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

[Troublemaker]

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/...hlight=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]

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]

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]

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/...light=Weakness

2. http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...light=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.