Greg Beaton Column

[freedevil]

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.

People who are focused on this point have not read Greg's article closely enough. Again, his article is NOT about DBR's right to shut down its own boards. It's about having a problem with DBR disliking some forms of fan criticism. I personally think DBR did the right thing in shutting down the Boards, but I also think the column posted later went a bit too far.

[bluebear]

Bingo. I didn't agree with DBR shutting down the boards after the game; I know I personally wasn't making any comments that crossed the line so why should I be punished? I actually agreed with a lot of points made in the article. I do happen to feel that Duke fans (especially on this board) who aren't afraid to criticize the program do get painted as fickle and/or ignorant and that is not right. Being a Duke fan isn't like being part of a socialist state. We can have ideas and boards are here to share those ideas, negative or positive.

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.

While your second comment is right on...I think the first one misses the point. People are allowed to criticize the program on this site. There are also, however, rules and a level of decorum that was established here a long time ago. Clearly, those rules and decorum were being violated that night. This site used to require email verification in order to post which helped to maintain those rules. The open system (though necessary) makes it much harder to control. I'm sure you can envision that scenerio and why shutting down the boards would be necssary to maintain those standards...

[Stray Gator]

The desire to vent and criticize and commiserate with fellow fans after a disappointing loss is perfectly understandable; it is a normal manifestation of the passion we feel for our team. But the desire to express those sentiments in a public forum--particularly one where we know they will be seen by members of the staff, by players and their families, and by prospective recruits--is, IMO, something else; it is, I believe, motivated by a sense that those who caused the disappointment ought to "pay" or "bear the blame" or "feel my pain."

Venting and sharing thoughts about "what went wrong and how should the problems be rectified" can be therapeutic. I do it after almost every Duke loss. But I do it privately among friends, and I try to get it out of my system before I come to post anything on the DBR. Venting and criticizing (in a non-constructive manner) in a public forum may be therapeutic, too; but unlike private communications, posting those thoughts for public consumption can also be hurtful to the people and damaging to the program we love.

No one here other than the owners and the moderators saw the content of the posts that prompted the owners to shut down the boards temporarily after the West Virginia loss. Duke fans should be thankful for that, not condemning it. A significant point that Greg apparently overlooks in his criticism of the DBR merits emphasis in this regard: Not all of the people who came here to express themselves after that game were Duke fans; and of those who are, the opinions they wanted to post would not have qualified as "constructive" by any standard. The DBR doesn't "owe" anyone a place to post messages. And it certainly doesn't owe such privileges to those whose messages, on balance, could do harm. I'd like to think that those who love Duke basketball would be grateful for the efforts of the DBR's owners to prevent such damage while continuing to make available the opportunity for anyone to offer constructive criticism.

[Cavlaw]

Bingo. I didn't agree with DBR shutting down the boards after the game; I know I personally wasn't making any comments that crossed the line so why should I be punished? I actually agreed with a lot of points made in the article. I do happen to feel that Duke fans (especially on this board) who aren't afraid to criticize the program do get painted as fickle and/or ignorant and that is not right. Being a Duke fan isn't like being part of a socialist state. We can have ideas and boards are here to share those ideas, negative or positive.

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.

You weren't being punished; your inability to access the board was a side effect of the tidal wave of posts that failed to meet DBR posting standards. It was a logistical problem, such that the mods were not able to contain the numbers of unacceptable posts and maintain the DBR bulletin board environment demanded by its ownership.

It was not a situation where the damage had been contained and everyone was being "punished" to make a point or smoke out the culprit.

[Onlyduke]

As far as I'm concerned, this article "hit the nail on the head" for me. That's exactly how I feel after a Duke loss ... always looking for a reason ... and the need to talk to fellow Duke fans.

[Scorp4me]

No offense to Mr Beaton but his article sounds strangely like something one of the kids in my girlfriend's 1st grade class would write. Obviously much more elaborate, bigger wordes, more coherent thoughts...but same sentiment.

