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

[Jumbo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...ead.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]

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]

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