here write. Do they have the right to their opinion? Absolutely. Should they post it where it will NEVER go away? I don't think so. I also recognize there are other sites where those types of diatribes are not only acceptable, they are welcome. That's the appropriate place for junk, not here. Some of us like the fact that DBR takes a higher road. Again, choose where you want to be a guest.

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 04:18 PM
This all just makes me laugh. The first poster said nothing regarding the rights of DBR to shut the boards down. He said we all have an opinion to talk about this team and its players. His opinion was that DBR should not have shut down the board because they have given us a place to discuss the team and its positive and negative attributes. Maybe he went overboard calling it childish and absurd and yes, I think he is at fault for his choice of words. But immediately a number of other people lashed out at him for expressing his frustration with not being able to vent, because that is all he was saying. When someone tries to defend him, that person is told to be careful not to over-defend them. Why? If you agree with someone, then why not defend them?

DBR does seem to regulate this board to an extent where they try to weed out all the negativity, which, in my honest opinion, is a wrong way to do things. But again, that is their right. They keep some constructive criticism, but when they do, one of the moderators immediately jump to Duke's and its players and this board's defense. And that is fine, that is great. I appreciate that some people are fans that want to hilight the positives of the program, of which there are many. But Duke hasn't been the same in the last five or six seasons as they were even 8 years ago, and instead of just saying "well, 28-6 is a fine season," why can't we vent a little about the fact that they haven't been playing to the expectations that Duke has built over its history?

DBR's front page post seems to lament the fact that, as fans of one of the best college programs in history, we can not accept a 28-6 season as a solid season unless it ends in a championship. I think its fantastic that there are people out there who would rather be 20 and 12 if it meant Duke was fresher going into March. Instead of lamenting the astronomical expectations that winning has brought Duke, why can we not cherish that Duke and its fans are one of a handful of programs that can actually expect to contend for the title year in and year out? So that when we fall short of that goal, we can, as fans, critique what went wrong and what they would like to see in the future? I come to DBR for my Duke news and game recaps for games I can not see in person. But I do take umbridge at the pointed comments towards fans like myself who are not afraid to critique a team who did not fulfill the expectations that they have created. It smacks of elitism to me; that because I critique a player or a coach or the team, that I am in some way less of a fan than the ones who cheer them on. I have watched as many Duke games as I could since I was 8 years old, I have sweated out the close games, I have cheered during the wins and the losses, but when the team does something that I do not believe is positive, or that confuses me, or upsets me, or just plain doesn't live up the expectations that I have cultivated after 16 years of being a fan, then I want to be able to express my frustration somewhere. Even though I am upset with the loss yesterday and think that some things could and should be done differently at Duke, does mean that I am not going to cheer them loud and long next year, or cheer for the players who I criticized to grow as athletes and people, whether for Duke or in any other endeavor in life.
Two things:

1) I don't think you are correct in your assessment of what the DBR allows in terms of criticism. I have been a vocal critic of various aspects of the team for more than a decade. (I still get the urge to post "Play Casey Sanders!") But there is a real difference between destructive and constructive criticism. If you're going to criticize individuals, take the time to make sure your tone isn't nasty and your information is solid.
2) I have a real problem with your use of the term "vent" and the expectations applied to it. Everyone needs to vent. It's healthy to vent. But you don't need to vent on a public forum. If your boss ticked you off at work, would you grab a bullhorn and go to Times Square to "vent" about it? Or would you call a buddy? This is a public place, and what you say resonates and (rightly or wrongly) reflects on the Duke community. That's why discretion is valued.

Lotus000
03-23-2008, 04:24 PM
Two things:
(I still get the urge to post "Play Casey Sanders!")


Good Lord, WHY? The kid couldn't catch a pass from JWill if his life depended on it. Hands like bricks.

AluminumDuke
03-23-2008, 04:24 PM
... I do take umbridge at the pointed comments towards fans like myself who are not afraid to critique a team who did not fulfill the expectations that they have created. It smacks of elitism to me; that because I critique a player or a coach or the team, that I am in some way less of a fan than the ones who cheer them on.

You have a right to your opinion, and you have expressed it here. I am now going to express my opinion about your above comments. Please keep in mind that I am only addressing your comments in this post. I am not criticizing your posting history as I do not claim to be so immediately familiar with it to know whether or not such criticisms would be warranted.

First of all, I have not read any statements to the effect of "because you critique a player/coach/team you are less of a fan than the ones who cheer them on." When I see a parent at a soccer game screaming at the kids or the coach, my thought isn't that they are a less passionate fan than those around them, only that their expression of that passion is less appropriate. Given that the players on the team are 17 to 22 year old students, and that this is a public forum to which they have access, I feel that less than constructive criticisms here are also inappropriate. If the creators of this site share that opinion, what makes it elitist to act on that?

Secondly, your description of yourself as "not afraid to critique a team" smacks of elitism to me. Because I feel that it is inappropriate to criticize a student athlete as you would a professional, am I somehow less of a fan than those who are brave enough to do so?

Lastly, you base the right to critique the team on their failure to "fulfill the expectations that they have created." Does this mean that if they could lose more consistently and thus not create such lofty expectations they would then not warrant criticism? It is my opinion that this is not sound logic.

DukeColonial
03-23-2008, 04:35 PM
I guess I am confused then. You just said this was a public place, and so we should censor ourselves and use discretion. But everyone else calls this a private space, and that DBR can use its own discretion regarding what it allows on the boards. So which is it? If it is indeed public, then people should be able to say what they want to say. But if it is private, then what is the use of expressing personal opinions unless you are only going to post things that are accepted by the moderators?

I concede your first point. I am not new to reading DBR, have been since I stumbled upon it looking for information about the Battier-Brand-Burgess-Avery recruiting class, and I went through a period where I read the boards every day, but haven't been as religious about it as I once did. But I do find that the more critical views around the boards are often attacked by the masses because they aren't always fawning over the players and the program, and I do not think that is healthy for a fan forum. If it is expected of everyone to post opinions of a certain decorum, then the least that should happen is the responses to any critical threads should be civil and accepting of other's views. If you want evidence of this, look at the thread regarding the ESPN ariticle written by a Penn State grad, who wrote unfavorably about Duke. The first response was "I don't pay attention to anything she writes. I think she is a UNC grad anyway" or something along those lines. Why can't she just be writing an article about how Duke has been as successful in the last 7 years? Why does she have to be a bad reporter or a UNC grad, or anything like that?

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 04:40 PM
I guess I am confused then. You just said this was a public place, and so we should censor ourselves and use discretion. But everyone else calls this a private space, and that DBR can use its own discretion regarding what it allows on the boards. So which is it? If it is indeed public, then people should be able to say what they want to say. But if it is private, then what is the use of expressing personal opinions unless you are only going to post things that are accepted by the moderators?

It is public in the sense that anyone, anywhere can see what you read. It is privately owned, though, meaning the owners can do what they want with the site. Make sense?

DukeColonial
03-23-2008, 04:41 PM
One quick question and then Im done. If a person is 22 years old and plays college sports, in what way is he that different than someone who is 22 and plays professionally? So one could criticize Dwight Howard, but not Tyler Hansborough? Is it just because Howard is payed to play basketball, because he chose to sign a contract to do it, whereas Hansborough only signed a scholarship to receive a free eduaction to play basketball? So in six months or however long, one is free to criticize Hansborough if he is in the NBA, but if he is still in college, he should be free of any criticism? And please, spare me any "no, he can be criticized because he plays for UNC"...

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 04:44 PM
One quick question and then Im done. If a person is 22 years old and plays college sports, in what way is he that different than someone who is 22 and plays professionally? So one could criticize Dwight Howard, but not Tyler Hansborough? Is it just because Howard is payed to play basketball, because he chose to sign a contract to do it, whereas Hansborough only signed a scholarship to receive a free eduaction to play basketball? So in six months or however long, one is free to criticize Hansborough if he is in the NBA, but if he is still in college, he should be free of any criticism? And please, spare me any "no, he can be criticized because he plays for UNC"...

What are you trying to do at this point?

Troublemaker
03-23-2008, 04:47 PM
This all just makes me laugh. The first poster said nothing regarding the rights of DBR to shut the boards down. He said we all have an opinion to talk about this team and its players. His opinion was that DBR should not have shut down the board because they have given us a place to discuss the team and its positive and negative attributes. Maybe he went overboard calling it childish and absurd and yes, I think he is at fault for his choice of words. But immediately a number of other people lashed out at him for expressing his frustration with not being able to vent, because that is all he was saying. When someone tries to defend him, that person is told to be careful not to over-defend them. Why? If you agree with someone, then why not defend them?

It's like complaining about stores not being open on X-mas. DBR had their reasons to shut down for awhile (and I happen to agree with them). What was the cost to you and me? A few hours of not being able to post? Big deal. The store is now open again and you can now "vent" according to the rules of the store.



But Duke hasn't been the same in the last five or six seasons as they were even 8 years ago, and instead of just saying "well, 28-6 is a fine season," why can't we vent a little about the fact that they haven't been playing to the expectations that Duke has built over its history?

"Venting" is fine, but follow the rules. Just like celebrating a win is fine, but you gotta follow the rules. Eg. "Wow!! What a great f---ing win! We totally a--r--ed that team!!!!!"



DBR's front page post seems to lament the fact that, as fans of one of the best college programs in history, we can not accept a 28-6 season as a solid season unless it ends in a championship. I think its fantastic that there are people out there who would rather be 20 and 12 if it meant Duke was fresher going into March. Instead of lamenting the astronomical expectations that winning has brought Duke, why can we not cherish that Duke and its fans are one of a handful of programs that can actually expect to contend for the title year in and year out?

We DO cherish that and it IS lamentable if one can only see negatives and not the positives to a season.


So that when we fall short of that goal, we can, as fans, critique what went wrong and what they would like to see in the future? I come to DBR for my Duke news and game recaps for games I can not see in person. But I do take umbridge at the pointed comments towards fans like myself who are not afraid to critique a team who did not fulfill the expectations that they have created. It smacks of elitism to me; that because I critique a player or a coach or the team, that I am in some way less of a fan than the ones who cheer them on. I have watched as many Duke games as I could since I was 8 years old, I have sweated out the close games, I have cheered during the wins and the losses, but when the team does something that I do not believe is positive, or that confuses me, or upsets me, or just plain doesn't live up the expectations that I have cultivated after 16 years of being a fan, then I want to be able to express my frustration somewhere. Even though I am upset with the loss yesterday and think that some things could and should be done differently at Duke, does mean that I am not going to cheer them loud and long next year, or cheer for the players who I criticized to grow as athletes and people, whether for Duke or in any other endeavor in life.

I just critiqued the team and posted about what I would like to see in the future in the 08-09 thread. I hope to see your reply.

pfrduke
03-23-2008, 04:47 PM
I guess I am confused then. You just said this was a public place, and so we should censor ourselves and use discretion. But everyone else calls this a private space, and that DBR can use its own discretion regarding what it allows on the boards. So which is it? If it is indeed public, then people should be able to say what they want to say. But if it is private, then what is the use of expressing personal opinions unless you are only going to post things that are accepted by the moderators?

Don't confuse the ability to create content with the ability to access it. This is a private forum in that it is owned by DBR and the ability to create content on it is regulated by DBR (and the mods). DBR has chosen to make the content posted on the site available to the general public. With that in mind, they've chosen to limit the kinds of content that may be placed on the site.

And people are getting a touch uptight about this. No one is saying you can't criticize. No one is saying you can't offer your opinion on what needs to change. All people are being asked is to do so in a manner that is civil and not destructive.

DevilAlumna
03-23-2008, 04:51 PM
But I do take umbridge at the pointed comments towards fans like myself who are not afraid to critique a team who did not fulfill the expectations that they have created. It smacks of elitism to me; that because I critique a player or a coach or the team, that I am in some way less of a fan than the ones who cheer them on.

It's the team's fault for "creating [your] expectations"??

Take some responsibility for your own emotions and expectations. You CHOOSE to think a team will be good or bad, you MAKE DECISIONS as to how emotionally invested you will be in a team of young men.

Don't go blaming any other person/entity besides yourself for "creating expectations." That's ludicrous.

Frankly, (and this is not directed at DukeColonial here) I don't understand how anyone can tie so much of who they are as a person, to the simple playing of a game by young collegians.

That anyone would also feel the need, nay, the responsibility, to publicly castigate said young adults for some ill-conceived notion of acceptable performance just tells me that person is somewhat unbalanced in his/her priorities.

DukeColonial
03-23-2008, 04:53 PM
Im just questioning things that have been written about what I have written. Its called debate.

At this point though, Im done. I should have never questioned the powers that be at DBR. I will continue to read the site to get my news about Duke, because in that sense they are unrivaled. But Ill spare us all and stop posting on the boards. It doesn't seem to be doing anyone any good. Sorry.

Troublemaker
03-23-2008, 05:03 PM
Im just questioning things that have been written about what I have written. Its called debate.

At this point though, Im done. I should have never questioned the powers that be at DBR. I will continue to read the site to get my news about Duke, because in that sense they are unrivaled. But Ill spare us all and stop posting on the boards. It doesn't seem to be doing anyone any good. Sorry.

I don't feel spared at all. I want you to continue posting. If you stop posting right now, I'll feel like you just wanted the ability to criticize without following rules/decorum but when others criticize your criticism ("It's called debate", as you would say), you take offense and leave. You can dish criticism but can you take?

ricks68
03-23-2008, 05:07 PM
Now that the boards are back up and the diatribes are beginning again, maybe this would be a good time to start tracking those people that just "don't get it" and kick them off this private website that is read by the public.

Criticism should be acceptable on this board, but not in the manner of some of the potentially harmful unconstructive type that has been going on for some time this year.

Do you remember when Devil Momma (sp?) used to follow the boards when her son was playing for us? If she had read some of the comments about what have been evidently said about some of our players this year, maybe her son wouldn't have stayed around to help us win that champioship in 2001.

You don't know who is reading these boards since it is out there for basically anyone to read. So, maybe some of the criticisms you are dishing out, and in the form your are dishing them out in, towards DBR and the team, should be directed towards yourself.

ricks

DukeCO2009
03-23-2008, 05:09 PM
As a private entity, so to speak, DBR can enforce whatever rules it wants--believe it or not, I'll actually defend Jumbo here. The owners can control what is posted, who posts here, and every other aspect of this board. I don't think anyone's arguing this fact. What people like Duke Colonial are trying to point out is that some of the rules might be preventing DBR from reaching its full potential. The pervasive "rah-rah" attitude DBR cultivates, in my opinion, is not conducive to very constructive discussion. Yes, it's in poor taste to say something along the lines of "My dead grandmother could free throws more consistently than Player X", but I don't see the problem with saying, "Player X's ball-handling really did us in today--he should see less of the court if he doesn't step it up in the next couple games." Apparently DBR does, and that's fine; it's the mods'/owners' prerogative to censor as they see fit. To lump those two kinds of criticisms into one category, however, is in my opinion off-base.

I and a lot of others think the censorship is quite frequently overzealous and makes DBR look like it has its head in the sand. If Player X doesn't hustle on defense or takes ill-advised shots, saying as much on this board isn't a personal attack; it's an observation. Look, we're all here because we love Duke, Duke basketball, Coach K, etc., and nothing--not a bad game, not a bad season, not a missed free throw, not a poorly-timed turnover--will ever take that love away from us. To critique Brodhead's handling of the lacrosse incident, for instance, is not to condemn the school nor is it to condemn Brodhead as a person; it is simply to say that, in that particular situation, he screwed up. Likewise, when someone on the board says that Player X needs to step it up, that person isn't making a judgement about the player's character and doesn't love Duke any less because the player had a poor game.

Debate is healthy; personal attacks are not. I respectfully disagree with DBR's definition of a personal attack/excessive negativity, but it's the DBR's right to hold its posters to whatever standards it sees fit. Perhaps a reexamination/relaxation of the rules would be a positive, though; I think this board could stand to benefit a great deal from a bit more constructive criticism. I'm not suggesting turning this place into TDD, but I think this place would be a lot more welcoming if people could say "I thought not going to a zone with X minutes left was kind of silly since the players appeared to be tired" without fearing for their heads/posting rights.

I know Jumbo, etc. will probably issue their standard response to this post, and that's fine. Again, it's their prerogative to run this board however they want to run it. I would, however, like to think that some people will take this is food for thought.

Chard
03-23-2008, 05:15 PM
I stopped reading after the first few posts in this thread. I didn't think the shut down was a good idea. I wanted to visit the boards last night but only found that it was shut down. I had to go over to TDD in order to see what my fellow Duke fans had to say. I think both boards could learn from each other. We are fans, aren't we? Is this really a fan's joint if all of us get tossed out because of a few blowhards?:rolleyes:



I and a lot of others think the censorship is quite frequently overzealous and makes DBR look like it has its head in the sand.

I'm not suggesting turning this place into TDD, but I think this place would be a lot more welcoming if people could say "I thought not going to a zone with X minutes left was kind of silly since the players appeared to be tired" without fearing for their heads/posting rights.

Again, it's their prerogative to run this board however they want to run it. I would, however, like to think that some people will take this is food for thought.

Well said.

Cavlaw
03-23-2008, 05:19 PM
Frankly, I think anyone with less than 10 posts who is complaining ought to just sit down and be quiet (wouldn't I love to be more colorful with that sentence).

Creating a screenname within 24 hours of an NCAA tourney loss and coming here with the sole intention of posting negatively (and then complaining about it upon discovering such behavior is frowned upon) doesn't exactly suggest the new poster has any interest in joining the community, and I don't imagine anyone in the community has any interest in catering to the desires of people who aren't interested in joining the community.

Indoor66
03-23-2008, 05:19 PM
As a private entity, so to speak, DBR can enforce whatever rules it wants--believe it or not, I'll actually defend Jumbo here. The owners can control what is posted, who posts here, and every other aspect of this board. I don't think anyone's arguing this fact. What people like Duke Colonial are trying to point out is that some of the rules might be preventing DBR from reaching its full potential. The pervasive "rah-rah" attitude DBR cultivates, in my opinion, is not conducive to very constructive discussion. Yes, it's in poor taste to say something along the lines of "My dead grandmother could free throws more consistently than Player X", but I don't see the problem with saying, "Player X's ball-handling really did us in today--he should see less of the court if he doesn't step it up in the next couple games." Apparently DBR does, and that's fine; it's the mods'/owners' prerogative to censor as they see fit. To lump those two kinds of criticisms into one category, however, is in my opinion off-base.