I am personally glad the boards were shut down. After Duke loss I was disappointed and got online to see what was being said. After reading the boards I was furious. In fact anyone who has read my post as of late can tell I was very disappointed in the fans reactions. Luckliy I was on my girlfriends computer, when I went to post and tear the fans a new one(Mr Beaton would have been included in this group) and I would have had to sign in. Not wanting to do that on her laptop I shut it down and didn't read again til the next day on my computer. By then the boards had been shut down and I was glad to see so. As is the case in many things, it wasn't DBR who failed by shutting the boards down, it was the fans who failed by posting the crap they were posting.

[monkey]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

Just to take a slightly contrarian viewpoint - since I know the above has been the mantra for years- using your example, what if you invite me over, and I come over a lot, and after a while you ask me to help out with the mortgage/rent/cable bill?

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the "they can do whatever they want with the website" argument seem a bit different than it was prior to the once or twice a year donation drives? PBS is ultimately accountable to its viewers that support it. The website is, of course, privately owned, but a similar donation structure is employed.

Not saying it's not your house ... just wondering if those who help pay the bills start to get any rights associated with doing so.

[Stray Gator]

Just to take a slightly contrarian viewpoint - since I know the above has been the mantra for years- using your example, what if you invite me over, and I come over a lot, and after a while you ask me to help out with the mortgage/rent/cable bill?

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the "they can do whatever they want with the website" argument seem a bit different than it was prior to the once or twice a year donation drives? PBS is ultimately accountable to its viewers that support it. The website is, of course, privately owned, but a similar donation structure is employed.

Not saying it's not your house ... just wondering if those who help pay the bills start to get any rights associated with doing so.

In the first place, I think a more apt analogy would be if allenmurray invites you over regularly to watch games and at some point asks you to chip in for the cost of the beer and pizza--not to pay the utilities. Under those circumstances, you would certainly be entitled to have a vote in deciding what kind of beer to buy and what ingredients to order on the pizza. But I hardly think you would have any right to insist on smoking, or rearranging the furniture, or even "breaking out the good dishes and glassware."

Second, if I may answer your question with a question: Do other non-profit entities and organizations to which you make voluntary donations afford you any rights to dictate or even participate in policy decisions about how they operate? To their credit, the owners of this site have always invited and been willing to consider reader input, even before they asked for donations. But there are certain fundamental baseline standards on which the owners have never wavered, and people who have visited or used this site for a while are familiar with those policies. Presumably, the users who donate money to support the DBR are satisfied with, or at least accepting of, those standards and policies, because otherwise they wouldn't care about whether the DBR survives, but would simply move on to other websites that offer an atmosphere more to their liking.

Now, I can't speak for the owners, and I don't profess to do so. But FWIW, speaking only as someone who has been a contributing sponsor of the DBR dating back to the years before the DBR solicited donations, I've never presumed that my financial support entitled me to any "rights" whatsoever with respect to the policies or operations of the DBR. Like any other voluntary support I provide, I understand that I have the right to "vote with my pocketbook" if at any time I find the benefits I deem worthy of support are outweighed by the actions or policies I do not approve.

[dw0827]

Just to take a slightly contrarian viewpoint - since I know the above has been the mantra for years- using your example, what if you invite me over, and I come over a lot, and after a while you ask me to help out with the mortgage/rent/cable bill?

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the "they can do whatever they want with the website" argument seem a bit different than it was prior to the once or twice a year donation drives? PBS is ultimately accountable to its viewers that support it. The website is, of course, privately owned, but a similar donation structure is employed.

Not saying it's not your house ... just wondering if those who help pay the bills start to get any rights associated with doing so.

In a word, No.

At least I hope not.

I'm tired of how money buys influence in this society. It has ruined our political system. I give you money so now I expect, no I demand, consideration. Give me a break.

You contribute to DBR . . . so now you have some say in how the site is run . . . or what gets posted? I sincerely hope not.

