Community: What Would You Do?

[TillyGalore]

I'm on the fence with this, thus haven't voted as of this writing.

The comments are destructive, giving up on Paulus and Zoubek is just uncalled for. He/She could have said the same thing in a more constructive way, or at the very least less flammable.

The comment about Wojo was WAY WAY out of line. As Colchar noted, it was veiled racism. Wojo may not be able to coach the big guys, but it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or where he grew up.

As others have noted if this was a pattern then definitely ban BD. If this was the first time BD had made such comments editing or removing the post, giving points and a reminder of board decorum is warranted.

I realize the mods don't want to write to everyone they yank posts on, which I disagree with though respect their time, this is a post that definitely should have caused a mod to write BD and explain why their post was removed.

Jumbo, thank you for starting this thread and letting us have this debate.

[colchar]

The comment about Wojo was WAY WAY out of line. As Colchar noted, it was veiled racism. Wojo may not be able to coach the big guys, but it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or where he grew up.

As others have noted if this was a pattern then definitely ban BD. If this was the first time BD had made such comments editing or removing the post, giving points and a reminder of board decorum is warranted.

I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

[TillyGalore]

I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

Good point.

Okay, I vote ban.

[Doctor Joe]

While I've been a reader of this board for years, I only have made a few comments. So maybe I don't have the "resume" to vote or comment. But anyway... that gentleman is certainly pretty ignorant and seems to me to be trying to incite controversy. I'd say points and a firm warning. The Wojo "white suburban" comment was totally out of line. Yes, Wojo did attend a catholic prep school in Baltimore, but the poster obviously was ignorant of Wojo's blue-collar upbringing as the son of a Baltimore longshoreman. Schools like Cardinal Gibbons do offer financial aid. And why even mention his race??? More ignorance with the Zoubek comment. Big men often take time to develop, and it doesn't help that he's had the injuries and resultant setbacks. I could go on, but anyway....

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

Huh, I had a very different reaction to the race issue. The point, as I read it, is that Duke's reputation as a preppy, elite school is perceived as "white" and unwelcoming to African-American players, particularly players who are poorer and more attuned to Af-Am youth culture.

This caricature is obviously complete bunk, but if you don't think it's out there then you aren't paying attention to the general sports' world's view of Duke. Given this fact, it might be argued that Wojo is a lighting rod himself for the "scrappy white hero" stereotype that sticks in the craw of many Af-Am commentators (Cf Mike Freeman's argument that "America loves a tough white guy. The media loves Tough Whiteness, too. Never mind that college basketball is full of blue collar intense African-American players with more desire than ability. . .").

We all know that Duke has a proud history of welcoming any player of any background (and some not-so proud moments that C.B. Claiborne could tell us about), but race is a major part of the discussion about any sport. I've seen and joined in some heated debates about K requiring guys like Lance to cut off their dreadlocks, about "scrappy" white guys playing in favor of scrappy Af-Am guys, and a host of other topics and I've generally learned a lot from those conversations. I'd hate to sanitize our conversations such that any reference to race in any context is not permitted. Anything that smacks of racism or race-baiting is, of course, not at all welcome. But I hope race itself will not be off-limits.

[HK Dukie]

Close call for me because personally the vast majority of the post was within the bounds, even if I disagreed with much of it. Personally, I would be more condemning of short posts that say "XYZ sucks" vs posts like this that explain rationale for an opinion. The post was also balanced with some positives and negatives.

The Zoubek comments were out of bounds though (not to mention wrong). Thus I was swayed to a minor infraction.

As an aside, perhaps we could have points infractions listed under the name of the poster temporarily instead of "Bench Warmer", " In the Rotation" etc. Best to shame them into respecting the rules than ban a poster who actually does like Duke basketball.

[cspan37421]

IMO the post is clearly destructively negative based on the rules. The "white" comment was totally unnecessary, irrelevant, and racist.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

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".

agree with this one.