I and a lot of others think the censorship is quite frequently overzealous and makes DBR look like it has its head in the sand. If Player X doesn't hustle on defense or takes ill-advised shots, saying as much on this board isn't a personal attack; it's an observation. Look, we're all here because we love Duke, Duke basketball, Coach K, etc., and nothing--not a bad game, not a bad season, not a missed free throw, not a poorly-timed turnover--will ever take that love away from us. To critique Brodhead's handling of the lacrosse incident, for instance, is not to condemn the school nor is it to condemn Brodhead as a person; it is simply to say that, in that particular situation, he screwed up. Likewise, when someone on the board says that Player X needs to step it up, that person isn't making a judgement about the player's character and doesn't love Duke any less because the player had a poor game.

Debate is healthy; personal attacks are not. I respectfully disagree with DBR's definition of a personal attack/excessive negativity, but it's the DBR's right to hold its posters to whatever standards it sees fit. Perhaps a reexamination/relaxation of the rules would be a positive, though; I think this board could stand to benefit a great deal from a bit more constructive criticism. I'm not suggesting turning this place into TDD, but I think this place would be a lot more welcoming if people could say "I thought not going to a zone with X minutes left was kind of silly since the players appeared to be tired" without fearing for their heads/posting rights.

I know Jumbo, etc. will probably issue their standard response to this post, and that's fine. Again, it's their prerogative to run this board however they want to run it. I would, however, like to think that some people will take this is food for thought.

First, there is no need for a "so to speak" qualifier on the issue of this board being a private entity. It is a private entity.

Second, I (me, my opinion, only) the problem with your example of a statement (the one I emphasized by making it bold) is this: you go too far. If you would stop your criticism with the first clause you would be OK. It is the second one that goes over the line. The play today is the issue. The playing time issue is extraneous and a rather gratuitous slap.

Many on this board, including some moderators, IMO, make the same error. Their criticisms, comments and statements might be much more effective and acceptable if they left the last clause or sentence off the post.

JBDuke
03-23-2008, 05:22 PM
I guess I am confused then. You just said this was a public place, and so we should censor ourselves and use discretion. But everyone else calls this a private space, and that DBR can use its own discretion regarding what it allows on the boards. So which is it? If it is indeed public, then people should be able to say what they want to say. But if it is private, then what is the use of expressing personal opinions unless you are only going to post things that are accepted by the moderators?

I concede your first point. I am not new to reading DBR, have been since I stumbled upon it looking for information about the Battier-Brand-Burgess-Avery recruiting class, and I went through a period where I read the boards every day, but haven't been as religious about it as I once did. But I do find that the more critical views around the boards are often attacked by the masses because they aren't always fawning over the players and the program, and I do not think that is healthy for a fan forum. If it is expected of everyone to post opinions of a certain decorum, then the least that should happen is the responses to any critical threads should be civil and accepting of other's views. If you want evidence of this, look at the thread regarding the ESPN ariticle written by a Penn State grad, who wrote unfavorably about Duke. The first response was "I don't pay attention to anything she writes. I think she is a UNC grad anyway" or something along those lines. Why can't she just be writing an article about how Duke has been as successful in the last 7 years? Why does she have to be a bad reporter or a UNC grad, or anything like that?

This is a publicly-accessible place. You don’t have to pay or have some sort of card or other special access to visit and read, and anyone can register and post. However, it is privately owned, so the owners can establish the rules for what is acceptable and unacceptable content in the posts here. The owners have clearly stated that they welcome insightful and constructive criticism, but that they will not allow bashing of the program and/or the players. They are not looking for only sheep to come and post here, but they are expecting their guests to be polite about it. A debate is fine, a flaming war is not.

As for your opinion that only posts that are “fawning over the players and the program” are acceptable, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you truly have been reading since the late 90’s, you’d know this. There has been plenty of legitimate, well-argued criticism of both Duke players and the Duke program here over the years. As for being “civil and accepting of other views”, I think DBR does that pretty well, if those views are presented with civility and respect. Uncivil responses to criticism are deleted and cited by mods, just as are uncivil criticisms themselves.

As for the particular thread you mentioned regarding the reporting in the Times, this is a little different. The author of that article didn’t come onto DBR and post it, she’s a member of the media, and she wrote it for ESPN. Again, if you have been paying attention around here for the last several years, you’ll know that this community has become sensitive to Duke’s treatment by the national media. Admins, mods, and long-standing members of DBR have noticed the trend and attempted to refute erroneous articles. Others have gone further and taken umbrage on Duke’s behalf and strike back with less civil responses. As a mod, I give a little more leeway in such circumstances than I would if the author had posted on our boards; however, when I have noted particularly egregious behavior, I have both posted and moderated in response. Generally, I think the better response is to ignore such articles and try to get a more positive message out yourself. Thankfully, this is what Duke seems to be trying to do.

So, please remember – criticism is welcome here, but only if given constructively. Bashing of Duke players or coaches will not be tolerated.

DukeColonial
03-23-2008, 05:36 PM
Frankly, I think anyone with less than 10 posts who is complaining ought to just sit down and be quiet (wouldn't I love to be more colorful with that sentence).

Creating a screenname within 24 hours of an NCAA tourney loss and coming here with the sole intention of posting negatively (and then complaining about it upon discovering such behavior is frowned upon) doesn't exactly suggest the new poster has any interest in joining the community, and I don't imagine anyone in the community has any interest in catering to the desires of people who aren't interested in joining the community.

This is why I criticize. It is posts like this. So just because I just made my screen name and just started posting yesterday means I don't have anything constructive to say? Isn't that like saying "well, he is 18 years old, he shouldn't vote until he gets some experience in this world"?

Should new people only post after a Duke win so we can all exhalt the all powerful Blue Devils?

DukeCO2009
03-23-2008, 05:50 PM
First, there is no need for a "so to speak" qualifier on the issue of this board being a private entity. It is a private entity.

Second, I (me, my opinion, only) the problem with your example of a statement (the one I emphasized by making it bold) is this: you go too far. If you would stop your criticism with the first clause you would be OK. It is the second one that goes over the line. The play today is the issue. The playing time issue is extraneous and a rather gratuitous slap.

Many on this board, including some moderators, IMO, make the same error. Their criticisms, comments and statements might be much more effective and acceptable if they left the last clause or sentence off the post.

I see your point, although I'm not sure I agree with it entirely. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you to clarify a bit. Are you saying that posters shouldn't question a player's PT after a single poor performance because doing so amounts to snap judgement? That, I can understand; I might not have given the best example in my previous post. Let me give you another hypothetical: a player's production has dropped off considerably, and for the past 6 games he's clearly been in a funk--scoring below average, making uncharacterically bad decisions with the ball, not playing well on defense, etc. Do you think, given the fact that the player's recent performances are indicative of a trend, that a poster would be out of line to suggest that the player's PT should be cut down a bit until he steps his game back up to previous levels? If you are, I respectfully disagree.

Indoor66
03-23-2008, 05:54 PM
I see your point, although I'm not sure I agree with it entirely. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you to clarify a bit. Are you saying that posters shouldn't question a player's PT after a single poor performance because doing so amounts to snap judgement? That, I can understand; I might not have given the best example in my previous post. Let me give you another hypothetical: a player's production has dropped off considerably, and for the past 6 games he's clearly been in a funk--scoring below average, making uncharacterically bad decisions with the ball, not playing well on defense, etc. Do you think, given the fact that the player's recent performances are indicative of a trend, that a poster would be out of line to suggest that the player's PT should be cut down a bit until he steps his game back up to previous levels? If you are, I respectfully disagree.

I don't think you see my point and I may well have not been clear. It has nothing to do with what was said in what I quoted, that was merely illustrative. My point is that many of us (me well included), when making an observation or criticism, tend to go too far. Often we make our point and then add just a little more, for good measure. It is that little more that gets us in trouble. Kind of like: I am angry with you, you SOB. Leave off the last clause and life is often easier.

DukeCO2009
03-23-2008, 06:01 PM
I don't think you see my point and I may well have not been clear. It has nothing to do with what was said in what I quoted, that was merely illustrative. My point is that many of us (me well included), when making an observation or criticism, tend to go too far. Often we make our point and then add just a little more, for good measure. It is that little more that gets us in trouble. Kind of like: I am angry with you, you SOB. Leave off the last clause and life is often easier.

Point taken. I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye on what constitutes "too far". Saying "Player X hasn't been himself for the past few weeks; maybe giving some of his minutes to Player Y until he steps it up would be best for him and for the team", in my opinion, is just being constructive. If DBR thinks otherwise, that's fine.

Troublemaker
03-23-2008, 06:10 PM
Point taken. I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye on what constitutes "too far". Saying "Player X hasn't been himself for the past few weeks; maybe giving some of his minutes to Player Y until he steps it up would be best for him and for the team", in my opinion, is just being constructive. If DBR thinks otherwise, that's fine.

I am certain that DBR and the mods would allow your statement about Player X and Y, but I don't want to speak for them. I'm surprised you actually think that statement would be disallowed.

Again, I criticize all the time. I just follow the rules. It's not criticism that's disallowed; it's breaking the guidelines.

watzone
03-23-2008, 06:35 PM
DBR has generally set itself apart from other message boards. Some think it is elitist while others scream big brother. My thinking is if you want to rant there are plenty of places to do it in as tacky a manner as you want. TDD allows posters tons of leverage and perhaps it is the best home for some. Rivals is in between and there is a reason I have a premium only message board. There is also a reason I link to this board. While it is imperfect, it generally represents Duke in a good manner and remains grounded with a limited amount of garbage to wade throuh before you get to rational discussion. Personally I like it. I don;t have the time I use to which has knocked my post count down, but if I had the time, I would spend it here rather than the rant zones. Posters have always been more accountable here, despite remaing annonymous.

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 07:37 PM
Now that the boards are back up and the diatribes are beginning again, maybe this would be a good time to start tracking those people that just "don't get it" and kick them off this private website that is read by the public.

Criticism should be acceptable on this board, but not in the manner of some of the potentially harmful unconstructive type that has been going on for some time this year.

Do you remember when Devil Momma (sp?) used to follow the boards when her son was playing for us? If she had read some of the comments about what have been evidently said about some of our players this year, maybe her son wouldn't have stayed around to help us win that champioship in 2001.

You don't know who is reading these boards since it is out there for basically anyone to read. So, maybe some of the criticisms you are dishing out, and in the form your are dishing them out in, towards DBR and the team, should be directed towards yourself.

ricks

You all can help by reporting posts (just click the icon that looks like a caution sign). We can only read so many posts at a time -- this is a community that relies on all its members.

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 07:42 PM
. I'm not suggesting turning this place into TDD, but I think this place would be a lot more welcoming if people could say "I thought not going to a zone with X minutes left was kind of silly since the players appeared to be tired" without fearing for their heads/posting rights.

I know Jumbo, etc. will probably issue their standard response to this post, and that's fine. Again, it's their prerogative to run this board however they want to run it. I would, however, like to think that some people will take this is food for thought.

You still don't get it, and don't put words in my mouth. Your example above wouldn't be "censored," as you like to call it. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that Duke play zone. It's all about how you say it. And you'd better be willing to back up your arguments, because people would have strong counters to them.

The problem is as much with the way people say things as with the subject they bring up.

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 07:49 PM
This is why I criticize. It is posts like this. So just because I just made my screen name and just started posting yesterday means I don't have anything constructive to say? Isn't that like saying "well, he is 18 years old, he shouldn't vote until he gets some experience in this world"?

Should new people only post after a Duke win so we can all exhalt the all powerful Blue Devils?

I think what Cavlaw is saying goes as follows (and it's an oft-used example that I'll credit to my friend, Stray Gator):

Suppose you showed up at someone's house the first time. Suppose they asked you to take off your shoes. Maybe you really don't like taking off your shoes. But it's their house. Would you put up a fuss?

Suppose you met someone for the first time. Suppose you noticed that they dressed really poorly. Would you tell them right away?

The point is that when you're new in any situation, it is incumbent upon you to learn the way things work, rather than walking in, slamming the door behind you, and announcing how things are going to be. When people get to know you, and you become part of the community, you'll have a much more respected voice. It's simply common sense and common courtesy.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-23-2008, 07:51 PM
I've struggled with this post for a while, so please take it with a grain of salt and consider it part of an observation rather than a pointed critique. I think some recent frustration stems from a phenomenon similar to the flipside of the "destructively negative" infraction that goes on a lot but isn't marked. Often, when a critical opinion is voiced it seems like there are some posters (generally, to their credit, the mods do not do this) who quickly respond with some variation of "you're not a 'real' Duke fan for saying that" (often accompanied by terms like "spoiled" "don't remember," or "don't appreciate"). The assumption seems to be that "real" fans only say positive things, accept that K is never to be questioned, and that the players' performance should never be discussed except in glowing terms.

While I completely agree that we should all be mindful of the hard work of the players and K's past record of success, I humbly contend that the performance of neither should be above reproach. Saying that "real" fans don't question K, the team, etc. is, to my mind, strongly analogous to the old Bush line that "real" Americans don't question the administration. It is possible to love an institution and still recognize the ways that it is imperfect. It is also possible to discuss those imperfections respectfully and thoughtfully without sacrificing one's status as a "real" fan.

I'm very certain that some "negative" posters go over the line and I have no qualms about the mods thwaping those who do so. In my experience, however, "destructively positive" posts of this type are not similarly dealt with. This generates the sense that, to paraphrase Justice Scalia, DBR is "licens[ing] one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules." The statements "Duke Post Player X will be the best big man in the nation and be NPOY next season" and "DPP X can't score and shouldn't get off the bench next season" are equally absurd right now, but only one will get shot down.

Good-natured optimism of the sort that Ozzie brings is, imo, always welcome and makes any discussion more lighthearted and positive. But there is a brand of ostensibly "positive" post that can get pretty nasty, and overtly personal, pretty quickly. It has been my observation that those posts have a destructive impact on discussion equal to that of any "negative" post. Like destructively negative posts, those posts generally offer little of substance and tend to inflame, rather than diminish acrimony.

Again, I commend the mods on avoiding this kind of "destructively positive" personal attack and wholeheartedly support their good efforts to keep the mindless negative posts out. At the same time, I wanted to express my frustration, as it is a frustration I believe others share, with some posts that, while "positive" towards the team, are not, imo, positive towards other posters or the board as a whole.

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 07:51 PM
I am certain that DBR and the mods would allow your statement about Player X and Y, but I don't want to speak for them. I'm surprised you actually think that statement would be disallowed.

Again, I criticize all the time. I just follow the rules. It's not criticism that's disallowed; it's breaking the guidelines.

Exactly. Rarely does a thread go by in which Troublemaker posts that a debate doesn't ensue. But he's really good about doing two things 1) respecting the people he's debating and 2) backing up his points with evidence and logic, while clearly understanding the difference between destructive and constructive criticism. I'd point to his posts as a guide for how this website should operate. Spirited debate is encouraged here. It just needs to be intelligent and respectful.

TwoDukeTattoos
03-23-2008, 07:59 PM
I must admit, I was put off by the DBR shutting down the boards. It's true, it is privately owned, but so are many other boards of many different natures and topics, however, I am not sure how many of them are actually "down for a bit" because the moderators dislike the tone.

The only thing I can figure is that at least some of the moderators know or have some sort of aquaintance to actual Duke players, staff, media, or other university body.

I have experienced at least two of the moderators (whose names I won't mention) to be edgy and brash with some of their responses over the years, both publicly and privately, therefore, I question their disecretion to some degree.

Jumbo can request senseless "voodoo" and "spells" before the game, but we aren't allowed to express frustration unless the tone is mellow and there are at least three paragraphs of thoughts or research to validate the point being made.

Lighten up. Suck it up. Carry on. Go Duke.

throatybeard
03-23-2008, 08:02 PM
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

The moderators did not shut the board down.

The site owners shut the board down.

The moderators do volunteer work for the site owners.

rockymtn devil
03-23-2008, 08:04 PM
I must admit, I was put off by the DBR shutting down the boards. It's true, it is privately owned, but so are many other boards of many different natures and topics, however, I am not sure how many of them are actually "down for a bit" because the moderators dislike the tone.

The only thing I can figure is that at least some of the moderators know or have some sort of aquaintance to actual Duke players, staff, media, or other university body.

I have experienced at least two of the moderators (whose names I won't mention) to be edgy and brash with some of their responses over the years, both publicly and privately, therefore, I question their disecretion to some degree.

Jumbo can request senseless "voodoo" and "spells" before the game, but we aren't allowed to express frustration unless the tone is mellow and there are at least three paragraphs of thoughts or research to validate the point being made.

Lighten up. Suck it up. Carry on. Go Duke.

I generally have problems with a lot of the "censoring" of posts on the boards (I know, I know...I can go elsewhere), however I'll give the mods and owners the benefit of the doubt here. Shutting down the boards was an extraordinary response, but it was probably warranted. I question censoring posts that may be critical and negative but are borderline unacceptable. I don't think the posts that caused the board to be shut down fit into this category--I have no doubt they were pointless negativity that attacked college students in ways well beyond the basketball court.

Jumbo
03-23-2008, 08:13 PM
I must admit, I was put off by the DBR shutting down the boards. It's true, it is privately owned, but so are many other boards of many different natures and topics, however, I am not sure how many of them are actually "down for a bit" because the moderators dislike the tone.


The only thing I can figure is that at least some of the moderators know or have some sort of aquaintance to actual Duke players, staff, media, or other university body.

This was done by the owners, not the moderators. Big difference.


I have experienced at least two of the moderators (whose names I won't mention) to be edgy and brash with some of their responses over the years, both publicly and privately, therefore, I question their disecretion to some degree.

Jumbo can request senseless "voodoo" and "spells" before the game, but we aren't allowed to express frustration unless the tone is mellow and there are at least three paragraphs of thoughts or research to validate the point being made.

Lighten up. Suck it up. Carry on. Go Duke.

I don't know what you have against good-natured threads hoping for karma before a big game. But I do know that if you think you need "at least three paragraphs of thoughts or research to validate the point being made," you aren't really getting what we're saying.

Finally, all I can say is the following: This site isn't for everyone. That shouldn't be surprising, yet somehow the concept makes people uncomfortable. There are so many other Duke sites that I don't frequent because I don't like the way they are run. I found the one that best suited my interests.

TwoDukeTattoos
03-23-2008, 08:22 PM
This was done by the owners, not the moderators. Big difference.



I don't know what you have against good-natured threads hoping for karma before a big game. But I do know that if you think you need "at least three paragraphs of thoughts or research to validate the point being made," you aren't really getting what we're saying.

Finally, all I can say is the following: This site isn't for everyone. That shouldn't be surprising, yet somehow the concept makes people uncomfortable. There are so many other Duke sites that I don't frequent because I don't like the way they are run. I found the one that best suited my interests.

I agree, this board isn't for everyone, which is why I love it so much and have visited and posted here (although under different aliases before the new format was presented) since probably 2001 or so.

