Greg Beaton Column

[Saratoga2]

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.

I suppose the DBR moderators have to use their common sense when they censor the posts that they find unacceptable. They must be hesitant to use censorship though, since that can be a slippery slope, and take some of the meaning out of the fan conversations. The rules of decorum are published and all of us need to read and follow them. I too found it questionable when the board was shut down, but then, I didn't see the tidal wave of questionable posts.

[RelativeWays]

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

I guess the movie example was not the best. Its really hard to guage the particulars of a message board if you don't participate. Had he prepared some lengthy diatribe on how the team stunk and was promptly warned or banned, I could understand his point little more (even if the post was really objectionable).

[_Gary]

Jumbo--

I finished with class today and checked out the message boards. I'm willing to debate you, under one condition: you publicly acknowledge your real identity to the rest of the DBR community. At least when I call someone out in a public forum, I'm willing to attach my name to it. That's no cowardly act.

--Greg Beaton

Oooh! This is getting really spicy now. I like it. LOL

Gary

[Edouble]

Loyal followers,

I've stopped lurking and registered for an account on DBR. Because the two other threads have been closed, I'll post my offer to Jumbo here. I sent this to him in a private message, and I think it's fair:


Jumbo--

I finished with class today and checked out the message boards. I'm willing to debate you, under one condition: you publicly acknowledge your real identity to the rest of the DBR community. At least when I call someone out in a public forum, I'm willing to attach my name to it. That's no cowardly act.

--Greg Beaton

Wow, good for you for having a little integrity and standing up for your viewpoint!

[unexpected]

It's interesting that Greg wants to know your identity- I remember you saying off and on over the past few years that I've followed the board that you can't reveal your identity, due to job reasons.

I find this totally fair, but...

when you retire/quit/move on, can you do a big reveal?

[NovaScotian]

i just want to say that i think this is all quite childish on jumbo's part.

[Jumbo]

It's interesting that Greg wants to know your identity- I remember you saying off and on over the past few years that I've followed the board that you can't reveal your identity, due to job reasons.

I find this totally fair, but...

when you retire/quit/move on, can you do a big reveal?

Sure. Except it's not much a reveal. None of you would really care. Anyway, in sad news, Greg and I can't agree to terms. I think we could have had some fun with it, but I totally respect his decision. And that concludes today's odd DBR tangent. Tomorrow: Jason Evans vs. Eric Montross.

[pete89]

Wow, good for you for having a little integrity and standing up for your viewpoint!

I support you Greg. I'll support anyone's controversial opinion if they're willing to sign their name to it. Good for you for sticking to your guns

[dyedwab]

I support you Greg. I'll support anyone's controversial opinion if they're willing to sign their name to it. Good for you for sticking to your guns

Being anonymous and being unidentified are not the same thing, particularly on the internet

Signed,
Publius

[hughgs]

I suppose the DBR moderators have to use their common sense when they censor the posts that they find unacceptable. They must be hesitant to use censorship though, since that can be a slippery slope, and take some of the meaning out of the fan conversations. The rules of decorum are published and all of us need to read and follow them. I too found it questionable when the board was shut down, but then, I didn't see the tidal wave of questionable posts.

Once again, the mods do not censor posts they find unacceptable. They censor posts based on the rules defined by the owners. And to make it clear the boards were shut down by the owners, not the moderators.

[Karl Beem]

i just want to say that i think this is all quite childish on jumbo's part.

What is childish?

[Classof06]

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...

I can envision a scenario where shutting down the boards might be necessary but I can also envision a scenario where the people making those "line-crossing" statements get locked out of the boards and those that can discuss issues like adults maintain access to the boards. Some of you are acting like the mods can't block single individuals, like it's never been done before.

[pfrduke]

Many posters who criticize the Beaton article by saying "DBR has the right to shut down the site whenever it wants, for whatever reason (or for no reason at all)" are missing something in the argument. Merely having the right to shut down the site does not make the owners immune from criticism if and when they decide to do so. Discussing whether or not the decision is wise is a different discussion that asking whether or not DBR has a right to do so. Like it or not, DBR is a publicly-known entity (a celebrity among basketball websites, if you will), and an entity that has, to at least some degree, opened its arms to the Duke basketball community. As such, the decisions it makes, even when those decisions are squarely within the rights of the owners, are open to discussion.

FWIW, I happen to agree with the decision made by the owners. I thought it allowed people the time to calm down (and several posters have, in retrospect, recognized that some of the things they posted in the immediate aftermath may have been unwise and/or in violation of the rules). Also FWIW, I think Beaton fundamentally misunderstood the shut down - it was not merely because people were criticizing the team and/or the coaches, it was because (to my understanding) the manner in which people were doing so was in gross violation of the site rules.

[-jk]

I can envision a scenario where shutting down the boards might be necessary but I can also envision a scenario where the people making those "line-crossing" statements get locked out of the boards and those that can discuss issues like adults maintain access to the boards. Some of you are acting like the mods can't block single individuals, like it's never been done before.

The shear volume kept us from handling posts and posters one-by-one. It was our single busiest day since moving to this software.

-jk

[pfrduke]

I can envision a scenario where shutting down the boards might be necessary but I can also envision a scenario where the people making those "line-crossing" statements get locked out of the boards and those that can discuss issues like adults maintain access to the boards. Some of you are acting like the mods can't block single individuals, like it's never been done before.

IANAM, but my impression is that the volume of line-crossing statements (and volume of different posters who were making line-crossing statements) was more than the mods could handle.

[Edouble]

Anyway, in sad news, Greg and I can't agree to terms.

Was he asking for your Social Security and credit card numbers, too?

[Saratoga2]

Once again, the mods do not censor posts they find unacceptable. They censor posts based on the rules defined by the owners. And to make it clear the boards were shut down by the owners, not the moderators.

The moderators interpret the rules. since they can't be written to cover every case that might arise. In that way, the moderators are also acting to censor the posts under the rules and guidelines set up by the owners

[GopherBlue]

It's interesting that Greg wants to know your identity- I remember you saying off and on over the past few years that I've followed the board that you can't reveal your identity, due to job reasons.

I find this totally fair, but...

when you retire/quit/move on, can you do a big reveal?

Obviously this is all in fun, and I do respect Jumbo's desire to remain incognito, but it makes you wonder . . . just who is this enigmatic Jumbo character?

I think I've narrowed it down:
Option 1
Options 2a & 2b
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5

[dw0827]

I'm quite confident that Option 4 is correct.

[Jumbo]

Was he asking for your Social Security and credit card numbers, too?

Ha -- well-played.