[allenmurray]

Ban. The comments about Wojo are racist. They are not "veiled racism" as some have suggested, they are simply racist. It is no different than if he had said, "how is an inner city black guy like Dawkins ever going to coach a player like JJ - a white kid from the suburbs. I find the "destructively negative" criticsm far less offensive than the blatant racism.

[Lavabe]

I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

The question then remains...

temporary ban or permanent ban?

Although I voted permanent, what kind of temporary ban were you suggesting earlier? 6 months? 1yr?

Cheers,
Lavabe

[brevity]

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.

I know I'm relatively new here, and therefore irrelevant, but this whole thread feels like a charade. The constant calls to readers to stop shading these comments with their personal opinions and stick to the topic at hand are very illustrative. It seems as though Jumbo has already decided on Bostondukie's fate, and wants to publicize the process for added ridicule.

I could put on my lawyer hat and analyze the comments, but I can see that it's not really necessary. Looks like a ban is clearly in order, and how long or permanent that is will depend on existing rules, precedents, and the decision of the powers that be.

Bear in mind that I'm just calling it like I see it, and not intentionally trying to portray anyone in a false light. If I were in Jumbo's shoes, I would do the exact same thing. But then, I derive a certain amount of perverse pleasure in putting the process on display for that extra bit of punishment. That may not be the case with Jumbo, but it's absolutely the case with me.

[glutton]

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".

Very much agree with this post. At a certain point, what's constructive for the team may be negative towards an individual player; some of the comments about McRoberts from last year come to mind. I don't agree with "giving up" on Paulus or Zoubek, but I can certainly envision a situation where benching a player could prove beneficial for the team.

When I read the entire post and thread in context, I thought it warranted a less serious response than I did after reading this thread. I agree with NYC Dukie in that there's a difference between a long post that is largely thoughtful and positive, but crosses the line occasionally, than one like "Paulus sucks, throw the bum out." It shows that the person is obviously making an effort to contribute something constructive, and likely slipped up inadvertently (unless it was a repeat offender).

I also think people are overreacting to the comment about Wojo. The fact is, Duke is perceived by many as a "white school", with a lot of hated white players- Paulus, JJ, Wojo, etc.- and while it's unfortunate that that has such a negative connotation, I can see where having a "scrappy little white guy" as a big-man coach might not carry a lot of credibility with certain recruits. As unfortunate as that fact may be, I don't think that recognizing it makes a person racist.

[Jumbo]

I know I'm relatively new here, and therefore irrelevant, but this whole thread feels like a charade. The constant calls to readers to stop shading these comments with their personal opinions and stick to the topic at hand are very illustrative. It seems as though Jumbo has already decided on Bostondukie's fate, and wants to publicize the process for added ridicule.

I could put on my lawyer hat and analyze the comments, but I can see that it's not really necessary. Looks like a ban is clearly in order, and how long or permanent that is will depend on existing rules, precedents, and the decision of the powers that be.

Bear in mind that I'm just calling it like I see it, and not intentionally trying to portray anyone in a false light. If I were in Jumbo's shoes, I would do the exact same thing. But then, I derive a certain amount of perverse pleasure in putting the process on display for that extra bit of punishment. That may not be the case with Jumbo, but it's absolutely the case with me.

Um, his fate was decided long ago. The whole point of this thread is to have a transparent conversation with the community to see how everyone else would handle it. Everyone knew that already.

[brevity]

Um, his fate was decided long ago. The whole point of this thread is to have a transparent conversation with the community to see how everyone else would handle it. Everyone knew that already.

You can see how a present-tense transparent conversation and interactive vote would lead me to believe that the situation was pending. My apologies.

[pfrduke]

I know I'm relatively new here, and therefore irrelevant, but this whole thread feels like a charade. The constant calls to readers to stop shading these comments with their personal opinions and stick to the topic at hand are very illustrative. It seems as though Jumbo has already decided on Bostondukie's fate, and wants to publicize the process for added ridicule.