I just feel as though policing could be done a little more privately, excluding major posts addressing general problems, regardless whether it's the owners or the moderators. Still, I feel there is some affiliation/aquaintance/relationship by some of the owners and/or moderators to member(s) of the Duke family in some way. Which, generally speaking, is a great thing in regards to the flavor of this community.

Exiled_Devil
03-23-2008, 10:39 PM
This is why I criticize. It is posts like this. So just because I just made my screen name and just started posting yesterday means I don't have anything constructive to say? Isn't that like saying "well, he is 18 years old, he shouldn't vote until he gets some experience in this world"?

Should new people only post after a Duke win so we can all exhalt the all powerful Blue Devils?

Other's have responded to this as well (re-read Stray Gator's quote) but let me rephrase:

Somehow the internet has given people an idea that they have the right to be part of whatever group they want and behave however they want. This is not true. We have a community here that has norms and history. If you want to feel comfortable posting here, you need to figure those out and play by them. I am not talking about modding and rules. I am talking about norms. Even without the mods, we police ourselves with a call for logic, even temper and evidence. Heck, I fear Jumbo more in a debate than as a mod - he takes people apart when they make unsupported claims.

Having said all this, don't stop posting. Bring in comments. Just don't expect people to accept venting without some support. Logic, stats and evidence are the norm. Opinion and emotion don't carry a lot of weight here without them.

RelativeWays
03-23-2008, 10:44 PM
I will say that I enjoy DBR quite a bit, and I'm really glad I found this place last year. Its made this past season that much more entertaining. I think sometimes DBR can seem a bit heavy handed and I'm not sure if they've found a "happy medium" between allowing debate versus pointless trolling and bashing. I've seen posts that I thought were legitimate arguments deleted and I've seen posts that come dangerously close to trolling that escape the mods eye.

My biggest suggestion to DBR is this. DO NOT DELETE THREADS OR POSTS! Unless they are just ridiculously offensive, just lock the thread instead. Let us DBR users read the threads so we can see what happened and what wasn't tolerated. Sometimes its hard to get a good idea of what is allowed and what is not, the rules can be a bit amorphic.

Still, I like this place and would rather they err on the side of caution and intelligence rather than pandering to the trolls and 13 year old ninjas

jkidd31
03-23-2008, 11:42 PM
I've got two views on critism. First I think it's wrong to attack players. These are 18-22 who even though they are rewarded with the opportunity to get a world class education, are not paid. Going in they know what is going to be expected of them both athlectically and academically and they still choose to play at Duke.

However I think as long as you bring up valid points and it's not nasty I feel the coaching staff is fair game. Coach K is paid in seven figures and is essentially the CEO of Duke Basketball. If the stock does well the CEO is a rock star. If it hits the skids people are calling for changes.

I think we saw many knee jerk reactions yesterday and some of the things I saw were incoherrent for a game that ended in the afternoon. Watching Duke over the past 20 some years you can tell when the team can make some type of comeback and when they won't and unfortuantely yesterday was one of those days when you knew with 10 minutes left it there wasn't going to be a next week. We'll never know what exactly happened, who was sick and who wasn't, but it was obvious the Bellmont game took its toll. And based on the number of upsets we've seen and almost seen this is one of those years.

Personally I'd rather see my team loss with class then to see players (ie Tennesee) pulling their jersey's out because they got lucky to beat Butler. UCLA wasn't much better against Tx A&M, but at least they overcame a big defict instead of blowing a big lead and hanging on.

ajtrublu
03-23-2008, 11:42 PM
I must admit, I was put off by the DBR shutting down the boards. It's true, it is privately owned, but so are many other boards of many different natures and topics, however, I am not sure how many of them are actually "down for a bit" because the moderators dislike the tone.


I actually appreciated the decision to shut down the boards for a cooling off period. I was hurting, as we all were, after the loss and wanted to come here to commiserate with other fans. But much of what I was reading was not insightful, constructive criticism or shared sorrow. It was nasty, mean-spirited, and destructive. And that was only the stuff I got to read. I imagine there was a lot more, and a lot worse, said that was removed. For one of the very few times in over 20 years, it made me ashamed of the behavior of the Duke fans.


The only thing I can figure is that at least some of the moderators know or have some sort of aquaintance to actual Duke players, staff, media, or other university body.

Whether or not that's the case is immaterial. We know that, in the past, players and their families have visited these boards. It's a pretty good rule of thumb to post as if whatever you're writing might get back to them, because if you think comments made here don't, you're not living in the real world. Think about how the young men you profess to be a fan of would feel if they read it. Don't say anything here you wouldn't say to DeMarcus's mother's face, or Greg's, or Kyle's, etc.



Jumbo can request senseless "voodoo" and "spells" before the game, but we aren't allowed to express frustration unless the tone is mellow and there are at least three paragraphs of thoughts or research to validate the point being made.

When you have to exaggerate to make your point, it's an unmistakable sign it's not a strong one. Having lighthearted discussions about mojo or rituals is hardly the same thing as slinging mud at these kids. However they played, they don't deserve that. And I respect the owners of this board for doing what they felt was necessary to curb it.

Channing
03-24-2008, 12:22 AM
I really don't understand people who are saying that they don't understand the posts that have been censored etc. Unless I am really missing something, these posts are legitimately over the edge.

If anyone wants to go back and check my post history, I have some very very critical posts. I have singled out players by name, and in retrospect, I have made unwarranted personal attacks at times.

In the chats during games I am pretty volatile, I curse players when they mess up, and the minute momentum shifts against us I start predicting a loss.

However, I have never once been censored, I have never once (to my knowledge) had a post deleted, and I have never once been kicked out of the chat. That leads me to believe that for the most part, those that are being censored are really over the line, not just a little over the line. Again, perhaps I have missed something, but it does not seem like the mods are policing criticism. As some have stated - its the way you phrase your criticism.

I have had responses to my posts reciting the party line - often times leaving me frustrated by someone not taking off their Duke Blue Glasses. But my point has never been removed, even at its most critical.

colchar
03-24-2008, 12:29 AM
Please. We are guests in DBR's home. It's that simple. They were totally within their rights, and from the bit I saw before they shut it down, they certainly needed to do something. Again, we are guests....

While it is certainly within their right to shut down the forums if they wish, I still think it was a bad decision. Fans have every right to complain about teams and/or players and that applies to college sports in the same way it does to pro sports. Personal attacks on players (ie. player X s**ks) are completely unwarranted but criticisms, even attacks, on a player's performance (ie. player X made a really stupid decision at the end of the half, what the heck was he thinking?!?) are fully justified.

But, around here, I sometimes get the feeling that no criticisms are allowed.

colchar
03-24-2008, 12:38 AM
But I do find that the more critical views around the boards are often attacked by the masses because they aren't always fawning over the players and the program, and I do not think that is healthy for a fan forum.

You're not the only one who has noticed something of a gruopthink mentality when it comes to the team. That's one of the reasons that I post so infrequently on the main board as opposed to how often I post on the other two boards.

colchar
03-24-2008, 12:44 AM
Criticism should be acceptable on this board, but not in the manner of some of the potentially harmful unconstructive type that has been going on for some time this year.



The problem is that criticism, even constructive criticism, isn't always accepted. I can't count the number of times posters have been slagged for daring to question one of Coach K's decisions (slowing down the offense comes to mind). The general response goes something like this "You're not Coach K and until you've had the success he's had you have no right to question his decisions." That always struck me as rather silly and, as I mentioned in a previous post, it smacks of a groupthink mentality around here that I have, at times, found troubling.

colchar
03-24-2008, 12:50 AM
The pervasive "rah-rah" attitude DBR cultivates, in my opinion, is not conducive to very constructive discussion. Yes, it's in poor taste to say something along the lines of "My dead grandmother could free throws more consistently than Player X",

It is also problematic that this only applies to Duke players. If someone were to attack Shaq's (lack of) free throw ability it wouldn't be questioned. But say that about a Duke player and there will be heck to pay. There is a regular poster here (a mod I think) who has as their sig line a link to a rather funny website put up by a former Maryland player. That is deemed acceptable because the guy played for Maryland but can you imagine the reaction if someone were to have as their sig line a link to a similar site put up by a Duke player? I couldn't care less about that poster's sig line myself as I think the website is fair game but it is the double standard that I find troubling.

colchar
03-24-2008, 12:54 AM
Second, I (me, my opinion, only) the problem with your example of a statement (the one I emphasized by making it bold) is this: you go too far. If you would stop your criticism with the first clause you would be OK. It is the second one that goes over the line. The play today is the issue. The playing time issue is extraneous and a rather gratuitous slap.



You've got to be kidding. Mentioning that if a player doesn't pull up their socks they deserve to sit for a while does not, in any way, cross a line - it is a perfectly acceptable comment to make about a player's poor play.

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 12:54 AM
The problem is that criticism, even constructive criticism, isn't always accepted. I can't count the number of times posters have been slagged for daring to question one of Coach K's decisions (slowing down the offense comes to mind). The general response goes something like this "You're not Coach K and until you've had the success he's had you have no right to question his decisions." That always struck me as rather silly and, as I mentioned in a previous post, it smacks of a groupthink mentality around here that I have, at times, found troubling.

I really haven't seen that anywhere. Sounds like you're reaching back to code days. It's odd that you'd suddenly decide to post about basketball now after not doing so all season, essentially.

colchar
03-24-2008, 01:12 AM
I really haven't seen that anywhere. Sounds like you're reaching back to code days.


Yeah, I probably am going back to those days but the point remains - criticism is not always welcomed around here no matter how constructive it is.



It's odd that you'd suddenly decide to post about basketball now after not doing so all season, essentially.

I'm not sure I get your point. Because I haven't bothered to post about basketball all seasons means that I am not allowed to do so now? I haven't posted on the main board much lately (if at all) but still read it a few times a week. After the boards were shut down I knew this would be the forum in which that decision was discussed so I came here to see what happened. When I came across this thread I felt that I had something to say (more about the decision than about basketball) so I said it but, by the tone of your comment, it seems you don't think I should be involved in this discussion just because I have chosen not to post about basketball in a while. Do you mean to say that just because someone takes a bit of a hiatus they are no longer entitled to an opinion?

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 01:19 AM
Yeah, I probably am going back to those days but the point remains - criticism is not always welcomed around here no matter how constructive it is.
That's simply not true. I'll be glad to PM you some links to constructively critical for you to peruse. Just let me know.




I'm not sure I get your point. Because I haven't bothered to post about basketball all seasons means that I am not allowed to do so now? I haven't posted on the main board much lately (if at all) but still read it a few times a week. After the boards were shut down I knew this would be the forum in which that decision was discussed so I came here to see what happened. When I came across this thread I felt that I had something to say (more about the decision than about basketball) so I said it but, by the tone of your comment, it seems you don't think I should be involved in this discussion just because I have chosen not to post about basketball in a while. Do you mean to say that just because someone takes a bit of a hiatus they are no longer entitled to an opinion?

I didn't say anything about not being "allowed." I just seems strange to suddenly chime in on a board where you've quit posting the second there's a bit of controversy. That could certainly lead a reasonable mind to conclude that you're more interested in participating in the controversy (the discussion of what happened yesterday) than the community (every basketball discussion every other day of the year).

colchar
03-24-2008, 01:32 AM
That's simply not true. I'll be glad to PM you some links to constructively critical for you to peruse. Just let me know.


Yes, it is true. Both you and I have been around here for a long time and we've both seen the threads in which people were attacked for daring to question some of Coach K's decisions. It certainly happened back in the code days.





I didn't say anything about not being "allowed." I just seems strange to suddenly chime in on a board where you've quit posting the second there's a bit of controversy. That could certainly lead a reasonable mind to conclude that you're more interested in participating in the controversy (the discussion of what happened yesterday) than the community (every basketball discussion every other day of the year).

I didn't have anything to say about basketball this year (I only watched one or two games) so I didn't bother. But, as a member of this community, I feel that I have every right to chime in on this thread as I do have something to say about this topic (as opposed to having nothing to say about basketball in general this year). Voicing one's opinion, especially about something that (in my view) has gone on here for a long time does not mean that I am more interested in controversy - it simply means that I am choosing to discuss an issue that I feel impacts on this entire community.

DukeCO2009
03-24-2008, 01:35 AM
That's simply not true. I'll be glad to PM you some links to constructively critical for you to peruse. Just let me know.





I didn't say anything about not being "allowed." I just seems strange to suddenly chime in on a board where you've quit posting the second there's a bit of controversy. That could certainly lead a reasonable mind to conclude that you're more interested in participating in the controversy (the discussion of what happened yesterday) than the community (every basketball discussion every other day of the year).

I have no idea what the guy's motive is, but what does it even matter? I think we should ALL be talking about what happened yesterday; perhaps a better DBR will come out of some rational discourse. He's not participating in the "controversy", either, but in the discussion of it. To me, this is the very nexus of what it means to participate in the "community". No reason to go after him like you have.

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 01:39 AM
Yes, it is true. Both you and I have been around here for a long time and we've both seen the threads in which people were attacked for daring to question some of Coach K's decisions. It certainly happened back in the code days.

This board is different from the code days. That's my point -- if you aren't reading it/posting on it, do you really have a sense for what's going on?


I didn't have anything to say about basketball this year (I only watched one or two games) so I didn't bother. But, as a member of this community, I feel that I have every right to chime in on this thread as I do have something to say about this topic (as opposed to having nothing to say about basketball in general this year). Voicing one's opinion, especially about something that (in my view) has gone on here for a long time does not mean that I am more interested in controversy - it simply means that I am choosing to discuss an issue that I feel impacts on this entire community.

No one's saying you don't have a right. But since you didn't read the posts in question, didn't see the level to which this place descended and haven't contributed to the conversation in a long time, you're probably not in the strongest position to weigh in on this particular topic. Do you understand the difference?

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 01:41 AM
I have no idea what the guy's motive is, but what does it even matter? I think we should ALL be talking about what happened yesterday; perhaps a better DBR will come out of some rational discourse. He's not participating in the "controversy", either, but in the discussion of it. To me, this is the very nexus of what it means to participate in the "community". No reason to go after him like you have.

Colchar and I go back a long way (I've been around since DBR's inception; I'm pretty sure he's been around since at least 2000). We're having a tame discussion that I'll probably take to PM shortly. We generally get along quite well. But, yes, his motive matters and I haven't "gone after him" at all.

devildownunder
03-24-2008, 07:26 AM
First, we're all essentially dealing in the realm of the hypothetical here, because none of us owns this site and those who do own it will do whatever they please, and they have every right to do so.

Now, one criticism of the way things are handled on the board that I agree with is that there is a double standard when it comes to blind criticism and blind praise. We are constantly reminded that if we want to criticise, we must back it up with facts and be ready to support our opinion because it will be challenged. Well, I'm going to respectfully challenge the powers that be as well as the community at large to hold wildly optimistic posters to the same standard. It's irritating to post a less-than-glowing critique of how Coach K handled some endgame situation last night and have several people ask you "how many national championships have you won?" and look down the same thread and see people talking about how we shouldn't be concerned about our inside game (just as a hypothetical) and not see anyone really challenge such a statement.

It sends a message that smoke up the rear is ok but realistic criticism isn't. How can that possibly be good for the board?

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 09:09 AM
First, we're all essentially dealing in the realm of the hypothetical here, because none of us owns this site and those who do own it will do whatever they please, and they have every right to do so.

Now, one criticism of the way things are handled on the board that I agree with is that there is a double standard when it comes to blind criticism and blind praise. We are constantly reminded that if we want to criticise, we must back it up with facts and be ready to support our opinion because it will be challenged. Well, I'm going to respectfully challenge the powers that be as well as the community at large to hold wildly optimistic posters to the same standard. It's irritating to post a less-than-glowing critique of how Coach K handled some endgame situation last night and have several people ask you "how many national championships have you won?" and look down the same thread and see people talking about how we shouldn't be concerned about our inside game (just as a hypothetical) and not see anyone really challenge such a statement.

It sends a message that smoke up the rear is ok but realistic criticism isn't. How can that possibly be good for the board?

What should said hypothetical citation be? "Destuctively positive?" "Overly optimistic?"

allenmurray
03-24-2008, 09:26 AM
Frankly, I think anyone with less than 10 posts who is complaining ought to just sit down and be quiet (wouldn't I love to be more colorful with that sentence).

Creating a screenname within 24 hours of an NCAA tourney loss and coming here with the sole intention of posting negatively (and then complaining about it upon discovering such behavior is frowned upon) doesn't exactly suggest the new poster has any interest in joining the community, and I don't imagine anyone in the community has any interest in catering to the desires of people who aren't interested in joining the community.

Word. When I read an amazingly stupid post the first thing I do is look up to see that person's posting history. And more often than not they have very few posts. Credibility is earned, and it is a long slow process. There are folks here who I often disagree with, but I read them and take them seriously because of their history. I feel as though they earned the right to be taken seriously, even when I disagree with them.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-24-2008, 09:28 AM
I've struggled with this post for a while, so please take it with a grain of salt and consider it part of an observation rather than a pointed critique. I think some recent frustration stems from a phenomenon similar to the flipside of the "destructively negative" infraction that goes on a lot but isn't marked. Often, when a critical opinion is voiced it seems like there are some posters (generally, to their credit, the mods do not do this) who quickly respond with some variation of "you're not a 'real' Duke fan for saying that" (often accompanied by terms like "spoiled" "don't remember," or "don't appreciate"). The assumption seems to be that "real" fans only say positive things, accept that K is never to be questioned, and that the players' performance should never be discussed except in glowing terms.

While I completely agree that we should all be mindful of the hard work of the players and K's past record of success, I humbly contend that the performance of neither should be above reproach. Saying that "real" fans don't question K, the team, etc. is, to my mind, strongly analogous to the old Bush line that "real" Americans don't question the administration. It is possible to love an institution and still recognize the ways that it is imperfect. It is also possible to discuss those imperfections respectfully and thoughtfully without sacrificing one's status as a "real" fan.

I'm very certain that some "negative" posters go over the line and I have no qualms about the mods thwaping those who do so. In my experience, however, "destructively positive" posts of this type are not similarly dealt with. This generates the sense that, to paraphrase Justice Scalia, DBR is "licens[ing] one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules." The statements "Duke Post Player X will be the best big man in the nation and be NPOY next season" and "DPP X can't score and shouldn't get off the bench next season" are equally absurd right now, but only one will get shot down.

Good-natured optimism of the sort that Ozzie brings is, imo, always welcome and makes any discussion more lighthearted and positive. But there is a brand of ostensibly "positive" post that can get pretty nasty, and overtly personal, pretty quickly. It has been my observation that those posts have a destructive impact on discussion equal to that of any "negative" post. Like destructively negative posts, those posts generally offer little of substance and tend to inflame, rather than diminish acrimony.

