PDA

View Full Version : Time To Clean Up



Julio
02-16-2009, 02:55 AM
DBR has been around for a good while now, and every so often it's good to step in and make a few points about the board. Now is one of those times.

Quite frankly, the tone around here has become really disappointing. There is a huge amount of negativity and some posts that really are pointless. It's getting hard to find the worthwhile stuff and a lot of people, me included, are fed up.

So here's what we'd like to say:

We love having the traffic and conversation the boards bring. But we don't like the junk and it needs to be reined in. Now.

We've always preferred setting the standards and trusting you guys to keep to them. Lately, though, it's been out of control. So here's what's going to happen.

Consider this a general warning to clean it up. If that happens, then all is well. If not, things will change, or be changed anyway.

We've taken a deliberate step back from the boards, preferring to allow the mods to make daily decisions without interference from management. Overall they've done a good job, but it's very tough to keep things up to snuff when you guys aren't helping out.

So in a nutshell: if things don't get better in a hurry, the mods will be asked to crack down, fast and hard. A number of you may lose your posting privileges. And while we haven't participated in the board modding, there's no reason why we can't jump in and kick a few dozen people off if it's something that needs to be done.

We may also reconsider some basic things, like what boards we offer and how we allow you to post on them. We have a number of options along these lines and they could be introduced immediately.

So what is expected? Here it is, as simply as we can put it.

* Be civil. You can disagree without getting into a fight. This goes for management and mods, too. Civility is the key to it all.

* Post intelligently. If you just want to insult people, or don't put much thought into it, or you do things which don't contribute meaningfully to the site, we don't want it.

* While we don't mind thoughtful criticism of either the site (fire away) or Duke's program, we have never wanted to be one of those sites where people go to just rip their favorite team. What good is that? It's one thing to say, you know, I think that was a bad move strategically or so-and-so got outplayed. But when you say something that would tend to cause injury to the program...well, that's not what this site is about. There are a million places to go do that. You'll be welcome there. But not here.

So what do we want? We want intelligent, passionate fans who make this the most interesting place to share thoughts about college basketball, and Duke and ACC hoops in particular. We've always seen it as a neighborhood pub, and hooligans are not welcome. We have bouncers!

We'll close with this. The site has grown and it's hard to keep up with it all. We like having a board but we'd rather have quality than trash. A lot of you are really savvy observers and you understand how things work, but some of you don't. If you can't figure it out, and quickly, we'll be happy to sacrifice the posts and traffic to get back to quality.

moonpie23
02-16-2009, 09:48 AM
Noted. The grey area is in disappointment. As a duke lover, i take losses hard. VERY hard. Duke BB and it's history are a big part of my sport-loving life..

therefore, the immediate outlet for my disappointment, sometimes, is armchair criticism. I would never attack coach k, any of the staff, or any of our players, but criticism is normal. I think we can ALL re-read our posts before hitting "submit" and review the tone.

now! that being said, I do want to say that there seems to be less of a problem with what it termed "senseless posting".. I've been busted a couple of times lately for this infraction when i felt like i was just being part of the DBR community. I love DBR as a "family" of like-minded fans, and i feel like a crackdown on fans just throwing in banter, "me too's" and "you got that right" stifles the good spirit of fun that we should all be enjoying here.

I don't want to feel that i have to have some scientific assessment of the game and my desire to talk about the game before i can post...


go duke

MulletMan
02-16-2009, 11:22 AM
Look, Julio is trying to tell y'all that we've gotten away from a standard level of discourse on the board(s). Let's have a little history lesson for those of you who may be new, or who maybe have forgotten how the boards used to work.

Up until a couple of years ago, the DBR bulletin boards operated on a system in which a post required verification codes. You wrote your post, you submitted it, and after it was reviewed, you recieved an e-mail with two codes... one identified your post, and the other was a password that allowed you post to "go live". In the e-mail, there was a link which you clicked on that took you to a screen where you entered these two codes and then saw your post one more time. You could then review your post. If you changed anything, you'd go through the whole process again. If you didn't need to change anything, your post could then be accepted, by you, and go live.

What did this accompish? Well, for one, it was a great waste of time to post something like "Man, I totally agree." I mean, really, who wants to go through all those steps to post 4 words. Additionally, it usually gave you a chance to think about what you were posting. Often, I found myself revising or even deleting posts because they weren't really adding anything to a thread... and why talk just to hear yourself talk?

So, as a general guidline, might I reccomend going forward that posters think about thier posts in this sort of historical context. Ask yourself, "Is this post worth posting? Am I posting just to see my opinion in print? Would I have gone through the trouble of getting this post published on the old board system?"

