Community: What Would You Do?

[rockymtn devil]

I think that the guidelines for "Destructive Negativity" are not very helpful and don't provide posters a good enough view of what is and is not acceptable. They say "destructive negativity" is anything that isn't "constructive criticism". That's like saying reckless driving is anything that isn't careful driving. It begs a question, which inherently leaves an ambiguity. The examples given are not very helpful because, as we can all imagine, there are too many possible posts to be encompassed by one "good" example and one "bad" example.

With that said, a look at the three statements.

1. Paulus--Boston Dukie's post states an opinion. Yes, it's negative. Is it destructive? I don't know because the definition is so vague. You could certainly argue that it's constructive criticism. BD might truly believe that it's constructive for the Duke team to place Paulus on the bench. This especially comes to light in how he later discusses the value Paulus could bring the team from the bench. No infraction for this.

2. Zoubek--This is negativity without much to back it up. The context that existed in the Paulus point isn't there in the Zoubek critique, IMO. It's also unfair to a player who needs some time to grow given his injuries. But, again, this could be viewed as constructive to team (see above). Mild infraction might be warranted.

3. Wojo--Again, could be constructive to the team as a whole. The "suburban" comment is bizarre and unnecessary, as is the last point about nobody else taking the job. Mild infraction might be warranted.

I think the problem is the vagueness of the guidelines. All three of these points do have constructive value and as such might not satisfy the definition of "destructively negative".

[colchar]

I think the problem is the vagueness of the guidelines. All three of these points do have constructive value and as such might not satisfy the definition of "destructively negative".

I agree that the guidelines are a tad vague. Then again, had they tried to write them so that they covered every possible situation all of the lawyers here (and there are a bunch) would still be trying to write out them out. Perhaps they need to be rewritten but they simply cannot be comprehensive and will always be subjective to some degree.

As for the suburban comment - it hadn't tripped any warnings when I first read it because I was so focussed on the overall argument about Wojo not being the right guy to coach the bigs (because he is small and was a PG himself) but, thinking about it now, it seems like veiled racism. This is what I take from it: Wojo is too white and suburban to recruit bigs who are likely to be black and from the inner city. Yeah, that definitely goes over the line.

ETA: I think the mods should try their best (as I'm sure they do) to adhere to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes (ie. choose our words poorly sometimes), and we should be dealt with according to the spirit of the law. That being said, however, the more I think about the original post the more it bothers me. The veiled racism of the comment about Wojo really crosses the line. If I were a mod I'd ban him just for that comment without even worrying about anything he said about Zoubek.

[monkey]

Please read this post. In particular, scroll down to the parts about Zoubek, Paulus, McClure and Wojo. Feel free to read the subsequent back and forth. People have raised some issues about moderation. So, based on the forum guidelines, how would you handle the situation?

Should Boston Dukie be banned permanently, be given a citation worth points that would enable him to keep posting or not be reprimanded at all? Please vote in the poll, and then please explain your answer.

Edit: These are the comments I'd like you to read:

1) "To solve, they need to give up on Paulus. He is going to be a senior and he is never going to take the team anywhere."

2) "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD."

3) "Well, why is Wojo (a 5-9, white, suburban, PG) our big man coach? If you were Patterson, Monroe or any other good big man, would you come play for Wojo? Be honest with yourself. Could't they get anyone else to take the job?"

And this is the section from the DBR Posting Guidelines:

"Destructively Negative - It means the opposite of constructive criticism, especially in the context of Duke players and coaches. Unacceptable: Duke Player X is abysmal, a complete liability, and couldn’t rebound if he was the only player on the court. Acceptable: Duke Player X really needs to work on his rebounding and ability to block out over the summer. Includes rumor mongering."



Also, as a bonus question, what does such a post add to the community here? Let's hear what you have to say.

My two cents - does it matter whether the destructively negative language was in the context of a larger posting? Much of what was said would not fit into my opinion of "Destructively negative", just perhaps negative. "Giving up on someone" is not necessarily destructively negative - it could be getting rid of a cancer (I do not agree with such sentiments with respect to either Paulus or Zoubek; I might have agreed with respect to (hope this doesn't violate the guidelines itself) Greg Newton senior year) and actually a constructive option - addition by subtraction as they say. "HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD" does seem to cross the line - but to me it seems a bit different than "NATE JAMES SUCKS" if only because the entirety of the post wasn't really just about a destructively negative comment and perhaps and perhaps the spirit of the rule should be whether the destructive negativity was in the context of not offering anything else positive in the post.