Again, I commend the mods on avoiding this kind of "destructively positive" personal attack and wholeheartedly support their good efforts to keep the mindless negative posts out. At the same time, I wanted to express my frustration, as it is a frustration I believe others share, with some posts that, while "positive" towards the team, are not, imo, positive towards other posters or the board as a whole.

Ugh, hate to quote myself, especially with such a long post, but I discussed here something like "destructively positive."

allenmurray
03-24-2008, 09:36 AM
Fans have every right to complain about teams and/or players and that applies to college sports in the same way it does to pro sports.

No ones right to criticize anyone or anything was denied by DBR. There are an almost infinite number of places where you can exercise that right.

happydays1949
03-24-2008, 09:51 AM
Word. When I read an amazingly stupid post the first thing I do is look up to see that person's posting history. And more often than not they have very few posts. Credibility is earned, and it is a long slow process. There are folks here who I often disagree with, but I read them and take them seriously because of their history. I feel as though they earned the right to be taken seriously, even when I disagree with them.


Posting history has nothing to do with stupid posts. I seldom post, but have been lurking on these boards since 1998 or 1999.

colchar
03-24-2008, 11:41 AM
This board is different from the code days. That's my point -- if you aren't reading it/posting on it, do you really have a sense for what's going on?


I already said that, although I haven't been posting on the main board, I have still been reading it.



No one's saying you don't have a right. But since you didn't read the posts in question, didn't see the level to which this place descended and haven't contributed to the conversation in a long time, you're probably not in the strongest position to weigh in on this particular topic. Do you understand the difference?

I didn't see what happened after the game but I've been part of the community for long enough to have legitimate opinions about whether or not the board should have been shut down or whether it should have been dealt with in some other way.

Plus, I find it slightly hypocritical for you to be talking about the level of discourse when your sig line is a link to Steve Blake's webpage. I have no particular problem with that because I think the site is rather funny and think he deserves to be slagged for it. But, I find it hypocritical because, as a mod, you are one of the people who would caution and/or ban (temporarily) someone if their sig line linked to a similar site from a Duke player. To me, that is a double standard that should not be tolerated.

colchar
03-24-2008, 11:48 AM
Colchar and I go back a long way (I've been around since DBR's inception; I'm pretty sure he's been around since at least 2000). We're having a tame discussion that I'll probably take to PM shortly. We generally get along quite well. But, yes, his motive matters and I haven't "gone after him" at all.

I agree with Jumbo here. We do go back a long way on this site (IIRC, I've been around here since the late '90s and, as he has pointed out, he has been around since the beginning). And I do not think he has "gone after me" - I think we're simply having a disagreement which, as far as I am concerned, is fair game.

But thanks for sticking up for me anyway.

Papa John
03-24-2008, 11:51 AM
Posting history has nothing to do with stupid posts. I seldom post, but have been lurking on these boards since 1998 or 1999.

Exactly... I also seldom post, but was a much more active participant in the pre- and early-SBBS DBR community [I simply grew weary of the email verification process while also getting busier at work] since either 1995 or 96 [can't recall exactly which year I established my account, and not sure whether DBR's records span the different major technology changes this board has gone through in those years]...

colchar
03-24-2008, 11:55 AM
Word. When I read an amazingly stupid post the first thing I do is look up to see that person's posting history. And more often than not they have very few posts. Credibility is earned, and it is a long slow process. There are folks here who I often disagree with, but I read them and take them seriously because of their history. I feel as though they earned the right to be taken seriously, even when I disagree with them.

I agree, which is why I decided to participate in this thread. I feel I have been around here long enough (I'm actually kind of glad the posting stats from the old boards haven't carried over here because, if they had, my totals would so high as to be embarrassing) to have earned at least some credibility and, because I thought shutting down the boards was a bad decision (could've been handled differently), I thought I should weigh in on that side of the discussion in order to demonstrate that at least one old(ish)-timer agreed. Basically, I wanted to add the wieght of my experience/credibility here to that side of the debate because I thought they needed it (I had also noticed some of the low posting numbers). But even then I was questioned simply because I haven't bothered to post about basketball this year.

The Gordog
03-24-2008, 11:57 AM
...and have a right to say whatever we want regarding...

The truth is this, we have a right to say what we want...

Re: right: You keep sying that word. I think it does not mean what you think it means.

Sorry if I butchered Indigo's line.

colchar
03-24-2008, 11:59 AM
No ones right to criticize anyone or anything was denied by DBR.

Perhaps not, but there has existed a culture here on the main board that has prevented people from even constructively criticizing the team/coaching staff. All I am trying to do is to point out that the community doesn't always welcome constructive criticism.

JasonEvans
03-24-2008, 12:33 PM
I'm very certain that some "negative" posters go over the line and I have no qualms about the mods thwaping those who do so. In my experience, however, "destructively positive" posts of this type are not similarly dealt with. This generates the sense that, to paraphrase Justice Scalia, DBR is "licens[ing] one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules." The statements "Duke Post Player X will be the best big man in the nation and be NPOY next season" and "DPP X can't score and shouldn't get off the bench next season" are equally absurd right now, but only one will get shot down.

I am getting a little bit sick of people making broad generalizations and just assuming they are true.

The statement I bolded above is totally false. If you posted something absurdly positive I am sure it would be challenged. "Brian Zoubek should be an All-American next season" would produce many questions from the masses on this board, as it should. Granted, it would not result in a penalty from the moderators for being destructively negative, but it certainly would not enhance your reputation for being a thoughtful and analytical poster.

Folks, this has been said time and time again-- you are allowed to criticize the team and the coaches. Just do it in a constructive way and be mindful of the need to bring more than wild speculation to your argument. Present some facts and some thoughtful analysis to back it up. Oh, and try to do it in a way that does not insult or bring down other members of the team or other posters to the board. There are many folks who post here who are quite good at this and they are valuable posters. There are also many folks who are lousy at it and refuse to understand how their posts hurt the boards and violate the rules. Those folks are better off going elsewhere and sometimes we have to escort them to the door to make them understand.

-Jason "criticism is not forbidden-- far from it!" Evans

JasonEvans
03-24-2008, 12:59 PM
Perhaps not, but there has existed a culture here on the main board that has prevented people from even constructively criticizing the team/coaching staff. All I am trying to do is to point out that the community doesn't always welcome constructive criticism.

I call BS. This is not true in my opinion.

As has been stated over and over again, constructive criticism that makes points and backs them up with evidence and analysis are always welcome. I challenge anyone to show me a post that followed those guidelines and was moderated/deleted. As a mod, I have the ability to look at deleted posts. Anyone who thinks they had a post that was constructive criticism but was unfairly treated, let me know. I look at almost all deleted posts as well as the ones that do not get deleted and in at least 99% of the posts, I find that the decision of the moderator was unquestionably correct and followed the guidelines of the boards.

Now, I know there are people who will disagree with me. There are people who feel the guidelines for the boards are wrong. There are people who think the moderation is heavy handed. There are people who think any criticism is squashed immediately.

If you are one of those folks, you are entitled to your opinion and I am betting that most of you have made that opinion known in this thread. So,
can we put this to bed now? Is anyone making new arguments here anymore? I would respectfully ask that unless you have something new to bring to the table here, that you think twice before posting another rehashing of a conversation that we have now had over and over and over again. Is that too much to ask?

--Jason "as an aside to Gordog, it is Inigo, not Indigo -- one is the world's greatest swordsman (so long as he is not in close quarters) and one is a blueish color -- don't get them confused ;) " Evans

colchar
03-24-2008, 01:37 PM
I call BS. This is not true in my opinion.

As has been stated over and over again, constructive criticism that makes points and backs them up with evidence and analysis are always welcome. I challenge anyone to show me a post that followed those guidelines and was moderated/deleted. As a mod, I have the ability to look at deleted posts. Anyone who thinks they had a post that was constructive criticism but was unfairly treated, let me know. I look at almost all deleted posts as well as the ones that do not get deleted and in at least 99% of the posts, I find that the decision of the moderator was unquestionably correct and followed the guidelines of the boards.

Now, I know there are people who will disagree with me. There are people who feel the guidelines for the boards are wrong. There are people who think the moderation is heavy handed. There are people who think any criticism is squashed immediately.

If you are one of those folks, you are entitled to your opinion and I am betting that most of you have made that opinion known in this thread. So,
can we put this to bed now? Is anyone making new arguments here anymore? I would respectfully ask that unless you have something new to bring to the table here, that you think twice before posting another rehashing of a conversation that we have now had over and over and over again. Is that too much to ask?

--Jason "as an aside to Gordog, it is Inigo, not Indigo -- one is the world's greatest swordsman (so long as he is not in close quarters) and one is a blueish color -- don't get them confused ;) " Evans


What's with the 1000-point font?!? Good God man.

And it is not BS - and you've certainly been around here long enough to know that.

I am not saying that posts which contained constructive criticism have been deleted (unless that happened right before the boards were shut down because I hadn't read them much that day). What I am saying is that criticism, even constructive criticism, is not always welcomed in this community. People were attacked for criticizing Coach K during the stall-ball discussions and, IIRC, people were also attacked for criticizing the decision to have Trajan bringing the ball upcourt at the end of the Uconn game.

There is a lot being made right now about the fact that, while negative comments and uncalled for attacks on individuals are not permitted (nor should they be), constructive criticism is always welcomed here and I am merely pointing out that this is not always true - at times even reasoned and constructive criticism isn't tolerated (in other words...what is preached and what is practised are not always the same thing).

rockymtn devil
03-24-2008, 02:16 PM
I call BS. This is not true in my opinion.

As has been stated over and over again, constructive criticism that makes points and backs them up with evidence and analysis are always welcome. I challenge anyone to show me a post that followed those guidelines and was moderated/deleted. As a mod, I have the ability to look at deleted posts. Anyone who thinks they had a post that was constructive criticism but was unfairly treated, let me know. I look at almost all deleted posts as well as the ones that do not get deleted and in at least 99% of the posts, I find that the decision of the moderator was unquestionably correct and followed the guidelines of the boards.

--Jason "as an aside to Gordog, it is Inigo, not Indigo -- one is the world's greatest swordsman (so long as he is not in close quarters) and one is a blueish color -- don't get them confused ;) " Evans

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8114

This is a thread that, while not exactly "constructive criticism" of the the team/coaching/program, is a discussion pertaining to the different ways posters on the boards view the team/coaching/program. In light of the past few days, it's extremely enlightening and the two models put forth in it have very clearly come out in droves since Saturday's loss.

The thread was locked after 3 posts because, according to the mod, he/she could tell where it was going and didn't feel it was an appropriate time--if there is such a time--for such a discussion. IMO, there was no reason for that thread to be locked and, in retrospect, it looks like one of the more intelligent threads of the past week. It was never unlocked even after its position became very relevant. I don't think saying it was redundant is very compelling grounds for locking it and looks like a cop-out to end a discussion that the mods didn't want to see on the boards (the thread was never able to develop into any redundant; it only lasted 3 posts). At the very least--right or not--this feeds into the perception that criticism is not welcome.

I would say that the locking of this thread is very much in-line with Colchar's points in this thread. If something that maybe, sort of, kind of looks like criticism of Duke fans is frowned upon, why should posters be confident that criticism of the team/coaching/program will not meet the same fate?

Bluedawg
03-24-2008, 02:38 PM
You do have a right to say what you want, but not wherever you want. DBR has a right to exclude whatever they want to from their private site, and since they own the place, their right trumps yours. They have extended us the gracious privilege to use this forum to discuss Duke basketball. They extend us this privilege at their discretion, and they are well within their rights to decide to shut the forum down for a bit - with or without justification. This is not the only site dedicated to discussion of Duke basketball, but many of us happen to think it is the best, largely because of the owners' policies regarding civility in posting, and the way that policy was manifested in decisions like shutting down the board last night when posters were behaving like screaming panic howler monkeys.

it is the best not only because of the "owners' policies regarding civility in posting" but the fair and even handed way it is managed. other boards cannot make this claim which is why this is my only Duke Board.

JasonEvans
03-24-2008, 02:40 PM
That thread was started about 15 hours before Duke's game with West Virginia and very much in the wake of the Belmont game. The mod who closed it pointed out that he felt it was not a good time for that discussion as the board should be more focussed on the issue at hand-- a huge game coming up in just a few hours. Do you think that decision was unreasonable.

What's more, that thread in no way addresses the point being made over and over and over again by Colchar that criticism of the players and coaches is not allowed. That thread is an attempt to discuss the rationale of different types of fans. I am shocked that you came up with that example as I see it having very little to do with this debate.

Personally, I feel that once we have really put the season behind us and we move into the post-March Madness doledrums, a discussion of different types of fans would be fine. I think Feldspar's framing of the issue was a tad disingenuous and biased, which is probably part of why the thread was shut down. It would be best if someone else had independently brought these issues to the table. After all, Feldspar is currently banned from DBR for repeated violations of posting policy and he has a horrible reputation for taunting the moderators and being a negative poster. I think a decent argument can be made that Feldspar carries so much baggage that it is almost impossible for him to bring something like this up in a way that does not seem destined to cause problems. It is unfortunate, but he has made his bed and that is just the reality of how he is perceived unfortunately.

Anyway, my challenge still stands-- show me a post that was deleted that makes good-faith arguments and is critical of K or the team. I just don't think it happens very often if at all.

--Jason "sorry if some of my response seems insulting or critical of Feldspar, but he has a rep and it is part of who he is on these boards" Evans

colchar
03-24-2008, 02:44 PM
What's more, that thread in no way addresses the point being made over and over and over again by Colchar that criticism of the players and coaches is not allowed.

I haven't said that it is not allowed. I have simply said that, at times, people get attacked for it.

hughgs
03-24-2008, 02:52 PM
I haven't said that it is not allowed. I have simply said that, at times, people get attacked for it.

What do you mean by attacked? If I follow your previous argument (and I'm willing to bet I've missed it) it's that other posters respond with arguments such as "you're not a 3-time winner", etc. If that's your definition of attacked, then I think it would be very difficult in the present environment for the moderators to censor such posts. Not that I don't think those types of posts are useless, but I don't see how they can be stopped.

I also think you need to separate out the difference between what the moderators would like to see and what they are allowed to censor. Assuming that my example is an attack then I think it falls in the gray area for the moderators. They don't want to see it, but don't have true recourse since it doesn't cross the line.

colchar
03-24-2008, 03:16 PM
What do you mean by attacked? If I follow your previous argument (and I'm willing to bet I've missed it) it's that other posters respond with arguments such as "you're not a 3-time winner", etc. If that's your definition of attacked, then I think it would be very difficult in the present environment for the moderators to censor such posts. Not that I don't think those types of posts are useless, but I don't see how they can be stopped.



That is one example of the kinds of posts (responses to criticism) that I had in mind. But it wasn't just the posts themselves - it was the way in which so many posters piled on and shouted down the person who had criticized the program. To my mind, that created a climate in which criticism was not welcomed.

mapei
03-24-2008, 03:18 PM
show me a post that was deleted . . .

You do see the irony, yes? :)

rockymtn devil
03-24-2008, 03:22 PM
That thread was started about 15 hours before Duke's game with West Virginia and very much in the wake of the Belmont game. The mod who closed it pointed out that he felt it was not a good time for that discussion as the board should be more focussed on the issue at hand-- a huge game coming up in just a few hours. Do you think that decision was unreasonable.

What's more, that thread in no way addresses the point being made over and over and over again by Colchar that criticism of the players and coaches is not allowed. That thread is an attempt to discuss the rationale of different types of fans. I am shocked that you came up with that example as I see it having very little to do with this debate.

Personally, I feel that once we have really put the season behind us and we move into the post-March Madness doledrums, a discussion of different types of fans would be fine. I think Feldspar's framing of the issue was a tad disingenuous and biased, which is probably part of why the thread was shut down. It would be best if someone else had independently brought these issues to the table. After all, Feldspar is currently banned from DBR for repeated violations of posting policy and he has a horrible reputation for taunting the moderators and being a negative poster. I think a decent argument can be made that Feldspar carries so much baggage that it is almost impossible for him to bring something like this up in a way that does not seem destined to cause problems. It is unfortunate, but he has made his bed and that is just the reality of how he is perceived unfortunately.

Anyway, my challenge still stands-- show me a post that was deleted that makes good-faith arguments and is critical of K or the team. I just don't think it happens very often if at all.

--Jason "sorry if some of my response seems insulting or critical of Feldspar, but he has a rep and it is part of who he is on these boards" Evans

I think it does go to the point. The crux of Colchar's argument, if I'm reading it correctly, is that criticism of the team/coaching is discouraged. Feldspar's post was not critical of the team, but rather discussed fans who are, according to his thread are 1) very optimistic or 2) realists. Further, the post noted that #2 fans are often viewed as fake fans and discouraged on this board. As I understand it, #2 fans in the Feldspar model are potentially the types of fans Colchar is noting are discouraged from posting. The locking of that thread fits directly into this discussion.

Ultimately, the perception is there. I'll state it again: if a thread that maybe, sort of, kind of criticizes fans is going to be moderated, it's reasonable to believe that a thread critical of the team/coaching will be treated the same way. The latter has a greater likelihood of being viewed as "destructive".

You may be right that criticism is not discouraged, but the perception exists that it is and the locking of the "Two Fans" thread is an example of why it persists. As long as there's a perception, there's a chilling effect on people who don't post on the main board because of the perception.

colchar
03-24-2008, 03:28 PM
I think it does go to the point. The crux of Colchar's argument, if I'm reading it correctly, is that criticism of the team/coaching is discouraged.


Yes, you are reading it correctly.



Feldspar's post was not critical of the team, but rather discussed fans who are, according to his thread are 1) very optimistic or 2) realists. Further, the post noted that #2 fans are often viewed as fake fans and discouraged on this board. As I understand it, #2 fans in the Feldspar model are potentially the types of fans Colchar is noting are discouraged from posting. The locking of that thread fits directly into this discussion.


Well said.



Ultimately, the perception is there. I'll state it again: if a thread that maybe, sort of, kind of criticizes fans is going to be moderated, it's reasonable to believe that a thread critical of the team/coaching will be treated the same way. The latter has a greater likelihood of being viewed as "destructive".

You may be right that criticism is not discouraged, but the perception exists that it is and the locking of the "Two Fans" thread is an example of why it persists. As long as there's a perception, there's a chilling effect on people who don't post on the main board because of the perception.

Again, well said. The perception does exist and I believe it does have a chilling effect. I have had some criticisms of the team (Coach K, recruiting, players) over the last couple of years but haven't bothered posting any of them because I just didn't feel like getting sidetracked by the whole brew-up that would have ensued. I've got a pretty thick skin and am not usually known for shying away from things so, if this caused me to not bother posting, how many other posters with less thick skins has it also affected?