No one is trying to be elitist or snobbish, but the fact is that the "signal to noise" ratio on the board right now is out of control. There are so many posts in threads that people quit reading longer threads and just skip to the end and post thier own thoughts... which 9 times out of 10 have already been covered... thus perpetuating the cycle. Yes, we understand everyone's need to vent after losses, and question what is going on, etc., but I think that the site owners would like it done in a constructive, intelligent, well-thought out manner.

We can all (and I am including myself) do better!

bjornolf
02-16-2009, 01:09 PM
Maybe this wouldn't help, but there are some boards I frequent that bring up a second screen when you hit submit that shows your post as it will appear on the thread with an editor screen below it so that you can change things if you want. You can either hit the "post" button or change things and hit "submit" again to see the new post in the form it will take on the thread. I try to reread all my posts carefully at least twice before I post it, but maybe a system like that would make it easier for people to censor themselves. Wouldn't require all those codes and reviews and stuff, but it might get some people to read what they wrote before it's officially posted. Just that extra second to think. I know it's easier for me to read a post in the format it will appear in than on the small window I typed it in (once I see it in total, I often end up hitting edit and changing what I typed...if I had that intermediate step, I wouldn't have to use the edit button so much). Plus it can help you better see if you are suffering from keyboard diarrhea, as you can see the whole thing as opposed to having to scroll to see it, which I'm probably suffering from now. Or maybe the quick reply button should be eliminated. I find a lot of my less-well-thought-out comments come in that format, as well as my "I agree" type posts. The quick reply button is VERY convenient, but some times too MUCH convenience can be a bad thing when you want quality. I don't know, maybe those are stupid ideas.

And I'm not trying to say that these changes will automatically fix everything that's going wrong. It's the responsibility of the posters to do the right thing. I just thought these two changes might make it a little easier on them. As my 8th grade english teacher's chalkboard sign read "please make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth". Maybe we should make that a billboard above the post creator window.

moonpie23
02-16-2009, 01:39 PM
Ask yourself, "Is this post worth posting? Am I posting just to see my opinion in print?

exactly why message boards exist.....

sagegrouse
02-16-2009, 02:10 PM
Here's how I view the art of posting (altho' I am no doubt frequently at variance with my own advice):

1. Rule #1: Make it interesting. Rule #2: Make it interesting. You should have a paragraph worth of material before you post (exception below). At the same time, if you have more than a screen's wortth, you are using the wrong medium; break it up into smaller chunks. A couple of times when I violated this rule, it was way too much for anyone to respond to.

2. One-sentence or one-phrase posts need to be LOL or LMAO funny or else truly a pithy comment.

3. When it is time to disagree, it is also time to inject humor in your post -- either self-deprecating or comical. Basketball is a game, and DBR is a recreation. At the end of the day, everyone on DBR should be having fun -- even if a trifle red-faced.

4. Look it up yourself! WRT to Duke men's hoops, the archives at Goduke.com are awesome: every player, every game, every stat. Go to "Statistics" under men's basketball, and you can search player or year. for any game I have checked, when you double-click on the result, you get the boxscore. (This is how Sagegrouse knew Heyman had 28 and Mullins 27 in a 40 point beatdown of #6 WVa he attended in 1962 or so). The alternative, which I have relied on more than once, is to post my guess at the answer and let walking encyclopedia Jim Sumner correct the record.

sagegrouse

MulletMan
02-16-2009, 02:21 PM
exactly why message boards exist.....

No. Message boards don't exist so that you can see you own opinion in print. If that's what you want, start a blog. DBR is in the business of providing a forum for thoughtful discussions about Duke basketball, ACC hoops in general and Duke University.

If one is standing in a room talking simply to hear the sound of one's own voice, I would suggest that he/she find a room to occupy by his/herself. The rest of us don't want to hear it.

pfrduke
02-16-2009, 04:35 PM
No. Message boards don't exist so that you can see you own opinion in print. If that's what you want, start a blog. DBR is in the business of providing a forum for thoughtful discussions about Duke basketball, ACC hoops in general and Duke University.

If one is standing in a room talking simply to hear the sound of one's own voice, I would suggest that he/she find a room to occupy by his/herself. The rest of us don't want to hear it.