With respect to Wojo, this is a question that has been debated about here for some time and has yet lingered on. That even Duke basketball supporters continue to debate the question seems to suggest it may have some legitimacy. "Could't [sic] they get anyone else to take the job" seems a bit harsh and again could be seen as destructively negative (on the other hand, I'm not sure how you could ever constructively say that a coach isn't up to his assigned task). To the extent there is ambiguity about it, it makes a difference to me that Wojo, as a coach, is paid to do a job, as opposed to being a student.

I guess I look at it this way - I don't think banning is how I would handle it. I tend to think more speech equals better as long as its not just pure destructive negativity, trolling, etc. I think the responses of the community forcing someone to support their opinions ought to be good enough. As to what it adds, I think it's better to confront negative opinions on a DBR bulletin board than just letting them be posted unchallenged on message boards I don't frequent (e.g., Inside Carolina or the Devils Den). I also think as much diversity of viewpoints (even if wrongheaded) should be encouraged.

If the rules absolutely required giving points, then I would give points. Otherwise, an e-mailed suggestion about posting tone/warning/encouraging the author to change how he phrased things might be what I would go for.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I also really appreciate this thread. As I've been thinking about the recent back-and-forth on what is/isn't modded, what is/isn't shot down by non-mods with personal attacks (i.e. "you're not a 'true' Duke fan"), and what we'd like the boards to be like, I've really been wishing for some examples.

This post, to my mind, is not all all out of bounds. Lots of constructive discussion is offered, and Boston Dukie even points out spots where his/her earlier assumptions about Jon and Greg were wrong. As others have noted, taken out of context I can see how the "offending" passages would rankle, but as part of a whole, BD is stating his/her case about how we should build the team going forward.

Point 3 seems very wrongheaded and easily rebutted (Newell, Gut, the host of other great big man coaches who were not big guys). It's foolish, but hardly offensive to me. Points 1 and 2 are phrased very badly and I can understand giving points for tone (although I wouldn't as a mod). Both "arguments" are supported with an attempt at evidence and a constructive change is suggested (make Greg a back-up and use Z's minutes to give the younger guys experience). I disagree with both, but my response would be to rebut them, not ban BD.

Overall, this post presents a lot of opinions that are generally backed up by some thought and argument. Take away the phrases "they need to give up on Paulus" and "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD." and I'd have trouble understanding even having this conversation. The post admits to earlier mistakes, presents an analysis with supporting evidence, and concludes with a friendly opening for further discussion. This isn't a flame, it isn't a troll, and it invites, rather than destroys further discussion. I respect the right of the owners and mods to make their own decision, but this post strikes me as a great opportunity to meet bad (i.e. faulty but fair-minded) speech with good speech, rather than silence.

[freedevil]

I want to clarify my vote for points: I think he should get a lot of them. I got a "Destructively Negative" infraction this weekend, and at the time I was annoyed because I thought the comment was actually accurate, but whatever. I just went over to The Devils Den to check out the reaction over there to Echenique picking Rutgers and I would much prefer the environment here, even if it is too protective or cautious or whatever, than that environment.

[Lavabe]

According to the guidelines as set out by the owner(s) of this site, I would say that this particular post is destructively negative.

Therefore, the poster should, according to the rules established by the owner(s), be given a three point penalty.

Of course, I'm only being asked to judge this one post. The sticky on decorum also indicates the impact of accumulating points on a poster's status.

I think the sticky on decorum is fairly straightforward. This ain't rocket science.

I believe the spirit of dw's post, but isn't the points accumulation for each instance within the thread? If that's the case, the points accumulation rises to much more than 3 points. The Paulus, Zoubek, and Wojo comments total 9 pts, but I also feel the "White suburban" aspects of the Wojo remark required double point values. I say an instant 12 pt tally at a bare minimum. I can easily see going with a decision to ban.

"Vitriolic" is NOT what the owners want. But a minimum of four instances just crosses the line too much.

I went with permanent ban, but colchar's "temporary vacation" idea would describe me better.

PLEASE, no codes.

Jumbo: I earlier expressed that I didn't think you should post the offensive comment. I can now see that I was wrong. I am glad you let it rest it a day or so. I just hope this thread continues in good spirit. Just how many comments like this did y'all (moderators) have to handle? Did they all rise to this level, or were some worse?

