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

[colchar]

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]

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]

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]

show me a post that was deleted . . .

You do see the irony, yes?

[rockymtn devil]

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]

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]

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]

....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[BCGroup]

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]

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]

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?