[monkey]

In the first place, I think a more apt analogy would be if allenmurray invites you over regularly to watch games and at some point asks you to chip in for the cost of the beer and pizza--not to pay the utilities. Under those circumstances, you would certainly be entitled to have a vote in deciding what kind of beer to buy and what ingredients to order on the pizza. But I hardly think you would have any right to insist on smoking, or rearranging the furniture, or even "breaking out the good dishes and glassware."

Second, if I may answer your question with a question: Do other non-profit entities and organizations to which you make voluntary donations afford you any rights to dictate or even participate in policy decisions about how they operate? To their credit, the owners of this site have always invited and been willing to consider reader input, even before they asked for donations. But there are certain fundamental baseline standards on which the owners have never wavered, and people who have visited or used this site for a while are familiar with those policies. Presumably, the users who donate money to support the DBR are satisfied with, or at least accepting of, those standards and policies, because otherwise they wouldn't care about whether the DBR survives, but would simply move on to other websites that offer an atmosphere more to their liking.

Now, I can't speak for the owners, and I don't profess to do so. But FWIW, speaking only as someone who has been a contributing sponsor of the DBR dating back to the years before the DBR solicited donations, I've never presumed that my financial support entitled me to any "rights" whatsoever with respect to the policies or operations of the DBR. Like any other voluntary support I provide, I understand that I have the right to "vote with my pocketbook" if at any time I find the benefits I deem worthy of support are outweighed by the actions or policies I do not approve.

Thanks for the reply Stray, it was measured and well written. Having said that, I'm not sure that your analogy is better. J & B have been pretty open that over the years, presumably both as readership has gone up as well as the services they have provided have gone up, that the costs, for example, of the server (and other basic costs of running the website) have gone up as well. It was my understanding that money donated goes directly to such uses and helps, for example, provide money to pay certain writers on the site. This seems to me to go the very heart of what DBR ultimately is and is much less like pizza and chips.

Getting to your second point, I think it's a good question. I assume that your question is not necessarily addressed to me in the specific but is really a general "you" since this is probably more useful than anything specific to me. Generally speaking, I would suspect that "return" on donations to tnon-profit entities and organizations depends on the organization and the level of commitment. For example, when Melinda Gates was named to Duke's board, I suspect she had a non-insignificant amount of influence on the direction of the University. Regardless of the level of policy influence accorded to any specific individual or even individuals as a whole with respect to such organizations, I'm not sure I've generally heard similar sentiments with respect to other non-profits that "the owners can do whatever they want". Ultimately, you may be correct that the ultimate right that a reader has is to "vote with their pocketboook" - I just feel it's slightly disingenuous to treat DBR as the private property of J & B as it was in the early days when they were paying wholly out of pocket when the DBR, given that in its current form depends on people donating to the website in order to survive. Now, maybe that means that other folks should help get some say in policies and maybe it doesn't - I'm not necessarily arguing that it does. At the same time I'm not sure that it's wholly "their's" anymore - I think that's a corrollary for asking for donations. In any case, I think it seems to me at least an issue that hasn't been really discussed much in the past and it seemed like as good a place any to be a bit contrarian and raise the question.

[Stray Gator]

Thanks for the reply Stray, it was measured and well written. Having said that, I'm not sure that your analogy is better. J & B have been pretty open that over the years, presumably both as readership has gone up as well as the services they have provided have gone up, that the costs, for example, of the server (and other basic costs of running the website) have gone up as well. It was my understanding that money donated goes directly to such uses and helps, for example, provide money to pay certain writers on the site. This seems to me to go the very heart of what DBR ultimately is and is much less like pizza and chips.