Cheers,
Lavabe

[dukestheheat]

Jumbo,

I voted for a Points Infraction; this educates the poster on what is allowed here and allows for a time of reflection and growth. If, after that warning and a cooling off period, the poster continues to commit errors against the policies of the board, then a Permanent Ban should be considered.

Posts that are offensive can be removed and he/she can be warned; removing the poster at this point, in my opinion, doesn't help the person to grow.

Thank you for asking and you are a DYNAMITE moderator; the best, simply.

dukestheheat

[colchar]

I went with permanent ban, but colchar's "temporary vacation" idea would describe me better.

Well that makes sense since I am always right

PLEASE, no codes.

Word!

Did they all rise to this level, or were some worse?

I've got $500 that says there were a lot of them that were a lot worse.

[Cavlaw]

Perhaps my judgment is colored by the fact that I write and interpret rules for a living, but when I read the guidelines I see exactly that: guidelines. Maybe half of them are specific enough to be considered "rules", but they generally appear to be open to interpretation on the part of the individual enforcing them.

It appears that Julio and Boswell didn't want to put in the time to develop really clear rules, or to send that message that doing so would send. And that's probably right, given that we're all supposed to adults here who can handle ourselves civilly. The fact that they had to create the guidelines at all was probably a big disappointment, but has become a fact of life on the contemporary internet.

After reading the initial post, I think three things:

(1) The excerpts in the first post are biased against the poster, being among the most negative of his statements and taken out of their context. They should have been given in context or not excerpted.

(2) It is the tone of the argument, not the substance, which is arguably offensive. That said, I'm not entirely certain how you propose benching the popular senior point guard of the team without coming across as somewhat negative or offending someone. The OP wasn't suggesting that Greg needs to work on something over the summer, per the guideline's suggestion, he was suggestion that there is a limit to the talent there which should be recognized. Maybe it isn't possible to have that debate without being "destructively negative", and I don't necessarily agree with the point, but it does seem to be a valid discussion point.

3. One thing I did glean from the guidelines is that this isn't a democracy. Moderating is a generally thankless job and moderators are going to be the subject of criticism from some corners at all times. There are enough of you to act as sounding boards for each other if you're not sure of something, or if someone appeals via PM, and you've collectively been doing pretty well so far. Yeah this week is tough, but man up and do the job. (apologies if there are any moderators of the fairer sex)

That said, if I were in the position of a moderator, I'd have to think about what to do. In my judgment the post is dangerously close to "destructively negative", despite raising points of debate. According to the guiudelines 3 points is the penalty for that, so banning appears to be off the table.

Because I'm not sure if it's "destructively negative" or just an argument that has been watered down by poorly chosen, inflamatory language, I probably would ask the other moderators for their opinions.

In the absence of that, I would consider the posting history of the contributor. If this is a new poster, I would probably delete the post and send a PM warning, without the points. If this is a habitual problem, I would simply award the points. If this is out of character from an otherwise positive contributor, I would probably send a copy of the post back to the poster (so he has something to restart from), delete the post and invite him to repost without the inflamatory language.

Perhaps I'll get the same response colchar did, that this wouldn't conform with the guidelines. To which I respond, the guidelines don't offer bright line rules, and the mods appear to have quite a bit of discretion. They were selected for their good judgment, after all.

Of course, I think that argument is bunk. There's nothing at all in the guidelines that says a mod can't find something to not be a violation, but then inform the poster that the question was up for debate. Frankly, I think doing things like that that helps promote a better environment because it lets people know when they're getting close to the line without embarassing them.

It would require a lot of work to handle more than a few cases with such attention. That probably isn't possible right now, given the sheer volume of clear guideliness violations that require attention this week.

In light of that, perhaps everyone ought to take a raincheck on deep analysis for a week or two, and in the meantime cut the mods some slack.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo: I earlier expressed that I didn't think you should post the offensive comment. I can now see that I was wrong. I am glad you let it rest it a day or so. I just hope this thread continues in good spirit. Just how many comments like this did y'all (moderators) have to handle? Did they all rise to this level, or were some worse?

Cheers,
Lavabe

After the WVU game? Oh, a lot of the comments were worse. Much worse.

[godukerocks]

His post is of the likes I've seen on teen AOL message boards. After a year of lurking this site, I would of guessed he knew how things work, but I guess not. I voted points infraction.

[Shammrog]

According to the guidelines as set out by the owner(s) of this site, I would say that this particular post is destructively negative.

Therefore, the poster should, according to the rules established by the owner(s), be given a three point penalty.