Duke4Ever32
03-24-2008, 03:46 PM
I agree with what colchar just posted above. I'm sure I have a less thick skin than he, and I would never post anything even ambiguously critical on the Main Board, because I don't want to get cited or banned or attacked for not being totally pollyanna and positive about everything. It's just not worth it. I think some honest, beneficial discussion is sacrificed in the name of painting a rosy picture and trying to stay positive about everything. Sometimes those discussions need to happen, and because they don't, there's definitely a chilling effect.

BAMDSALL
03-24-2008, 03:47 PM
........

If you are one of those folks, you are entitled to your opinion and I am betting that most of you have made that opinion known in this thread. So,
can we put this to bed now? Is anyone making new arguments here anymore? I would respectfully ask that unless you have something new to bring to the table here, that you think twice before posting another rehashing of a conversation that we have now had over and over and over again. Is that too much to ask?

--Jason "as an aside to Gordog, it is Inigo, not Indigo -- one is the world's greatest swordsman (so long as he is not in close quarters) and one is a blueish color -- don't get them confused ;) " Evans

Jason, I had hoped that this conversation would be over by now as well as it now smacks of beating the proverbial dead horse and I guess I'm as guilty as the next person for prolonging it. Sorry about that.

First:

1. I totally agreed with DBR shutting down the board Sat. night.
2. I thought the message on DBR Sat. game wrap was totally on point and exceedingly accurate.
3. I post infrequently but read frequently and have for a very long time.

Having read through these posts of the past two days, there are a couple of salient points being made.

1. There is a perception on the part of some that have posted on this thread (I have not) that the board is elitist and prone to "group think". In my opinion, a few of the comments in support of DBR's action to close the boards would seem to reinforce that idea even though I supported their closing. For example: If you don't post frequently you therefore cannot be perceived as having any idea of what is going on or being said by others. Some of us merely read to gain insights and possibly validate our thoughts on games. One does not necessarily have to be anal repulsive to be capable of reasoned thought. My rationale on this perception is that the moderators and frequent posters are cautious due to trolls that are inevitable on any public forum in cyberspace. The perception is real even if it is wrong.

2. Negative posters that vehemently support their "right" to their own opinions and subsequent "right" to let the world know their opinion by posting it need to abide by the age old rule of if you want to get somebody's attention, whisper. The way you say it is more important than what you are saying. Think Bobby Knight. Standing up during a religious ceremony and shouting "Religion sucks" is not going to win friends and influence people even if you're entitled to be atheist and our constitution guarantees you the right to say it.

(hope that came across as a whisper);)

MarineTwinsDad
03-24-2008, 03:58 PM
What I understand is being said, kind of over and over, is that someone feels that they can't post criticism of the coach and team without being criticized. Perhaps there is a strong defensive reaction as loyalty kicks in, but it does seem to be logical that if one is allowed to post criticism of the coach or players, others should be allowed to disagree. I have read all to often a statement similar to "he's won 800 games, so he must know what he's doing," in answer to criticism. That doesn't further discussion. However, other responses that contain reason and insight that may be posted in response to criticism of the coach and/or players should certainly be allowed. Criticizing the Duke Bb simply because of the strong loyalty evident when criticizing of all that they hold dear seems self-defeating.

JasonEvans
03-24-2008, 04:32 PM
You do see the irony, yes? :)

What I meant was if you had a post deleted that you felt was unfairly deleted, let me know and I can look at it because I am a mod. I know it seems strange, but I hope folks understand.

-Jason

JasonEvans
03-24-2008, 04:32 PM
I am done with this thread. I think I have made my points well known in it and there is little else I can add.

I am also perilously close to done with moderation. It is a volunteer job and there are no perks. The mods are all frustrated right now. Our inability to get through to many of you is something really difficult for me to deal with. I am torn about what to do next...

--Jason

Cavlaw
03-24-2008, 04:39 PM
1. There is a perception on the part of some that have posted on this thread (I have not) that the board is elitist and prone to "group think". In my opinion, a few of the comments in support of DBR's action to close the boards would seem to reinforce that idea even though I supported their closing. For example: If you don't post frequently you therefore cannot be perceived as having any idea of what is going on or being said by others. Some of us merely read to gain insights and possibly validate our thoughts on games. One does not necessarily have to be anal repulsive to be capable of reasoned thought. My rationale on this perception is that the moderators and frequent posters are cautious due to trolls that are inevitable on any public forum in cyberspace. The perception is real even if it is wrong.

Before I go any further, I think you meant "anal retentive". The other thing made my laugh hysterically, but is probably not what you had in mind.

Ok, so, I feel I should clarify my comments a little bit in response to this, since I'm getting quoted here and there. I'm going to use "you" here a lot to make the grammar work, but it's not targetted at BAMDSALL.

The target of my ire was not people with minimal posting numbers as a whole (which if what you get if you only read my first sentence), but specifically those who create a screenname in the wake of a loss to come here and post selfishly (which you get when you read the remainder of my post).

It is selfish to come here with the intent of venting in an effort to feel some sense of smug superiorty to the people on the court and the bench who actually impact the outcome of the game that we are all entertained by. It is selfish to come here and demand that a long established community bend to your will, especially when you probably won't be posting here in 10 months, let alone in 10 years or more. It is selfish to demand "rights" from a community that you have no interest in contributing to. It is selfish to have the first words flowing from your keyboard be destructively negative about a thing which you have derived immense pleasure from experiencing, and the people who provide it, when it came at little or no cost to you.

It is selfish to feel more entitled to something as a mere spectator than the participants who have spent their entire lives preparing for it.

I like new posters. The community needs them to survive, to grow, and to flourish with new ideas. All of us were new posters once, myself more recently than most of the "old guard" participants in this thread. No good and thoughtful post will ever be dismissed due to the post count of the contributor.

What I don't like are selfish new posters. And trolls. I like fishing under bridges without being hassled.


2. Negative posters that vehemently support their "right" to their own opinions and subsequent "right" to let the world know their opinion by posting it need to abide by the age old rule of if you want to get somebody's attention, whisper. The way you say it is more important than what you are saying. Think Bobby Knight. Standing up during a religious ceremony and shouting "Religion sucks" is not going to win friends and influence people even if you're entitled to be atheist and our constitution guarantees you the right to say it.

There is maybe some truth to this, though many of the people engaged in the behavior you describe don't recognize it in themselves. They see their responses as a particularly fervent rebuttal, not a personal attack. A lot of ideas seem self evident to the people presenting them, and that is especially true on the internet where the confused face of the other person doesn't serve as a good indicator that more reasoning has to be revealed on a point. That said, I've been pretty critical of a few players over the years, taken licks from some people and gotten agreement from others. Over time I think some of my views have proven right, and other have not, but I haven't reraised any of them.

Regardless, Julio and Boswell, and the moderators they appoint, set the tone for discussion on the boards. They're in charge; that's just the way it is. An intelligent discussion of the perceived contraints on the flow of critical ideas is always welcome, regardless of the post count of the contributor. A post with the single statement of "I have a right to do X" isn't only incorrect, it's selfish, whether from a new poster or a veteran.

You'll notice though, that not many contributors with high post counts make unsupported, unsupportable assertions like that. Contributors who post a lot have more to say than that, more reasoning to provide, more discussion to provoke. I don't think that correlation is accidental.

So, to new posters feeling oppressed, I say this: if you really like Duke basketball, and you think this is a good community based on your prior observations, try conforming your behavior to what is accepted and find out if you like it.

On the other hand, if you're just here to gripe, "drive home safely".

RelativeWays
03-24-2008, 04:55 PM
Part of the issue with criticism may be that DBR enjoys a positive and perhaps close relationship to the team. Its been insinuated that we should watch what we post because we never know who is reading. Long time DBR posters have said that Duke players have posted here in the past and the possibilty exists that maybe current ones do as well. If that is the case, then I can see where DBR wants to be protective of that relationship, whether its links on the home page or here on the board. I guess if I were a Duke player and had to endure criticism from the media on a constant basis, I probably wouldn't be too eager to read a board full of criticism on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to my team. For that, the admins are maybe over-protective on what is and isn't posted. It does stymie legitimate discussion on occasion, and I wish we could find a middle ground to make everyone happy. This is also speculation on my part, but its true that most fan sites don't enjoy the benefit of team participation. Just a thought I suppose.

BAMDSALL
03-24-2008, 05:21 PM
Before I go any further, I think you meant "anal retentive". The other thing made my laugh hysterically, but is probably not what you had in mind................



Anal repulsive character – disorganised, reckless and defiant ...

I know....makes "my laugh" hysterical as well but it is the opposite of anal-retentive:)

Cavlaw
03-24-2008, 05:28 PM
Anal repulsive character – disorganised, reckless and defiant ...

I know....makes "my laugh" hysterical as well but it is the opposite of anal-retentive:)
Seriously? :) I learn something new every day. Guess I should employ google-fu more often to look up the things that make me snark my coffee.

Incidentally, I'm a chronic typo-artist. I have to see every document in paper before I send it to a client or I inevitably leave mistakes that would get me fired. I'm not prepared to print my posts prior to hitting submit, though - but I do use the edit button liberally to correct what I see when I re-read. I missed that one (and probably more), but spared you about half a dozen others.

BAMDSALL
03-24-2008, 05:43 PM
I am done with this thread. I think I have made my points well known in it and there is little else I can add.

I am also perilously close to done with moderation. It is a volunteer job and there are no perks. The mods are all frustrated right now. Our inability to get through to many of you is something really difficult for me to deal with. I am torn about what to do next...

--Jason

leave your moderator post.:( I'm confident that the last few days have been horrible for all the moderators in addition to feeling the same disappointment we all have felt about the end of the season.

Thank you all for everything you do to keep this board from becoming the useless tirade evident on so many other forums. Without the mods that would not be possible.

wisteria
03-24-2008, 06:42 PM
I don't understand this thread at all.
If you don't like this place, then go to TDD.
If you like it here, then stay here and I don't see why you are complaining.
I like both places so I check both.

What's with all the fuss? :confused:

BCGroup
03-24-2008, 08:32 PM
I am done with this thread. I think I have made my points well known in it and there is little else I can add.

I am also perilously close to done with moderation. It is a volunteer job and there are no perks. The mods are all frustrated right now. Our inability to get through to many of you is something really difficult for me to deal with. I am torn about what to do next...

--Jason

Jason, I hope you (and the other moderators) won't leave. This is the only board I visit, and the only one I consider. You all have shown phenomenal patience over the last few days (probably longer). I continue to be amazed that folks who don't like the guidelines think if they just state their opinion again...and again...and again that somehow the rest of us will go along with it. Reminds me of the teacher who thought the best way to teach something her students didn't know was to say the same thing again only louder....or s...l..o...w...e...r! DBR is terrific--and it has a key place in the internet universe. There are so many other options for people who don't like it. And for all those saying "no codes", it's some of this mess that makes that look like a good alternative.

fidel
03-24-2008, 09:09 PM
I jumped to the end. Has anyone mentioned Hitler yet?

This site is the one I go to merely because it demands decorum. Great insight, great fans, and a wonderful sense of fun and enjoyment.

What I saw this team do in January and the start of February I never expected. That they couldn't make it last to the final four, well I am disappointed. But Demarcus showed what a leader could do, made me believe, and I had a great ride for a little while. I wanted to be in Cameron one more time, and thats a great feeling.

Troublemaker
03-24-2008, 11:01 PM
I'm very certain that some "negative" posters go over the line and I have no qualms about the mods thwaping those who do so. In my experience, however, "destructively positive" posts of this type are not similarly dealt with. This generates the sense that, to paraphrase Justice Scalia, DBR is "licens[ing] one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules." The statements "Duke Post Player X will be the best big man in the nation and be NPOY next season" and "DPP X can't score and shouldn't get off the bench next season" are equally absurd right now, but only one will get shot down.

Good-natured optimism of the sort that Ozzie brings is, imo, always welcome and makes any discussion more lighthearted and positive. But there is a brand of ostensibly "positive" post that can get pretty nasty, and overtly personal, pretty quickly. It has been my observation that those posts have a destructive impact on discussion equal to that of any "negative" post. Like destructively negative posts, those posts generally offer little of substance and tend to inflame, rather than diminish acrimony.

DCDFD -- Sorry to join the party late like this, but could I get some clarification on your two paragraphs above? I want to understand what you mean by "destructively positive." Because the way I see it, each paragraph deals with a separate complaint of yours, but you seem to be combining the two complaints under one "destructively positive" label, something I don't agree you should be doing.

Your complaint #1 (first paragraph) is about "absurdly positive statements" being "destructively positive" -- you even give an example statement about Duke's big man winning NPOY next year. While I agree that such a statement would be Pollyanna-ish, I fail to see what is destructive about it. Could you explain what is destructive about it? Besides, if you come across such a post, why wouldn't you just refute it? I fail to see the problem.

Your complaint #2 (second paragraph) seems to deal with posters who are constructively critical being attacked just for being critical, and you also label this "destructively positive." Well, here I would agree with you that the "destructive" label is applicable. Posters who offer constructive criticism should not be attacked. But if you see an example of this occurring, why don't you just report it to the mods? Again, I fail to see the problem.

So, to summarize, I disagree that your complaint #1 (Pollyanna-ish statements) should be labeled as destructive. Meanwhile, I agree that your complaint #2 (constructively critical posters being attacked) should be labeled as destructive, but if it does occur, why don't you just report it to the mods?

Troublemaker
03-24-2008, 11:06 PM
While it is certainly within their right to shut down the forums if they wish, I still think it was a bad decision. Fans have every right to complain about teams and/or players and that applies to college sports in the same way it does to pro sports.

colchar -- Again, sorry to be late with a reply, but I would like some clarification. Why do you consider the shutdown to be a "bad decision"? What was the cost of the shutdown to you and me? That we had to wait a few hours to post our constructive criticism? Because of that, it's a bad decision? I don't understand.

Troublemaker
03-24-2008, 11:12 PM
Now, one criticism of the way things are handled on the board that I agree with is that there is a double standard when it comes to blind criticism and blind praise. We are constantly reminded that if we want to criticise, we must back it up with facts and be ready to support our opinion because it will be challenged. Well, I'm going to respectfully challenge the powers that be as well as the community at large to hold wildly optimistic posters to the same standard. It's irritating to post a less-than-glowing critique of how Coach K handled some endgame situation last night and have several people ask you "how many national championships have you won?" and look down the same thread and see people talking about how we shouldn't be concerned about our inside game (just as a hypothetical) and not see anyone really challenge such a statement.

It sends a message that smoke up the rear is ok but realistic criticism isn't. How can that possibly be good for the board?

devildownunder -- I agree with you. My question to you is this: if you see a wildly optimistic post, why don't you just refute it? You're allowed to do that. So I don't understand what the problem is.

Troublemaker
03-24-2008, 11:39 PM
Perhaps not, but there has existed a culture here on the main board that has prevented people from even constructively criticizing the team/coaching staff. All I am trying to do is to point out that the community doesn't always welcome constructive criticism.

colchar -- I disagree. I constructively criticize all the time with impunity. But here's the thing. As Jason mentioned, we're just going around in circles; you and others say that constructive criticism is disallowed while I and others say that it IS allowed.

What we need are examples. My suggestion would be that from now on, if you see constructive criticism being stifled, you should point it out. Write a post asking, "Hey, why was that post deleted? I thought it was constructively critical because it WXYZ" or "Hey, take it easy on that poster. He was being constructively critical because he WXYZ." From what I've seen, the mods are good about replying to such questions/comments, and also, it seems that this sort of interaction has already begun with Jumbo asking the community about what should be done with Boston Dukie, for example (and apparently you want him banned temporarily.)

Would that be okay with you guys? Would it be okay with the mods? Instead of going around in circles ("Are too stifling discussion!" / "Am not!"), let's study cases.

colchar
03-25-2008, 01:58 AM
colchar -- Again, sorry to be late with a reply, but I would like some clarification. Why do you consider the shutdown to be a "bad decision"? What was the cost of the shutdown to you and me? That we had to wait a few hours to post our constructive criticism? Because of that, it's a bad decision? I don't understand.

I think it smacked of the spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum, taking his ball, and going home. I'm not saying that's what it was but that's how it came across. The whole thing was rather silly and childish to me. I thought they could simply have deleted posts and informed posters why their posts had been deleted. They also could have privately warned them that they had crossed the line.

In the interim I have learned that, due to the volume of posts and availability of mods, this simply wasn't possible. I'm still not thrilled by the decision to shut down the boards but I certainly understand it better.

colchar
03-25-2008, 02:03 AM
colchar -- I disagree. I constructively criticize all the time with impunity. But here's the thing. As Jason mentioned, we're just going around in circles; you and others say that constructive criticism is disallowed while I and others say that it IS allowed.


I've been basing my comments on the history of the boards and, perhaps, that wasn't the best thing to do as things have certainly changed around here. But I still remember some threads (stall ball, and when Trajan was carrying the ball at the end of the Uconn game) in which posters were ganged up on by other members of the boards for daring to criticize the program. It has happened and I think it has stifled discussion - it has certainly caused me not to bother posting on the main board as much as I used to. As I said in another post - I have very thick skin and, if that culture has caused me to refrain from posting, how many other posters has it affected? Just because the method of moderation has changed does not mean that the culture has completely changed.



What we need are examples.


Someone already provided an example in which a thread was locked before anything bad had been said simply because a mod decided that they didn't like the direction in which it might have gone.

JBDuke
03-25-2008, 02:39 AM
...Someone already provided an example in which a thread was locked before anything bad had been said simply because a mod decided that they didn't like the direction in which it might have gone.

I locked that thread, and you have mischaracterized my decision and intent. Feldspar created a thread which had the basic premise that you could divide all Duke fans into two camps: optimists and realists. Based on that faulty premise alone, I told him in chat that I thought it could only lead to hard feelings from those on the optimistic side of the fence. When the first couple of posts in the thread proved me right, I shut it down. It was my opinion, given the heated nature of feelings on the boards after the narrow escape from Belmont, that the thread would only serve to be divisive and distracting - in other words, exactly the kind of thing that Julio and Boswell have made clear they don't want around here.

Keep looking for an example.

devildownunder
03-25-2008, 06:25 AM
What should said hypothetical citation be? "Destuctively positive?" "Overly optimistic?"

I'm not suggesting citations. I don't want enthusiastic duke fans to be quashed, whether they want to criticise or praise. It would just be nice to see the mods and the community at large call on the wildly -- sometimes absurdly -- optimistic to support their arguments in the same way everyone always jumps on anyone who wants to offer criticism. To me this is about an overall tone on the board, not, strictly speaking, rules and regulations.

devildownunder
03-25-2008, 06:34 AM
devildownunder -- I agree with you. My question to you is this: if you see a wildly optimistic post, why don't you just refute it? You're allowed to do that. So I don't understand what the problem is.