Getting to your second point, I think it's a good question. I assume that your question is not necessarily addressed to me in the specific but is really a general "you" since this is probably more useful than anything specific to me. Generally speaking, I would suspect that "return" on donations to tnon-profit entities and organizations depends on the organization and the level of commitment. For example, when Melinda Gates was named to Duke's board, I suspect she had a non-insignificant amount of influence on the direction of the University. Regardless of the level of policy influence accorded to any specific individual or even individuals as a whole with respect to such organizations, I'm not sure I've generally heard similar sentiments with respect to other non-profits that "the owners can do whatever they want". Ultimately, you may be correct that the ultimate right that a reader has is to "vote with their pocketboook" - I just feel it's slightly disingenuous to treat DBR as the private property of J & B as it was in the early days when they were paying wholly out of pocket when the DBR, given that in its current form depends on people donating to the website in order to survive. Now, maybe that means that other folks should help get some say in policies and maybe it doesn't - I'm not necessarily arguing that it does. At the same time I'm not sure that it's wholly "their's" anymore - I think that's a corrollary for asking for donations. In any case, I think it seems to me at least an issue that hasn't been really discussed much in the past and it seemed like as good a place any to be a bit contrarian and raise the question.

I don't know how much of the reader-donated funds, as distinguished from the income from ads and other sponsors, goes into paying for the server, or for bandwidth charges, or for other expenses that might be characterized as "utilities." IMO, however, paying for the columnists like Al Featherston is analogous to the pizza and beer [no offense intended, Al ], because their columns are essentially a luxury item. Just as you and allenmurray could sit in his living room and watch the games without pizza and beer, the DBR could function and provide information--as it did for many years--without the "guest columnists." Of course, having the pizza and beer, and having those guest columns, certainly enhances our enjoyment of the experience, and we gladly contribute because the return is well worth the cost.

I'm also wary of your Melinda Gates analogy, since I'm not aware of any DBR reader who makes contributions remotely approaching the same relative magnitude as the Gates' contributions to Duke; and of course there is no DBR "Board of Trustees" that is formally charged with policy-making authority. Even accepting that comparison, though, I doubt that Melinda Gates wields sufficient influence to effect fundamental policy changes at Duke University. She has sufficient stature to ensure that her views are heard and seriously considered. But I assure you the opinions of DBR readers, and especially those who participate in these discussions, are heard and heeded by the site owners--without regard to whether they donate to the fundraisers. Anyone who has followed the DBR for a while can attest to the fact that J & B frequently invite reader input, and have endeavored to make the DBR both responsive and friendly to users.

Finally, characterizing my message as conveying an attitude that "the owners can do whatever they want" is a little hard-edged. But, in fact, I believe it is entirely correct, just as I believe the DBR is wholly "theirs." I simply don't get the notion that people who make voluntary "donations" are entitled to some corresponding rights in return. If someone contributes money with strings attached, then by definition it's not a "donation," is it? If J & B decide for any reason to shut down the DBR, do people who donated money have any right to restrain them, or to demand a partial refund?

I understand and appreciate your raising this issue for discussion. Regardless of the extent to which it represents your personal views, I don't doubt that there are some contributors who may feel that they should rightfully be given a larger voice in the decisions made and policies applied by the DBR owners.

And once again, let me emphasize that I am not speaking for the owners, but merely expressing my personal opinion. I know that the owners, including former owner James Armstrong, have for more than a decade poured a tremendous amount of their own time and energy and personal funds into making the DBR available for the enjoyment and entertainment of Duke fans and college basketball fans generally. I know that many of us who have followed and benefited from and supported this website over the years are very proud of the DBR, largely because the owners have done such a superb job of maintaining "a higher standard" that reflects favorably on Duke fans, much the same way that everyone associated with Duke takes pride in the reputation of our basketball program. That doesn't mean I've always agreed with the owners on their editorial views or policies. But I have never questioned their commitment to do what they believed was the right thing to promote the interests of Duke basketball fans, even when it meant opening themselves up to criticism. And that's all I believe any donor has a right to demand.

[FireOgilvie]

I am a Duke student. Given that, I love Duke Basketball. I love it because it represents my alma mater. However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to criticize aspects that I believe need help. Duke Basketball isn't perfect. Is it wrong to want the best team and best coaches out there to represent my school? I don't think so.