I could put on my lawyer hat and analyze the comments, but I can see that it's not really necessary. Looks like a ban is clearly in order, and how long or permanent that is will depend on existing rules, precedents, and the decision of the powers that be.

Bear in mind that I'm just calling it like I see it, and not intentionally trying to portray anyone in a false light. If I were in Jumbo's shoes, I would do the exact same thing. But then, I derive a certain amount of perverse pleasure in putting the process on display for that extra bit of punishment. That may not be the case with Jumbo, but it's absolutely the case with me.

Bear in mind that the votes on this thread are public, and a simple click at the links on the top of the page would reveal that zero moderators voted for permanent ban and no fewer than three (including Jumbo) voted for points infraction. So yes, their mind may have been made up already, but not in the way you automatically surmise.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Um, his fate was decided long ago. The whole point of this thread is to have a transparent conversation with the community to see how everyone else would handle it. Everyone knew that already.

I didn't know it. I didn't read his status when I read the post. I also don't think the whole point of the thread as you just stated it was it's intention. It wasn't transparent to me, anyways. What you asked, Jumbo, was this..

"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."

To find out that "his fate was decided long ago" makes the entire thread moot, and my input/vote useless. I really wish I had looked at his status earlier; I don't see the point of bringing any issue for a vote if the vote has already been passed. That's disturbing. I was actually thanking you before for asking our opinions. I still appreciate all of the mods efforts, you have a good and fun forum here, but I question the methods sometimes.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Bear in mind that the votes on this thread are public, and a simple click at the links on the top of the page would reveal that zero moderators voted for permanent ban and no fewer than three (including Jumbo) voted for points infraction. So yes, their mind may have been made up already, but not in the way you automatically surmise.

I still don't get it. Was the current post the cause of the ban? Or something different that was more warranting?

[brevity]

Bear in mind that the votes on this thread are public, and a simple click at the links on the top of the page would reveal that zero moderators voted for permanent ban and no fewer than three (including Jumbo) voted for points infraction. So yes, their mind may have been made up already, but not in the way you automatically surmise.

I didn't bother with the poll because (1) "some kind of ban" wasn't an option, and (2) I doubted my opinion mattered anyway. Now that I look at the poll results, I can see that they didn't choose a permanent ban. I don't know what a "points infraction" is, and whether the temporary ban someone mentioned is even a possibility. Ultimately, I don't really care. I know nothing of the principals involved here and am not that interested to learn the inner workings and bylaws of a private forum. To me, it's kind of laws and sausages thing.

My first post was simply a comment on how this thread felt like a charade, and that a call for community participation seemed more rhetorical than anything. But I will add that this thread may have value for those members who keep needling the moderators about what constitutes bad posting behavior.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Major points infraction, perhaps a one week "vacation" from the board, with little tolerance for a repeat performance.

I think his opinion on Brian Zoubek is completely wrong. The man broke his foot TWICE this season and still came back to play better than he did last year by a long shot. While he may never be an AA at Duke, I think he will be a productive and valuable player - IF he can stay healthy for the next two years. No doubt he has the attitude and work ethic to improve. In the N&O Lucy Chavez article on Monday he said he was going to two (2!) big man camps this summer. There ain't no scholarships for those. He (or his parents) pays for them. The man is dedicated to getting better. He deserves the chance to prove himself when healthy.

I'm also a believer in Greg Paulus. Leadership, instinct, guts. He has everything but foot speed, and I'll bet you he will do everything humanly possible to improve that too.

[colchar]

The question then remains...

temporary ban or permanent ban?

Although I voted permanent, what kind of temporary ban were you suggesting earlier? 6 months? 1yr?

Cheers,
Lavabe

You don't want Canadian money right now because it slipped below the US dollar last week. It might have climbed past it again but I don't remember hearing anything about that happening.

As for the temporary ban - two weeks might suffice for a first infraction. But, based on the racist comment about Wojo, I think it should be permanent.