I do refute posts that I think are over the top, sometimes, not always. And I do understand that we all have the right to do that. My concern is about the mood of the board. Those kinds of posts, for any readers who feel they understand the game at all, sort of have the effect of watering things down, yes? But they are sanctioned, in the sense that when one read the boards, one gets no real feeling that there is anything to discourage these kinds of posts -- judging from the general reaction to them. Many of them go unchallenged and even draw enthusiastic "here! heres!"

That by itself would be OK. But when that's coupled with the very cold reception, and even possible sanctions, that arrive when some critical posts are made (the flip side of the coin, IMO), this creates a sense that homerism/boosterism/flind faith is welcome while realism and pessimism are not. So that people who may have these sorts of opinions may be less likely to share them.

I think folks who have been around a while know I try to be a realist and probably sometimes can be a "half-empty" type. Yet I've been able to post here for years with very few issues. Only twice have I really felt the mods or community treated me unfairly. So I'm not worried as much about my own posting as someone new to the board, who may actually have something to say but doesn't feel comfortable saying it.


OK, so brevity in first drafts isn't my strong suit, but there it is.

JasonEvans
03-25-2008, 09:31 AM
That by itself would be OK. But when that's coupled with the very cold reception, and even possible sanctions, that arrive when some critical posts are made (the flip side of the coin, IMO), this creates a sense that homerism/boosterism/flind faith is welcome while realism and pessimism are not. So that people who may have these sorts of opinions may be less likely to share them.


First of all, the next person who defines posters as "optimists" one one side and "realists" on the other side will get a civility infraction from me. It is just plain rude to call one side "realists" in a debate because it implies the other side is unrealistic and wrong in their opinions. I am sick of it and I will not tolerate it any longer.

Period. End of story on that point.

Secondly, this is not the College Basketball Report. This is not the Objective Analysis of Basketball Report. This is the Duke Basketball Report. Know what that means? It means that we are almost all fans of Duke basketball on this site. As a result, some of us are going to be really, really optimistic about Duke basketball.

The result of that is the following -- "homerism/boosterism/blind faith is welcome while (edit) pessimism is not."

Guess what people, that is how it works around here. If you are going to be negative about Duke basketball, you better bring a lot of evidence and oratory skills to the table to back it up because your audience are the most passionate Duke fans on the planet. Is that really surprising to folks?

Go to a Steelers game some time and start badmouthing the Steelers and see what happens. Try badmouthing the Red Sox at Fenway. In this place, you are surrounded by fans of Duke so negative things about Duke are not going to be as well received as the positive.

Now, am I saying that pessimism is not allowed? Of course not. But, be prepared for some fight back on it and be prepared to make good-faith and logical arguments. That said, no one wants this place to be all optimism. I enjoy a good debate. The goal of the DBR and the mods is not to stifle dissenting opinions. Trust me when I tell you the mods feel just as frustrated and angry about how Duke has played lately as the rest of ya'll.

Am I saying that wild optimism should be the norm? Of course not. Everyone gets a kick out of posters who says "Duke Football will go undefeated this year!!" but no one actually believes it will happen. Still, it is hardly harmful to anyone to read that kind of thing and those sort of statements are what being a fan is all about to some people. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that.

The Mods have been having a lot of discussions about what to do about the boards. There are some radical ideas being proposed, lemme tell ya. I do not know how it will all end up, but let me tell you things WILL NOT CONTINUE as they have been the past few days.

--Jason "bottom line-- this board is not for everyone" Evans

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 09:43 AM
I think it smacked of the spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum, taking his ball, and going home. I'm not saying that's what it was but that's how it came across. The whole thing was rather silly and childish to me. I thought they could simply have deleted posts and informed posters why their posts had been deleted. They also could have privately warned them that they had crossed the line.

In the interim I have learned that, due to the volume of posts and availability of mods, this simply wasn't possible. I'm still not thrilled by the decision to shut down the boards but I certainly understand it better.

Hmm, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here because I cannot find common ground between your opinion and mine. If I'm reading you correctly, the knowledge of post-volume vs. mod-availability sways you some, but ultimately, you consider the shutdown decision to have come across as "silly", "childish", and "like a child throwing a tantrum."

I consider my opinion to be diametrically opposite of yours. I think the people who were acting childish, silly, and who threw a tantrum were the incredible number of folks who logged on to post destructively negative thoughts. I think DBR actually acted like the ADULT of this exchange. By shutting down, DBR forced their rude and hot-tempered children to go to their rooms for awhile and let cooler heads prevail (that their non-rude, non-hot-tempered children also could not post for a few hours is an insignificant drawback to me). It was an adult decision, not a childish decision. I associate patience and the ability to suppress negative outbursts with adults; I associate impatience and negative outbursts with children.

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 10:06 AM
I've been basing my comments on the history of the boards and, perhaps, that wasn't the best thing to do as things have certainly changed around here. But I still remember some threads (stall ball, and when Trajan was carrying the ball at the end of the Uconn game) in which posters were ganged up on by other members of the boards for daring to criticize the program. It has happened and I think it has stifled discussion - it has certainly caused me not to bother posting on the main board as much as I used to. As I said in another post - I have very thick skin and, if that culture has caused me to refrain from posting, how many other posters has it affected? Just because the method of moderation has changed does not mean that the culture has completely changed.

Certainly there exists the perception by some of the culture you describe. But is that perception accurate? Would you agree with my suggestion that we should study this on a case-by-case basis? I did not see your response to that. I think that if you and others who believe constructive criticism is being stifled here could actually voice your opinion right when you see it happening, we could then study this perception further and perhaps each side of the debate could come to a better understanding of the other. Agreed? Case-by-case basis instead of going around in circles?



Someone already provided an example in which a thread was locked before anything bad had been said simply because a mod decided that they didn't like the direction in which it might have gone.

Please see Jason and JB's responses to this. Keep in mind that this very thread you are posting in is basically a continuation of feldspar's thread with the discussion of optimists/pessimists. So, obviously, discussion of the topic is not stifled. The discussion was tabled until after the WVU game and so here we are now discussing it immediately after the WVU game.

colchar
03-25-2008, 10:39 AM
I locked that thread, and you have mischaracterized my decision and intent. Feldspar created a thread which had the basic premise that you could divide all Duke fans into two camps: optimists and realists. Based on that faulty premise alone, I told him in chat that I thought it could only lead to hard feelings from those on the optimistic side of the fence. When the first couple of posts in the thread proved me right, I shut it down. It was my opinion, given the heated nature of feelings on the boards after the narrow escape from Belmont, that the thread would only serve to be divisive and distracting - in other words, exactly the kind of thing that Julio and Boswell have made clear they don't want around here.

Keep looking for an example.


I still think that is an example. I read that thread and didn't interpret it in the same way that you did. I think shutting it down before anything was really said was a poor decision. And, since someone else linked it as an example, I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way.

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 10:51 AM
I do refute posts that I think are over the top, sometimes, not always. And I do understand that we all have the right to do that. My concern is about the mood of the board. Those kinds of posts, for any readers who feel they understand the game at all, sort of have the effect of watering things down, yes? But they are sanctioned, in the sense that when one read the boards, one gets no real feeling that there is anything to discourage these kinds of posts -- judging from the general reaction to them. Many of them go unchallenged and even draw enthusiastic "here! heres!"

That by itself would be OK. But when that's coupled with the very cold reception, and even possible sanctions, that arrive when some critical posts are made (the flip side of the coin, IMO), this creates a sense that homerism/boosterism/flind faith is welcome while realism and pessimism are not. So that people who may have these sorts of opinions may be less likely to share them.

I think folks who have been around a while know I try to be a realist and probably sometimes can be a "half-empty" type. Yet I've been able to post here for years with very few issues. Only twice have I really felt the mods or community treated me unfairly. So I'm not worried as much about my own posting as someone new to the board, who may actually have something to say but doesn't feel comfortable saying it.

OK, so brevity in first drafts isn't my strong suit, but there it is.

If I'm reading you correctly, DDU, you are saying you desire the refutation of optimistic posts to be equal in number to the refutation of critical posts? Is that correct? I have two things to say about that.

(1) As Jason mentioned, I don't consider it practical for you to desire what you desire; at the very least, what you desire won't occur spontaneously. What if the people who want to be optimistic about Duke basketball just plain outnumber the people who want to be critical of Duke basketball (not that one person can't be both optimistic and critical, but for this discussion, it seems the underlying assumption is that people tend to lean one way or another)? Certainly, on a Duke fan site, you might expect that sort of outnumbering to play out, agreed?

(2) Despite the outnumbering, you can STILL have what you desire; as I mentioned, it just won't happen spontaneously. If you desire the refutations of the two types of posts to be equal, you just have to work a little harder. Every time you see a wildly optimistic post, please refute it. If you and every other poster who considers themselves as leaning towards the "critical side" could be diligent in refuting wildly optimistic posts, the number of refutations would even out. I can have 8 chefs in my restaurant, and you could have 5 chefs, but if your chefs prepare food faster than my chefs, you could still churn out more food than me. Would you agree?

colchar
03-25-2008, 10:52 AM
First of all, the next person who defines posters as "optimists" one one side and "realists" on the other side will get a civility infraction from me. It is just plain rude to call one side "realists" in a debate because it implies the other side is unrealistic and wrong in their opinions. I am sick of it and I will not tolerate it any longer.

Period. End of story on that point.



Oh gimme a break. Calling some posters "optimists" and others "realists" is nothing more than a simple way of identifying two camps and their posting styles. It is used for the purposes of brevity so that people don't have to keep describing what they mean. And I think most simply picked it up from the post that originally used it. Its a device - deal with it.

And your comments bring up another issue. Wouldn't it be more helpful to the community if at least two mods were required to agree about sanctioning someone? You're in a snit right now and have openly stated that you plan to take it out on the next person who dares to do something that you, personally, don't like. The intent (using the terms as a device that makes it simpler to identify people/posting styles) doesn't matter here - Jason is pissed off and is going to flex his muscles. C'mon.







Go to a Steelers game some time and start badmouthing the Steelers and see what happens. Try badmouthing the Red Sox at Fenway.


I call BS on this. If either of those teams are playing poorly their own fans will eviscerate them. And they will do it publically. They will do it at games, they will do it on radio call-in shows, they will do it in newspapers, they will do it online. The same is true here in Toronto when it comes to hockey - it is widely known as one of the toughest places to play. Play well and we'll worship you. Play poorly and we'll run you out of town. But if someone plays poorly for Duke we here at DBR have to think up touchy-feely ways to say "Player X was lousy tonight and his poor play/decisions/shooting cost us the game."

colchar
03-25-2008, 10:56 AM
Hmm, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here because I cannot find common ground between your opinion and mine. If I'm reading you correctly, the knowledge of post-volume vs. mod-availability sways you some, but ultimately, you consider the shutdown decision to have come across as "silly", "childish", and "like a child throwing a tantrum."



I originally thought it was childish but, after being made aware of some of the facts and what was happening behind the scenes, I changed my opinion. I still don't think it was the best way to deal with the situation but, at the time, they thought it was. Perhaps it could have been handled differently (I have a couple of ideas) but things were decided in the heat of the moment with limited personnel available so the decision is more understandable.

Indoor66
03-25-2008, 11:04 AM
I read all the moaning and complaining about the rules and interpretation of the rules by the owners and their designated enforcers of the rules and I wonder why these people put themselves through the pain of posting here. If you come into my house and light a cigarette or put your feet on the furniture, I ask you to leave. Simple. If you don't like the rules or their application, leave. That is harsh but so is most of the world.

Some seem to come on boards for the sole purpose of arguing, stirring the pot or raising controversy. That is fine. If the owners don't like your brand of controversy you are thrown off. That is the way it is. If you want a vote on the rules, start your own board. I get sick of hearing the attitude that every opinion or idea has equal value. That is the BS I see foisted by some posters.

This is a Duke Basketball support board. Constructive criticism is not only tolerated, it is very acceptable. A little maturity in posting is demanded. This is not a bar room, it is a living room occupied by mothers, fathers, children and friends. Maybe the standard of discourse would be that acceptable in front of our mothers. A few less slaps and a few more helping hands seem most appropriate.

My rant of the day.

rockymtn devil
03-25-2008, 11:09 AM
I still think that is an example. I read that thread and didn't interpret it in the same way that you did. I think shutting it down before anything was really said was a poor decision. And, since someone else linked it as an example, I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way.

I agree, and I'm the one who linked it. We were asked to provide evidence of a potentially negative post about the team/coaching/program being moderated. The mods disagree with my use of the example, but have yet refute why it doesn't qualify. The "Two Fans" thread was second-degree criticism--it looked at fans, not the team. But, as I've said multiple times now, it absolutely feeds into the perception (backed up by JasonEvans when he said that blind faith is welcome but pessimism is not) that criticism is not welcome. This leads to a chilling effect on the boards.

Further, we've now seen three different justifications for shutting down that thread. 1) Wrong time (if there ever is an appropriate time), 2) Was going in a direction (after 3 posts) that the mod didn't like, 3) It was started by Feldspar (provided by JasonEvans and not the mod who locked the thread). None of these are compelling.

The first, with its qualifier that it's might never be the right time to discuss the "two fans", goes the heart of this conversation. Reasons 2 and 3 are some Minority Report, "pre-crime" justification. All three feed into the perception.

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 11:09 AM
I originally thought it was childish but, after being made aware of some of the facts and what was happening behind the scenes, I changed my opinion. I still don't think it was the best way to deal with the situation but, at the time, they thought it was. Perhaps it could have been handled differently (I have a couple of ideas) but things were decided in the heat of the moment with limited personnel available so the decision is more understandable.

Excellent. And I will maintain that DBR acted like adults in the exchange.

I would like to see your responses to my other posts, though. Hopefully they are forthcoming.

colchar
03-25-2008, 11:12 AM
Excellent. And I will maintain that DBR acted like adults in the exchange.

I would like to see your responses to my other posts, though. Hopefully they are forthcoming.

I'll try to get to them but my day is about the get really really crappy as I'm scheduled for a root-canal at 1:30 this afternoon.

devildownunder
03-25-2008, 11:19 AM
First of all, the next person who defines posters as "optimists" one one side and "realists" on the other side will get a civility infraction from me. It is just plain rude to call one side "realists" in a debate because it implies the other side is unrealistic and wrong in their opinions. I am sick of it and I will not tolerate it any longer.

Period. End of story on that point.

Secondly, this is not the College Basketball Report. This is not the Objective Analysis of Basketball Report. This is the Duke Basketball Report. Know what that means? It means that we are almost all fans of Duke basketball on this site. As a result, some of us are going to be really, really optimistic about Duke basketball.

The result of that is the following -- "homerism/boosterism/blind faith is welcome while (edit) pessimism is not."

Guess what people, that is how it works around here. If you are going to be negative about Duke basketball, you better bring a lot of evidence and oratory skills to the table to back it up because your audience are the most passionate Duke fans on the planet. Is that really surprising to folks?

Go to a Steelers game some time and start badmouthing the Steelers and see what happens. Try badmouthing the Red Sox at Fenway. In this place, you are surrounded by fans of Duke so negative things about Duke are not going to be as well received as the positive.

Now, am I saying that pessimism is not allowed? Of course not. But, be prepared for some fight back on it and be prepared to make good-faith and logical arguments. That said, no one wants this place to be all optimism. I enjoy a good debate. The goal of the DBR and the mods is not to stifle dissenting opinions. Trust me when I tell you the mods feel just as frustrated and angry about how Duke has played lately as the rest of ya'll.

Am I saying that wild optimism should be the norm? Of course not. Everyone gets a kick out of posters who says "Duke Football will go undefeated this year!!" but no one actually believes it will happen. Still, it is hardly harmful to anyone to read that kind of thing and those sort of statements are what being a fan is all about to some people. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that.

The Mods have been having a lot of discussions about what to do about the boards. There are some radical ideas being proposed, lemme tell ya. I do not know how it will all end up, but let me tell you things WILL NOT CONTINUE as they have been the past few days.

--Jason "bottom line-- this board is not for everyone" Evans


First of all, I've been reading and posting here for 7 years. I've read tons of your posts and had exchanges with you many times. I have no plans to stop being a part of this community any time soon. So I'm not exactly sure to whom your snide remark in your customary sig line is for.

Second, I didn't label anybody anything, I used adjectives to describe POSTS, not PEOPLE. There is a BIG difference, and if you don't do the former, how on earth can you discuss this issue?

That brings me to my next point, I don't appreciate your heavyhanded, dismissive, scolding tone in my direction for posting what I did. I'm engaged in a discussion with others on this thread. Some of whom undoubtedly see things differently. Somehow they have managed to remain civil, while you haven't. And no, I'm not PMing this because you tried to tear me a new one in public.

I'm not going to alter my way of doing anything just to please you personally. So if you want to ban me, then ban me. But please spare me your lectures and also please make sure you have your facts straight. I did not call ANYBODY ANYTHING.

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 11:23 AM
I agree, and I'm the one who linked it. We were asked to provide evidence of a potentially negative post about the team/coaching/program being moderated. The mods disagree with my use of the example, but have yet refute why it doesn't qualify. The "Two Fans" thread was second-degree criticism--it looked at fans, not the team. But, as I've said multiple times now, it absolutely feeds into the perception (backed up by JasonEvans when he said that blind faith is welcome but pessimism is not) that criticism is not welcome. This leads to a chilling effect on the boards.

Further, we've now seen three different justifications for shutting down that thread. 1) Wrong time (if there ever is an appropriate time), 2) Was going in a direction (after 3 posts) that the mod didn't like, 3) It was started by Feldspar (provided by JasonEvans and not the mod who locked the thread). None of these are compelling.

The first, with its qualifier that it's might never be the right time to discuss the "two fans", goes the heart of this conversation. Reasons 2 and 3 are some Minority Report, "pre-crime" justification. All three feed into the perception.

Could you answer these four questions:

(1) Since this very thread you are posting in contains discussion of the "Two Fans," how was discussion stifled? It was merely tabled until after the WVU game.

(2) Would you agree that sometimes discussion should be tabled?

(3) Would you agree that right before the WVU game was not a good time to have a meta-discussion about how this board operates and therefore the "Two Fans" thread qualified for tabling?

(4) Would you agree that JB explained timing was one of the issues when he locked the thread? Link again: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8114

JasonEvans
03-25-2008, 11:23 AM
I agree, and I'm the one who linked it. We were asked to provide evidence of a potentially negative post about the team/coaching/program being moderated. The mods disagree with my use of the example, but have yet refute why it doesn't qualify. The "Two Fans" thread was second-degree criticism--it looked at fans, not the team. But, as I've said multiple times now, it absolutely feeds into the perception (backed up by JasonEvans when he said that blind faith is welcome but pessimism is not) that criticism is not welcome. This leads to a chilling effect on the boards.