Greg Beaton may not have used the best tone, but I agree with his points. Coach K and his assistants are paid (combined) millions of dollars to represent Duke University. As paid employees, they are certainly not above criticism. Every scholarship player on Duke's roster is paid (to a lesser degree) to represent Duke University. I don't believe that they are above a certain level of criticism either. But, I don't believe that personal attacks or non-basketball criticisms are warranted (unless the player/coach is doing something to tarnish the reputation of the University).

Duke Basketball Report offers the use of its message boards to everyone, including Duke fans and alums, but it is also privately run. I respect the decision to shut down the message boards, but like Beaton, I don't agree with the commentary that described fans as "ignorant and foolish", "fickle and spoiled." If DBR closes boards due to name-calling against Duke players, why criticize the fans that are the lifeblood of the website?

I come to Duke Basketball Report because it is the best source to catch up on news and read discussion about Duke basketball. Because the website is not affiliated with the team, it should be a source for (relatively) unbiased discussion for Duke fans. Over the last month, during the recent team struggles, this has not been the case. The boards have been overly moderated and things that are said that are "too critical" are deleted or berated by a stream of "fanboys."

Given all of this, it is not conducive to discussion when the biggest contributors to the boards (with some of the most passionate viewpoints) also have the power to ban or delete posts of anyone that disagrees with them.

[Jim3k]

The boards have been overly moderated and things that are said that are "too critical" are deleted or berated by a stream of "fanboys."

Given all of this, it is not conducive to discussion when the biggest contributors to the boards (with some of the most passionate viewpoints) also have the power to ban or delete posts of anyone that disagrees with them.

As a former mod, assuming the current mods operate under the same rules, I can say without hesitation that you are misperceiving what happens. Mods do not (though I cannot say 'never have') delete posts that they disagree with. They delete based on whether the posting rules have been broken. Those posting rules are on a sticky at the top for all to read. Some posters try to skate on the edge but invariably go out of bounds, usually to their regret. That's what the point system is for (something we didn't have in my mod days).

And, to crib from something Stray said years ago, the boards are like a neighborhood bar -- say Cheers -- where we are all on friendly terms and we behave civilly. We are neither strident nor abusive. And, above all, we are fans and supporters of the team and the coaches. That does not bar constructive criticism; it does bar personal abuse of coaches, player, recruits and each other.

If this were a neighborhood bar and people engaged in the type of abuse that has been spiked, it would become a very unpleasant place and people would not come any more.

So rules of decorum are and must be enforced. Otherwise the place self-destructs.

[dw0827]

Finally, characterizing my message as conveying an attitude that "the owners can do whatever they want" is a little hard-edged. But, in fact, I believe it is entirely correct, just as I believe the DBR is wholly "theirs." I simply don't get the notion that people who make voluntary "donations" are entitled to some corresponding rights in return. If someone contributes money with strings attached, then by definition it's not a "donation," is it? If J & B decide for any reason to shut down the DBR, do people who donated money have any right to restrain them, or to demand a partial refund?

Having worked in the not-for-profit and governmental world for many years, I can tell you that donations can be either "restricted" or "unrestricted." Unrestricted donations can be used as is deemed appropriate by those in charge (board, trustees, commission, whatever). Unrestricted donations have no strings and are generally given to support the overall mission of the organization.

Restricted donations often do have strings attached. They are often restricted to a specific purpose. It is, however, true that those in charge may refuse the restricted donation because they find the strings onerous or are unwilling or unable to pursue the purpose for which the donation is intended.

As it relates to this discussion, I believe that the level and intent of donations being solicited have been unrestricted donations in nature that support the overall mission of the organization. No special status is conferred to the donor . . . the donor has no entitlement . . . or influence.

If someone were to offer a donation of significant size to DBR, it would behoove the owners to inquire as to the nature of the donation. Is it restricted in nature? What are the expectations of the donor? And so on.