Of course, I'm only being asked to judge this one post. The sticky on decorum also indicates the impact of accumulating points on a poster's status.

I think the sticky on decorum is fairly straightforward. This ain't rocket science.

Agreed.

I applaud the mods/Jumbo for asking feedback on this issue, and for repeatedly referencing the posted guidelines.

This post clearly violates those guidelines. And, per the rules as stated, this merits a 3 point infraction - hopefully with guidance as to be more appropriate for this forum in the future.

[TwoDukeTattoos]

The crazy thing is, most of his points are right on. All of us have shared at least some of his opinions, if not all of his opinions, at some point during the season. I mean, let's be honest with ourselves. How many of us didn't blurt out (and mean) at least some of his assessments during a heated moment during the season?

It is true that his many of his opinions are accompanied with questionable "passionate" remarks, however, there is still some validity at the root of nearly every point that he makes.

This guy is a definite Duke fan. One couldn't fake such insight if he weren't at least moderately in-tune with the happenings of the Duke program. Cut the guy a break. If you want to reprimand him based on community rules, fine. But he certainly doesn't deserve a ban. Not even close.

[Ben63]

I vote a points infraction.

He was destructively negative and that warrants a points infraction. The language was not severe and the general tone wasnt malicious. I agreed with some points, disagreed with others, but were all entitled to our opinion right? I wouldnt have said it the way he did, but what he said deserves 3 points. Plain and simple.

I received a 3 point infraction a few months ago for my destructive comments about McClure and what I said was much worse than what he said so in no way should he be banned. Saying this why points dont seem like they would do anything, they really make you think about what you say before you say it.

[RelativeWays]

"Guidelines" seems to indicate that the parameters for posting on DBR are somewhat malleable and and a bit nebulous, thus leaving room for interpretation for the poster, and oftentimes the mod (giving him leeway to deep 6 any post he disagrees with). Jumbo, a pretty good mod, does seem a bit beholden to them and insists that he has been charged with upholding them with no room for interpretation or lenience so help him God. So they aren't really guidelines...more like mandates or, y'know, rules. I petition DBR to dispense with such flowerly nomenclature like "guidelines" and instead embrace something more hardline and iron fisted. I propose that the DBR Guidelines should now be called DBR COMMANDMENTS and each one should rightfully begin with the phrase "Thou shalt not" We're an Old Testament kind of people.

[colchar]

I propose that the DBR Guidelines should now be called DBR COMMANDMENTS and each one should rightfully begin with the phrase "Thou shalt not" We're an Old Testament kind of people.

Nah, that would just ignite another of the religion arguments from the OT and PP boards and nothing good can come from that.

[killerleft]

After this post I will vote for points infraction. I didn't get to read the post as written, but the statements about Greg and Brian pretty much defined "destructive criticism".

All of us are exasperated with the way the season ended, but as I understand the reasons for the existence of DBR, which have been stated over and over, this kind of post is just not acceptable.

[Madrasdukie]

Warning and reminder of board decorum.

The fact that he took the time to write all this suggests that he might be a frustrated fan, (but a fan nevertheless), whose choice of words didn't comply with the rules of this board. I'm guessing if he had actually read the relevant rules before he posted he probably wouldn't have used the words he did. In other words I think it is a case of oversight than blatant disregard of rules.

[BCGroup]

It is clear that this warrants a points infraction. However, if this is a pattern, with earlier warnings, then it should be a ban. I think the moderators do a great job with little to no rewards. They see the bigger picture, since they are looking at all the posts. Therefore, if this poster was banned, I give the benefit of the doubt to the moderators.

[Chard]

I voted for points. The rules are the rules and some of what was written was over the line. A different choice of words and the post would not warrant any moderation.

I think posters are missing the idea of the mods having to abide by the rules and the mods are missing the idea that the posters find the rules a bit vague.

Sometimes, the community can police itself just fine without a higher power stepping in. Other times, like Saturday afternoon I imagine, the higher powers need to step in.

Guys, you just have to learn to be constructive with this obsession we all have with Duke Basketball. This is all just entertainment. I didn't come here on purpose after the loss on Saturday because I know that I wouldn't have too many great things to say. After I had regained some composure and cleaned my entire kitchen and prepared one of my gardens and did some laundry and...you get the point...I then decided to see what others were saying at my local cyber hangout. Unfortunately, a bar fight had broken out and the bar was closed.

No codes. Blech. Good riddance.