Further, we've now seen three different justifications for shutting down that thread. 1) Wrong time (if there ever is an appropriate time), 2) Was going in a direction (after 3 posts) that the mod didn't like, 3) It was started by Feldspar (provided by JasonEvans and not the mod who locked the thread). None of these are compelling.

The first, with its qualifier that it's might never be the right time to discuss the "two fans", goes the heart of this conversation. Reasons 2 and 3 are some Minority Report, "pre-crime" justification. All three feed into the perception.

Rocky,

Clearly we disagree about this. You throw out statements like "the mods have yet to refute (me)" and "(their reasons) are not compelling." Fine, that is your opinion and you have made it. Several mods have, in fact, responded to your initial post and explained the rationale behind some of their moves. You don't accept those reasons. Ok, that is your right.

You and Colchar have made your opinions abundantly well-known on this topic. You have made those opinions known over and over again in this thread and a couple related ones over the past 24 hours. I think we all know where you stand on this now and it is helpful for the community to know the views of a wide variety of posters.

I think it now serves all of us (who have posted multiple times in this thread) well to put this whole thing to rest and reduce some of the acrimony. I look forward to reading new opinions on these topics if there are any.

--Jason "I must say, I do wonder why some folks who object to so much about the DBR boards bother to hang out here-- it is not like there aren't many other options for Duke boards" Evans

devildownunder
03-25-2008, 11:24 AM
The result of that is the following -- "homerism/boosterism/blind faith is welcome while (edit) pessimism is not."


--Jason "bottom line-- this board is not for everyone" Evans


Oh really? Where is that in the posting guidelines? I thought the idea here was intelligent discussion, not cheerleading. I guess I was wrong. At least we know where you stand. I hope you're not around when I get to posting about our scheduling again then.

Again, you're a mod. You have much more proxy than I ever will at this place. But there isn't anything in the published rules that back up what you are saying.

Constantstrain 81
03-25-2008, 11:28 AM
I am much more able to discuss (and be happy with) our season and its ending now than I was after the WV loss. I am happy that the moderators were able to close the board for awhile instead of have everyone suffer through the agonies of an unexpected loss to end the season.

Thanks, DBR.

devildownunder
03-25-2008, 11:31 AM
If I'm reading you correctly, DDU, you are saying you desire the refutation of optimistic posts to be equal in number to the refutation of critical posts? Is that correct? I have two things to say about that.

(1) As Jason mentioned, I don't consider it practical for you to desire what you desire; at the very least, what you desire won't occur spontaneously. What if the people who want to be optimistic about Duke basketball just plain outnumber the people who want to be critical of Duke basketball (not that one person can't be both optimistic and critical, but for this discussion, it seems the underlying assumption is that people tend to lean one way or another)? Certainly, on a Duke fan site, you might expect that sort of outnumbering to play out, agreed?

(2) Despite the outnumbering, you can STILL have what you desire; as I mentioned, it just won't happen spontaneously. If you desire the refutations of the two types of posts to be equal, you just have to work a little harder. Every time you see a wildly optimistic post, please refute it. If you and every other poster who considers themselves as leaning towards the "critical side" could be diligent in refuting wildly optimistic posts, the number of refutations would even out. I can have 8 chefs in my restaurant, and you could have 5 chefs, but if your chefs prepare food faster than my chefs, you could still churn out more food than me. Would you agree?


I understand what you are saying. Yes, this is a Duke message board, so since it's a fan site, you will have a certain tone of support. I like this. If it were up to me, which it isn't, I wouldn't change it. But I think it's about more than raw numbers of people posting a certain way. A shift in the overall tone could be as simple as getting a few moderators and influential lay-members to steer things in a certain way for a couple of months.

So, bottom line, you're right in that I can contribute to making things more the way I would like them, to some extent, but I think people with far more say around here than me can change things quicker and more permanently if they take up the cause as well.

I'm just not real sure there is any motivation to do that. I have no way of knowing for sure though.

devildownunder
03-25-2008, 11:38 AM
Jason "postamatic" Evans,


I'm going to assume that your diatribe aimed in my direction was actually meant for someone (or ones) else, and not me. Therefore, I apologise for responding with such a harsh tone. Apparently, it's been a rough several days for you moderators.

colchar
03-25-2008, 11:39 AM
First of all, the next person who defines posters as "optimists" one one side and "realists" on the other side will get a civility infraction from me. It is just plain rude to call one side "realists" in a debate because it implies the other side is unrealistic and wrong in their opinions. I am sick of it and I will not tolerate it any longer.

Period. End of story on that point.



I should also ask...hasn't there been a lot of talk around here lately about not posting in the heat of the moment?

colchar
03-25-2008, 11:43 AM
Rocky,

Clearly we disagree about this. You throw out statements like "the mods have yet to refute (me)" and "(their reasons) are not compelling." Fine, that is your opinion and you have made it. Several mods have, in fact, responded to your initial post and explained the rationale behind some of their moves. You don't accept those reasons. Ok, that is your right.

You and Colchar have made your opinions abundantly well-known on this topic. You have made those opinions known over and over again in this thread and a couple related ones over the past 24 hours. I think we all know where you stand on this now and it is helpful for the community to know the views of a wide variety of posters.

I think it now serves all of us (who have posted multiple times in this thread) well to put this whole thing to rest and reduce some of the acrimony. I look forward to reading new opinions on these topics if there are any.


Are you telling us we're not allowed to discuss this any longer? That certainly seems to be what you are saying in this post (and in a previous one). I didn't know being a mod gave you the right to tell people what they are and are not allowed to discuss.

colchar
03-25-2008, 11:45 AM
Oh really? Where is that in the posting guidelines? I thought the idea here was intelligent discussion, not cheerleading. I guess I was wrong. At least we know where you stand. I hope you're not around when I get to posting about our scheduling again then.

Again, you're a mod. You have much more proxy than I ever will at this place. But there isn't anything in the published rules that back up what you are saying.

Agreed. It seems to me that Jason is angry and is making things up as he goes along. Maybe he should practise what has been preached around here lately and not post in anger. That way, when he is more calm, he can rejoin the discussin that the rest of us are having (and seem to be able to have in a fairly level-headed manner).

Cavlaw
03-25-2008, 11:53 AM
Agreed. It seems to me that Jason is angry and is making things up as he goes along. Maybe he should practise what has been preached around here lately and not post in anger. That way, when he is more calm, he can rejoin the discussin that the rest of us are having (and seem to be able to have in a fairly level-headed manner).
I happen to enjoy your banter on the PPB, so I'd rather not see you pick up points. In light of that, I have to ask: what do you hope to accomplish by picking this fight? Are you actually attempting a public shaming?

The PM system exists for, among other things, resolving personal disputes between posters, and is almost certainly the wise course of action when dealing with a moderator.

colchar
03-25-2008, 11:58 AM
I happen to enjoy your banter on the PPB, so I'd rather not see you pick up points. In light of that, I have to ask: what do you hope to accomplish by picking this fight? Are you actually attempting a public shaming?

The PM system exists for, among other things, resolving personal disputes between posters, and is almost certainly the wise course of action when dealing with a moderator.

I didn't start this fight, Jason did. If it is fine for him to call people out then he can have it done to him. Had he not done it publically I would never have considered posting what I just did. Perhaps it was a bad call in some ways - thinking about it again I can certainly see that. But when a mod abuses their authority (and I do think he abused his to a degree) then I think they should be able to handle being called on it.

rockymtn devil
03-25-2008, 12:02 PM
Could you answer these four questions:

(1) Since this very thread you are posting in contains discussion of the "Two Fans," how was discussion stifled? It was merely tabled until after the WVU game.

(2) Would you agree that sometimes discussion should be tabled?

(3) Would you agree that right before the WVU game was not a good time to have a meta-discussion about how this board operates and therefore the "Two Fans" thread qualified for tabling?

(4) Would you agree that JB explained timing was one of the issues when he locked the thread? Link again: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8114

1. This discussion has not been what the "Two Fans" discussion could've been had it been allowed to develop. This may go to another of your points (#3), but this thread has been about how the board operates, the "Two Fans" thread was more about the people who post. In essence, it was the counter-narrative to the DBR's front page (although it obviously came before), post-WVU loss write-up which called people "delusional". "Two Fans" could've been a healthy discussion of the "optimists/real fans" vs. the "realists/delusional fans" (JasonEvans, I'm using those terms purely to make a point and not to assign their connotations to anyone; they're other people's words, including the owners of the site).

2. Only in extraordinary circumstances--and this wasn't tabled, it was shut down and not reopened. The main board front page has room for 20 threads (23 with the stickies). There is always an official pre/during-game thread for an upcoming game and a post-game thread for the most recent game. That leaves 18 thread spots, and, given that avoiding redundancy is a goal of the mods, most of those should relate to something other than the upcoming or past game. Why table it then? If people aren't discussing it, it will run its course rather quickly and move to the second page and so on.

3. No.

4. Yes and no. He did said timing was an issue, but also noted that it may never be the right time for such a thread. To JasonEvans credit, he noted in this current thread that the long off-season might be an appropriate time to bring up such a discussion. But, the sense given from the mod that locked the thread in question, was that he/she never wanted to see it.

Again, this all goes to perception. Hopefully the mods comments throughout this thread will change the perception. We were asked to present an example where criticism was moderated, and I feel I did that sufficiently. But, just in case, I dug up two threads from last fall that I think illustrate the point even better.

1. http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4317&highlight=Weakness

2. http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4348&highlight=Strength

Thread 1 deals with K's greatest weakness. Thread 2 with his greatest strengths. Post 1 was locked after a few hours because the mods felt it was going nowhere. Post 2 was allowed to stand even after the third post (by a mod) was that his greatest strength is his "biceps". The rest of the first page is, by and large, filled with jokes that didn't answer the question or add to the discourse. Eventually, thread 2 gets on track, but thread 1 was never given that opportunity. Now, there are probably perfectly good reasons for this--and I don't think it's "censoring" criticism. But, I remember when these threads were started, and I remember being surprised when thread 1 was locked but thread 2 wasn't. That's the perception discussed in this thread.

JasonEvans
03-25-2008, 12:24 PM
Are you telling us we're not allowed to discuss this any longer? That certainly seems to be what you are saying in this post (and in a previous one). I didn't know being a mod gave you the right to tell people what they are and are not allowed to discuss.

I am doing nothing of the sort. You are allowed to continue to talk about this as much as you want. I was merely saying that I did not think anything further was to be gained by continued squabbling among the same people. I think those of us who have posted many times in this thread all know quite clearly where we stand on these issues and there is precious little common ground between us. I was trying to encourage other folks to step in with opinions because there is little to be gained by the 5 or 6 of us continuing to rehash the same arguments over and over again.

Look, you guys are having a great time taking pot-shots at me, so I'll get out of the way of the line of fire. I am done with this thread. I think I made my view and the views of all the mods pretty clear and that is a valuable thing (I think).

I'll continue reading to see if anything merits moderation, which is my "job" in these parts, but you won't have Jason to kick around any longer.

--Jason "I am sorry so many folks seem to be so upset at me -- I did get frustrated but my main goal here was to allow everyone to understand how the DBR is supposed to work and what is and is not acceptable on these boards" Evans

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 12:44 PM
I understand what you are saying. Yes, this is a Duke message board, so since it's a fan site, you will have a certain tone of support. I like this. If it were up to me, which it isn't, I wouldn't change it. But I think it's about more than raw numbers of people posting a certain way. A shift in the overall tone could be as simple as getting a few moderators and influential lay-members to steer things in a certain way for a couple of months.

So, bottom line, you're right in that I can contribute to making things more the way I would like them, to some extent, but I think people with far more say around here than me can change things quicker and more permanently if they take up the cause as well.

I'm just not real sure there is any motivation to do that. I have no way of knowing for sure though.

DDU, I think you hit the nail on the head when you wonder if there is enough motivation to have things be the way you desire them to be. I don't think there really is much motivation for that. As I mentioned in my chefs analogy above, it's really up to you and the other posters who consider themselves to be on the "critical side" to change things, by increasing your posting volume.

The moderators operate by using the posting guidelines, and there's nothing in those guidelines about penalizing Pollyanna-ish posts. There is, however, an infraction for destructively negative posts. That's the way the site owners want this board to operate. Would you agree that, short of changing the site owners' minds, you might just have to accept that's how things work here?

The other aspect of this motivation we're discussing is personal posting preference. Let me use myself as an example because I can speak for myself. I absolutely spend more time arguing against critical posts than optimistic posts. But that's just what I like to do; I like playing devil's advocate to criticism and I enjoy arguing against optimistic posts much less. While it's POSSIBLE for me to increase my volume of arguing against optimistic posts, I would enjoy it less. Would you agree that it's not practical to expect me to change my posting preference?

Would you agree that overall --due to the posting guidelines and individual posting preferences-- it's really up to you to make the changes you want to see? You say you're not an influential poster but I disagree. Post more often, refute optimistic posts more often, and you can be as influential as anyone and get what you desire.

colchar
03-25-2008, 12:51 PM
Look, you guys are having a great time taking pot-shots at me, so I'll get out of the way of the line of fire. I am done with this thread. I think I made my view and the views of all the mods pretty clear and that is a valuable thing (I think).

I'll continue reading to see if anything merits moderation, which is my "job" in these parts, but you won't have Jason to kick around any longer.

--Jason "I am sorry so many folks seem to be so upset at me -- I did get frustrated but my main goal here was to allow everyone to understand how the DBR is supposed to work and what is and is not acceptable on these boards" Evans

Talk about taking your ball and going home. Jason, you started this by calling people out in a 1000-point font and challenging them (I didn't have any beefs with you until you did that). If you hadn't done so, nobody would be 'kicking you around' (as you put it) right now. But, since you started it, I think you should step up and take whatever is being dished back right now.


ETA: I'm off for a root canal (this is going to be a great afternoon) but we can continue this when I return - providing, of course, that I haven't committed hari-kari by then.

MarineTwinsDad
03-25-2008, 12:59 PM
"A shift in the overall tone could be as simple as getting a few moderators and influential lay-members to steer things in a certain way for a couple of months...I think people with far more say around here than me can change things quicker and more permanently if they take up the cause as well."

What I don't understand is why a Duke basketball site should try to be "fair and unbalanced." People come here because they are enthusiastic about Duke basketball. The actual despair at Duke losing in the second round of the NCAA tourneyment to a team they would have beaten easily in the first half of the season was evidence of that passion. No one likes to have people criticize those that we openly admire, and some, perhaps most, who participate in this Bb have a very strong admiration for the Duke basketball team and program.

For someone to suggest that the Bb should change to allow more criticism, that the culture here should be changed to include more pessimism, and that those who are some of the strongest supporters of the Duke basketball program (referring to the unpaid and mostly unappreciated moderators) should somehow buy into an impartial view, and even promote balance between optimism and pessimism, certainly doesn't seem logical. Or right.

tbyers11
03-25-2008, 01:08 PM
I read all the moaning and complaining about the rules and interpretation of the rules by the owners and their designated enforcers of the rules and I wonder why these people put themselves through the pain of posting here. If you come into my house and light a cigarette or put your feet on the furniture, I ask you to leave. Simple. If you don't like the rules or their application, leave. That is harsh but so is most of the world.

Some seem to come on boards for the sole purpose of arguing, stirring the pot or raising controversy. That is fine. If the owners don't like your brand of controversy you are thrown off. That is the way it is. If you want a vote on the rules, start your own board. I get sick of hearing the attitude that every opinion or idea has equal value. That is the BS I see foisted by some posters.

This is a Duke Basketball support board. Constructive criticism is not only tolerated, it is very acceptable. A little maturity in posting is demanded. This is not a bar room, it is a living room occupied by mothers, fathers, children and friends. Maybe the standard of discourse would be that acceptable in front of our mothers. A few less slaps and a few more helping hands seem most appropriate.

My rant of the day.

I think post encapsulates my feelings very well. I post on this board because I love Duke Basketball and like discussing it with others who feel the same way. I rarely post on any other Duke boards because I like the increased level of civility on this board. This is because of the guidelines set up by Julio and Boswell and enforced by the volunteer moderators (thank you very much).

I think this boards leans toward a rah-rah mentality rather than a critical view of Duke Basketball, but as others have mentioned it is a Duke fan board. I don't agree with every action the mods have taken but I feel that the stifling of criticism rarely takes place when said criticism is presented in a rational manner and backed with evidence.

Other bulletin boards that I have read rarely go through the level of explanation of their actions with regard to bannings, deletions, locking, etc. that the DBR moderators do. People get banned, posts get deleted and you might be able to figure out what went on if you visit frequently. I appreciate that the mods here have gone the extra mile to explain how the policies of board are interpreted (Jumbo's Community: What Would You Do poll and Jason Evans trying to explain things on this thread are fresh in my mind) when they have no need to do so, because they seem to cherish these boards as much as I do.

In my opinion, the issues of shutting the board down and the deletion and locking of threads are good points for discussion but the amount of rehashing of basically the same points over and over again that has taken place recently seems to me like wanting to win the argument of whether this board overly moderates critical content rather than having a thorough discussion of the issues.

This argumentative tone has taken place on on both sides of the fence and will happen because we all want to be right, but I don't understand the dogged persistence of those who feel this board has overly moderated critical content. If you dislike this board and its policies so much why do you continue to visit? I haven't had any of my opinions censored by the moderators and maybe I would feel differently if I had, but the continued arguments against the policies of the board seem to me like personal grudges or stirring the pot just for the heck of it.

colchar
03-25-2008, 01:14 PM
"A shift in the overall tone could be as simple as getting a few moderators and influential lay-members to steer things in a certain way for a couple of months...I think people with far more say around here than me can change things quicker and more permanently if they take up the cause as well."

What I don't understand is why a Duke basketball site should try to be "fair and unbalanced." People come here because they are enthusiastic about Duke basketball. The actual despair at Duke losing in the second round of the NCAA tourneyment to a team they would have beaten easily in the first half of the season was evidence of that passion. No one likes to have people criticize those that we openly admire, and some, perhaps most, who participate in this Bb have a very strong admiration for the Duke basketball team and program.

For someone to suggest that the Bb should change to allow more criticism, that the culture here should be changed to include more pessimism, and that those who are some of the strongest supporters of the Duke basketball program (referring to the unpaid and mostly unappreciated moderators) should somehow buy into an impartial view, and even promote balance between optimism and pessimism, certainly doesn't seem logical. Or right.


Well fans of other teams are allowed to love their team with all their heart but also to admit when they stink the joint out on a particular night (or for a season)/when a player plays poorly/when a coach makes a bad decision/etc. It doesn't make them any less of a fan. Why can't that happen here?