So while you may be helping DBR to pay the bills by donating, I do not believe that you are given any "rights" by virtue of your having donated. You have made an unrestricted donations and DBR appreciates it.

If your donation is hefty enough, whether it be unrestricted or restricted, you may be able to negotiate certain rights in return . . . but lacking that negotiation/discussion, you merely get the satisfaction of knowing you did a good thing by donating.

[SupaDave]

I am a Duke student. Given that, I love Duke Basketball. I love it because it represents my alma mater. However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to criticize aspects that I believe need help. Duke Basketball isn't perfect. Is it wrong to want the best team and best coaches out there to represent my school? I don't think so.

Greg Beaton may not have used the best tone, but I agree with his points. Coach K and his assistants are paid (combined) millions of dollars to represent Duke University. As paid employees, they are certainly not above criticism. Every scholarship player on Duke's roster is paid (to a lesser degree) to represent Duke University. I don't believe that they are above a certain level of criticism either. But, I don't believe that personal attacks or non-basketball criticisms are warranted (unless the player/coach is doing something to tarnish the reputation of the University).

Duke Basketball Report offers the use of its message boards to everyone, including Duke fans and alums, but it is also privately run. I respect the decision to shut down the message boards, but like Beaton, I don't agree with the commentary that described fans as "ignorant and foolish", "fickle and spoiled." If DBR closes boards due to name-calling against Duke players, why criticize the fans that are the lifeblood of the website?

I come to Duke Basketball Report because it is the best source to catch up on news and read discussion about Duke basketball. Because the website is not affiliated with the team, it should be a source for (relatively) unbiased discussion for Duke fans. Over the last month, during the recent team struggles, this has not been the case. The boards have been overly moderated and things that are said that are "too critical" are deleted or berated by a stream of "fanboys."

Given all of this, it is not conducive to discussion when the biggest contributors to the boards (with some of the most passionate viewpoints) also have the power to ban or delete posts of anyone that disagrees with them.

I believe you make the owner's point right here. The Coaches are PAID to represent Duke University and they do a pretty doggone good job. They are not above criticism but WHY would you criticize? I think most of us would find it very uncomfortable if the team came and watched us work while analyzing every last move (employee X has missed the trash can 3 times in a row!!! He's a freaking bum. Wait for it... excellent paragraph!!).

You can not agree with something without the need to be hostile or inflammatory - which is why the boards were shut down.

[monkey]

Finally, characterizing my message as conveying an attitude that "the owners can do whatever they want" is a little hard-edged. But, in fact, I believe it is entirely correct, just as I believe the DBR is wholly "theirs."

FWIW, I apologize if you thought I was putting words in your mouth Stray - I wasn't actually saying that you said this - but others have, for example, earlier in the thread someone else wrote "That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board."

[Jarhead]

I have read most of the posts in this thread. Too many to read right now (dinner time, you know), but I have reached a conclusion. Whether we are critiquing the players, the DBR, the fans, or the coaching staff, we are beginning to sound just like Carolina fans. No wonder that we need moderators. I hope nobody else is visiting this forum right now.

At the beginning of the season I was guessing that the men's basketball team would end up with about 26 or 27 victories, and be about third or fourth in the ACC standings. How in the he11 can I criticize when they exceeded my expectations. I'm outa heah!

[greybeard]

The problem I have is that this kid, a Duke student no less, writes an article the central premise of which is that K and his minions did not earn at least a period of repose before experts and fans got to take them a part for their supposed shortcomings. Actually, the kid's premise is worser yet--that the feelings of fans like him are more important than the team's. The kid is an idiot and needs to be told it.

[RelativeWays]

I haven't figured out how one can criticize DBR but not post there. Isn't that akin to saying a movie stinks by only looking at the promotional poster? I wish I could divine like that.

[FireOgilvie]

I haven't figured out how one can criticize DBR but not post there. Isn't that akin to saying a movie stinks by only looking at the promotional poster? I wish I could divine like that.

It is actually possible to read the message boards and not post.