Carlos
03-25-2008, 01:37 PM
First, we're all essentially dealing in the realm of the hypothetical here, because none of us owns this site and those who do own it will do whatever they please, and they have every right to do so.

Now, one criticism of the way things are handled on the board that I agree with is that there is a double standard when it comes to blind criticism and blind praise. We are constantly reminded that if we want to criticise, we must back it up with facts and be ready to support our opinion because it will be challenged. Well, I'm going to respectfully challenge the powers that be as well as the community at large to hold wildly optimistic posters to the same standard. It's irritating to post a less-than-glowing critique of how Coach K handled some endgame situation last night and have several people ask you "how many national championships have you won?" and look down the same thread and see people talking about how we shouldn't be concerned about our inside game (just as a hypothetical) and not see anyone really challenge such a statement.

It sends a message that smoke up the rear is ok but realistic criticism isn't. How can that possibly be good for the board?

Maybe this has already been addressed, but in case it hasn't let me offer up this for you -

One of the reasons that most people don't hold wildly optimistic posters to the same standard as those who are wildly negative is because those wildly optimistic posters are - to quote Douglas Adams - mostly harmless. Reading a post that talks about how Brian Zoubek is destined to become the next Magic Johnson if he gets the chance to play point guard doesn't harm anyone. Reading a post about how Brian Zoubek is never going to be a guy who can play consistently for Duke does do harm. People do read these boards - players, recruits, HS coaches - and the things posters write here are a reflection of a part of the Duke community.

How big a part of the Duke community and how much impact the posts on this board have on players, families, and recruits is certainly up for debate. But guess what.... it doesn't matter because of point #2: the folks who put the work into running this site don't want to be used as a platform for the expression of views that may be harmful to Duke. That's why you see a double standard between the way optimistic and pessimistic posts are handled.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-25-2008, 01:45 PM
Well fans of other teams are allowed to love their team with all their heart but also to admit when they stink the joint out on a particular night (or for a season)/when a player plays poorly/when a coach makes a bad decision/etc. It doesn't make them any less of a fan. Why can't that happen here?

Because a specific, conscious (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3350) decision (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8245&page=5) has been made by the people who own the site (i.e put their money and time into its creation and existence) and the people who volunteer their time to moderate it, to give drastically more leeway to "positive" (i.e. "We're great") comments. It's their board and they feel a better community will result from this balance. I don't like that decision and I'm genuinely struggling with whether I want to be a part of a community with those priorities, but if you/I/anybody does want to be a part of it, we need to genuinely respect that decision and post in accordance with it.

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 01:51 PM
1. This discussion has not been what the "Two Fans" discussion could've been had it been allowed to develop. This may go to another of your points (#3), but this thread has been about how the board operates, the "Two Fans" thread was more about the people who post. In essence, it was the counter-narrative to the DBR's front page (although it obviously came before), post-WVU loss write-up which called people "delusional". "Two Fans" could've been a healthy discussion of the "optimists/real fans" vs. the "realists/delusional fans" (JasonEvans, I'm using those terms purely to make a point and not to assign their connotations to anyone; they're other people's words, including the owners of the site).


I disagree. I think in this thread we have been talking about the "two fans"; see my exchanges with devildownunder for an example. However, if you think the "Two Fans" discussion is really about something else, why don't you go ahead and let us know your take on it right here in this thread? The point is, the discussion of "Two Fans" is not stifled -- would you agree?



2. Only in extraordinary circumstances--and this wasn't tabled, it was shut down and not reopened. The main board front page has room for 20 threads (23 with the stickies). There is always an official pre/during-game thread for an upcoming game and a post-game thread for the most recent game. That leaves 18 thread spots, and, given that avoiding redundancy is a goal of the mods, most of those should relate to something other than the upcoming or past game. Why table it then? If people aren't discussing it, it will run its course rather quickly and move to the second page and so on.

I disagree. I believe that thread was not re-opened because this thread right here covers if not the exact same ground, then similar ground; if you don't think so, maybe you can ask the mods to merge that thread into this one. Again, you can post your opinion on the "two fans" right here. You say under extraordinary circumstances, a thread should be tabled. Could you explain what those circumstances are?



3. No.


I disagree. I think it was an appropriate topic for tabling at that time. Some topics are more serious than others, and I would consider a meta-discussion about types of fans and their roles on this board to be a serious one that requires people's attention. Except most people's attention at that time was on WVU. Hence, tabling. But now let's discuss "two fans," if you want, as others have been discussing it in this thread.



4. Yes and no. He did said timing was an issue, but also noted that it may never be the right time for such a thread. To JasonEvans credit, he noted in this current thread that the long off-season might be an appropriate time to bring up such a discussion. But, the sense given from the mod that locked the thread in question, was that he/she never wanted to see it.


Here's what he said: "If it's ever the right time - this ground has been covered several times over the last few months..." He was saying that the topic is not exactly fresh (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4642&highlight=culture ), and I agree. But the main idea was the timing was wrong and that is why we are discussing "Two Fans" now, post-WVU, as opposed to then.

allenmurray
03-25-2008, 01:54 PM
Well fans of other teams are allowed to love their team with all their heart but also to admit when they stink the joint out on a particular night (or for a season)/when a player plays poorly/when a coach makes a bad decision/etc. It doesn't make them any less of a fan. Why can't that happen here?

Because the owners of the site decided that was not what they wanted. See, it is their site . . . oh, never mind, no one seems to understand that anyway.

All this talk about having a "right" to ciriticze. Having "my rights" to criticize taken away. You can complain about the players, the coaches, the team, player's haircuts, player's mama's perfume, and the coaches sister's choice in fingernail polish all you want. No one is preventing anyone from doing that. They are simply saying "don't do that in my living room".

allenmurray
03-25-2008, 01:58 PM
when a mod abuses their authority (and I do think he abused his to a degree)

If the owners of the board gave him the authority, and they don't think he abused it, then he didn't abuse it. Period. You are a guest in their living room. They've asked you not to smoke cigars. so if you insist on lighting up they have every right to ask you to leave. Why? Because it is their house. It doesn't have to do with the relative merits of cigars - it has to do with the fact that it is their choice to make, not yours.

Troublemaker
03-25-2008, 02:15 PM
Again, this all goes to perception. Hopefully the mods comments throughout this thread will change the perception. We were asked to present an example where criticism was moderated, and I feel I did that sufficiently. But, just in case, I dug up two threads from last fall that I think illustrate the point even better.

1. http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4317&highlight=Weakness

2. http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4348&highlight=Strength

Thread 1 deals with K's greatest weakness. Thread 2 with his greatest strengths. Post 1 was locked after a few hours because the mods felt it was going nowhere. Post 2 was allowed to stand even after the third post (by a mod) was that his greatest strength is his "biceps". The rest of the first page is, by and large, filled with jokes that didn't answer the question or add to the discourse. Eventually, thread 2 gets on track, but thread 1 was never given that opportunity. Now, there are probably perfectly good reasons for this--and I don't think it's "censoring" criticism. But, I remember when these threads were started, and I remember being surprised when thread 1 was locked but thread 2 wasn't. That's the perception discussed in this thread.

This is a much better example than the one you provided previously. I would agree that, without knowing all the circumstances of the decision to lock, I personally would have left both threads open. I like this post of yours. In my opinion, when you think constructive criticism is being stymied, you should point it out in the manner you have done here. Can you continue to do this in the future? Not just you, but anyone who perceives that constructive criticism is stymied.

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 02:31 PM
Colchar, DevilDownUnder, Troublemaker and, yes, Jason:
You guys have all made your points. I would suggest you all cool off, as not much is being accomplished.
I'll add a few things for each of you:
Colchar: You and I exchanged PMs yesterday. You are certainly not respecting the tone of them. At this point, your posts are qualifying for a "repetitive rant" citation based on the posting guidelines. You are also using an example from a game played nine years ago on a board that required codes as the basis for much of your argument. That is ridiculous. It would be to your benefit to bow out now, as you are not presenting any new information and are pretty clearly arguing for the sake of arguing.

DevilDownUnder: I take offense at the idea of separating fans into two camps. Why? Because I don't fit into either. I like to consider myself a student of the game. I also happen to love Duke hoops. But I love to analyze too. So, when people are over-the-top positive, I often weigh in to tone down expectations (See: Pocius, Marty). This is a nuanced world. People can be realistic and optimistic at the same time, as well as criticla and positive. Most of all, we just need to be respectful, avoid whining for the sake of whining and keep some perspective on this. I know it helps me to remind myself how immature I was in college and then imagine a bunch of grown men and women were discussing me every single day. I'm all for debate (you KNOW how much I love to argue), but there is a time and place for certain things. A meta-discussion of fandom sandwiched between a narrow escape and a season-ending loss was not going to generate the kind of thoughtful discussion that it could in, say, the offseason. And wouldn't you rather have a thoughtful discussion than an emotion-fueled one?

Troublemaker: I appreciate your take in this thread. I think you are an excellent example of someone who has no problem using criticism in analysis, but who keeps a sense of perspective and understands where the line is drawn. That said, I also think you've made your point. At this stage, unless you can advance the debate, it's best to let things rest.

Jason: You need a break. I hope other posters are willing to give you one. I sincerely hope that Colchar and DDU, who have both been around DBR for ages, are willing to give Jason the benefit of the doubt here, knowing that he has been a jovial member of the community who brings a lot of fun to the boards (polls, movie reviews, idiotic jersey-hanging pronouncements) and rarely tries to hurt anyone. Jason, I don't like the post where you threatened people. At the same time, I understand what drove you to it. Guys, please lighten up.

Thanks for your time,
Jumbo

colchar
03-25-2008, 03:15 PM
Because the owners of the site decided that was not what they wanted. See, it is their site . . . oh, never mind, no one seems to understand that anyway.

All this talk about having a "right" to ciriticze. Having "my rights" to criticize taken away. You can complain about the players, the coaches, the team, player's haircuts, player's mama's perfume, and the coaches sister's choice in fingernail polish all you want. No one is preventing anyone from doing that. They are simply saying "don't do that in my living room".

For the record, I've never said it was anyone's "right". All I've said is that I think criticism, regardless of how constructive it may be, has traditionally been stifled here. I'm not into mindless rah-rah support - I far prefer open and reasoned discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of players/teams/programs/coaches/etc.

Anyone who has been around here for any length of time knows that, every once in a while, an issue comes up that causes a debate such as this. To my mind those debates (regardless of how the issue is ultimately resolved) have made this a stronger community and I hope that is what is going to happen because of the current discussion. It has been healthy in the past and I see no reason it won't be healthy this time.

And, while it is J&B's site, the members of the community support it by buying things, donating, purchasing from certain vendors, or just by coming here because that permits them to receive ad revenue. While the members of the community certainly do not own the site, and do not contribute as much to it as J&B do, does their financial support (in whatever form) not entitle them to at least some degree of input as to how the place is managed? Again, it might not result in any changes but the debate itself can be healthy.

colchar
03-25-2008, 03:22 PM
If the owners of the board gave him the authority, and they don't think he abused it, then he didn't abuse it.

Well then perhaps his position should be reconsidered. Jumbo has engaged in this discussion (primarily in another thread) and, although I have disagreed with some of what he has had to say, I really appreciate the manner in which he has participated (I posted this before reading Jumbo's post further down this thread...that particular post only served to confirm what I had just typed here). He has not called people out in an inappropriate way. He has not used extremely large fonts to 'yell' at people. He has not stamped his feat and declared "I am not going to take it." Jason has done all of those. Heck, a couple of his posts probably violated the guidelines.

Jumbo on the other hand has discussed, debated, and argued with civility and in good faith (anything harsh he had to say to me was said privately). In other words, he has not in any way abused his authority - he has, to my mind, made a meaningful contribution to this discussion.

Shouldn't mods have to practise what they preach (as Jumbo has) or do they get to flaunt the rules with impunity?

colchar
03-25-2008, 03:28 PM
Colchar: You and I exchanged PMs yesterday. You are certainly not respecting the tone of them. At this point, your posts are qualifying for a "repetitive rant" citation based on the posting guidelines. You are also using an example from a game played nine years ago on a board that required codes as the basis for much of your argument. That is ridiculous.


I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I think this debate is healthy and perhaps needs to be had as it will undoubtedly make this a better place. It has happened before and I suspect it will happen now.

And I was using an example from long ago because A) it stuck out in my mind and B) because I think it demonstrates that criticism has been somewhat stifled here for a long time. Maybe it is about time that changed?




Jason: You need a break. I hope other posters are willing to give you one. I sincerely hope that Colchar and DDU, who have both been around DBR for ages, are willing to give Jason the benefit of the doubt here, knowing that he has been a jovial member of the community who brings a lot of fun to the boards (polls, movie reviews, idiotic jersey-hanging pronouncements) and rarely tries to hurt anyone. Jason, I don't like the post where you threatened people. At the same time, I understand what drove you to it. Guys, please lighten up.


Jason definitely has, over the years, contributed a great deal to this community. My criticisms (I can't speak for anyone else on this matter) of him in this thread have related only to this thread and not to his overall demeanor on these boards.

drdukeblue33
03-25-2008, 03:28 PM
i have been reading for years and appreciate and enjoy the site. But please remember this is just a game to be enjoyed win or lose. Being older and having had children that were the age of the duke players we have to be careful about crossing the line in criticism. i do not recall ever seeing a duke player not give 100% and for the whole act in a professional manner, g iven that we have had a few characters through the years. Fans will recall from 1968 to 1978 how we would have been glad for 28-6 and the season we just had. in 1981-82 things looked bleak. would we ever beat unc again? then we had an incredible run and reading the posts the last few days i think some people have lost perspective. face it the game is great because of the parity and a game that depends on the bounce of the ball can go either way. i am sad that the season is over because i enjoy the season so much win or lose. i have seen almost every game since 1985 and went to duke 1968-72. i have practiced cancer medicine for over thirty years so i am prepared to deal with loses and relish the wins. although i live in kansas my pts have become duke fans and my office is full of various duke regalia the pts have made through the years. enjoy each day. be grateful and let's remember not to judge too harshly young men doing their best.

allenmurray
03-25-2008, 06:09 PM
Shouldn't mods have to practise what they preach (as Jumbo has) or do they get to flaunt the rules with impunity?

If the owners think they should get to flaunt the rules with impunity, then they get to flaunt the rules with impunity. That is exactly my point. This isn't your site. It isn't my site. It is the owners site. You can say what mods should or shouldn't be able to do all you want, but you don't get to decide. The owners get to decide.

You can go to Best Buy and demand that they sell you a cashmere sweater. But, they don't have to. Why? It is their store - they can sell whatever they please. And if the salesman insults you by telling you that you are an idiot for asking for a cashmere sweater in an electronics store, you can complain to the owner for hiring a salesman who insluts his customers. But you know what? If the owner deicdes he's got the salesman's back you have exactly one option - shop somewhere else. Because in the end, it ain't your store. You don't get to decide the rules. No matter how much you think you should get to help decide the rules, no matter how long you've shopped there, no matter how much money or influence you thnk you might have, you actually can only vote with your pocketbook. As long as the store issuccessful the owners are free to ignore the suggestions of thier customers.

dukestheheat
03-25-2008, 09:26 PM
i have been reading for years and appreciate and enjoy the site. But please remember this is just a game to be enjoyed win or lose. Being older and having had children that were the age of the duke players we have to be careful about crossing the line in criticism. i do not recall ever seeing a duke player not give 100% and for the whole act in a professional manner, g iven that we have had a few characters through the years. Fans will recall from 1968 to 1978 how we would have been glad for 28-6 and the season we just had. in 1981-82 things looked bleak. would we ever beat unc again? then we had an incredible run and reading the posts the last few days i think some people have lost perspective. face it the game is great because of the parity and a game that depends on the bounce of the ball can go either way. i am sad that the season is over because i enjoy the season so much win or lose. i have seen almost every game since 1985 and went to duke 1968-72. i have practiced cancer medicine for over thirty years so i am prepared to deal with loses and relish the wins. although i live in kansas my pts have become duke fans and my office is full of various duke regalia the pts have made through the years. enjoy each day. be grateful and let's remember not to judge too harshly young men doing their best.

Doctor,

That is an excellent post and it's well-spoken; thank you for sharing your thoughts and helping all of us with perspective.

dukestheheat

heavy g
03-26-2008, 08:31 AM
I fully respect the right of the forum owners to run this thing however they see fit. It seems that the desire is more to create a "fan's clubhouse" than a truly open forum. I am generally a lurker on this board and a more regular poster on MTBR, a forum devoted to mountain biking. After nearly 1000 posts over the span of four years, I have not been reprimanded, censored, or chastised by any moderators or forum owners once over there. I finally decided to post a couple of things here on DBR, and I got a warning/demerit in my second post, and was attacked by other posters.

Some of you react by saying this is a very good thing, and seem to relish policing a higher standard than other boards. But when the censorship extends to comments one might hear on ESPN every single day, all day long, it's pretty shocking to those of us that don't necessarily know about the "insider's" party line. There is also a tendency to jump on new posters and demand that they "conform" to this sense of "community". These two phenomena create a pretty unwelcoming climate for infrequent/new posters such as myself. Maybe that's OK with all you guys, but I think you are suppressing debate in a pretty big way. I find myself getting ready to type a post and thinking to myself, "Oh geez, I am sure I will get attacked for that comment unless I reword it into something completely bland, non-controversial, and generally agreeing with the regulars." Instead of "that guy is too slow to play defense on opposing PGs", you guys seem to insist on sanitizing it to ""He seems to have trouble with opposing guards dribble penetration". And you guys seem to think that has the same meaning, but I don't agree. To me, it is pretty much a requirement to be "politically correct". Interestingly, the same phenomenon was a significant issue at Duke while I was there. (T'93)

There is nothing wrong with maintaining cleaner standards. But there is a large gulf of middle ground between what you guys are doing and what you describe as "free-for-all" forums. You can eliminate truly nasty, ugly comments and arguments without eliminating so many mildly negative ones. I think the example of what we see and hear on TV is probably a bit more reasonable than the standards you are presently trying to maintain.

As I said in the opening line, I respect the fact that it is your choice. However, it will continue to exclude people, make them feel unwelcome, and this same issue/debate will come up again and again and again. Some moderators and regulars are getting visibly angry and frustrated with the people who disagree with or don't understand the militant policy. Why? It comes up over and over again because people with an "outside" (read: average) perspective are surprised by it; it doesn't match up with their experiences in society or on other internet forums.

I would respectfully suggest that the rules be enforced less stringently in the future. The moderator's life would be easier, the debates would be less one-sided and dogmatic, and you would have a lot less people decrying the censorship.