More to the point, regardless of why "message boards" in the abstract exist, it's very clear from the owners and moderators of this site that these message boards do not exist for that purpose. Since the format changed, all of us are guilty of ill-considered posts. A reminder to stop and think is useful for us all.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-16-2009, 04:38 PM
It's one of the sad ironies that the best posters on a message board get deputized as moderators and, as a result, don't have time to post anymore. I think the tone of the board would be much improved if guys like Jason, Jumbo, Mullet, et al were able to regularly start threads and reply to comments. It's very helpful to have the general guidelines and reminders at the top of the page, but I really miss the day-to-day comments from our brightest and best.

As an example, if someone posts that Brian Zoubek is the best/worst player in the NCAA (and I've heard both here), that foolish statement can be addressed by A) leaving it alone and relying on the board as a whole to respond, B) citing the poster for making an outrageous statement, or C) having a knowledgeable fan/mod post a reply that encourages more levelheaded thinking. (Not a "tsk-tsk" post, but a substantive reply). Right now we're basically using A, with one side of the discussion subject to B on occasion (there's currently no penalty for indefensible positive statements that demand rational reply i.e. no analog for "destructively negative").

The problem with A is that five people respond with five different comments on why Z isn't the best/worst player in the NCAA. If there aren't many new topics, posters will reply to the five responses, and suddenly we've got 4 pages on a topic that doesn't deserve more than a one-paragraph reply.

Guiding the discussion with thoughtful comments is, IMO, a much more successful way to help keep the board on useful and novel topics. Jumbo's "Phase X" threads are a great example of a mod working to make sure there are fresh and promising topics for discussion. OTOH, comments like "this is a bad topic" or "we should shut down the boards since I don't like what is being said" just don't add much. But suggesting good topics, or bringing up interesting angles that haven't been considered is a wonderful way that our most knowledgeable members improve the content without having to play the bad guy or just shutting down all discussion.

Anyway, I don't mean to say that the mods are "falling down on the job." Far from it, y'all are doing great work in what I'm sure is a very trying time. I'm just suggesting that one of the reasons that discussion has grown a bit stale and repetitive is that some of the smartest and most interesting folks are too busy moderating to contribute the wonderful stuff that made them vital and appreciated members in the first place. A good example (and some fresh or deep insight) may do more for the boards than any amount of policing.

devildownunder
02-16-2009, 08:14 PM
I don't make posts that slam or insult members of the program. I DO make posts critical of members of the program or the program as a whole. I have received infractions for this in the past. So could we have some clarity on what is acceptable? Specifically, is it OK to criticise K or not? I'm not talking about calling him an idiot, i'm talking about suggesting he is at fault for X issue with Duke basketball.

And if is OK to level criticism, what happens to all the people who fire away at you as if you insulted their children when you do?

devildownunder
02-16-2009, 08:25 PM
As an example, if someone posts that Brian Zoubek is the best/worst player in the NCAA (and I've heard both here), that foolish statement can be addressed by A) leaving it alone and relying on the board as a whole to respond, B) citing the poster for making an outrageous statement, or C) having a knowledgeable fan/mod post a reply that encourages more levelheaded thinking. (Not a "tsk-tsk" post, but a substantive reply). Right now we're basically using A, with one side of the discussion subject to B on occasion (there's currently no penalty for indefensible positive statements that demand rational reply i.e. no analog for "destructively negative").

The problem with A is that five people respond with five different comments on why Z isn't the best/worst player in the NCAA. If there aren't many new topics, posters will reply to the five responses, and suddenly we've got 4 pages on a topic that doesn't deserve more than a one-paragraph reply.




Last year, I made a post suggesting that there needed to be some moderation directed towards people who make outlandishly optimistic statements, just as there is so much time spent trying to weed out the "destructively negative". One of the moderators chose to berate me publicly in a tone that suggested he thought he was speaking to a petulant 10th grader. I'm much appreciative for your post, as I think it supplies a compelling argument for why wildly optimistic comments are no more productive than "destructively negative" ones.

Newton_14
02-16-2009, 09:04 PM
I am fairly new to DBR. I joined last year and I chose to simply be a reader for quite awhile, and once I felt comfortable, I began to post. I actually read several other boards before deciding this one was the best fit for me. I chose DBR because it was head and shoulders above every other one I had read. With most all of the other sites you get 2 things: 1. The posters rip the players by name and they rip the coaching staff. and 2. The posters participate in what I call "3rd Grade back and forth banter" where they hurl insults at each other.

I found DBR to be very different and I have greatly enjoyed both reading and posting here. I visit the site daily and chime in when I feel I have something to contribute. I try to never write anything about a player or coach that comes across as overly negative or hurtful should that player or coach actually happen to read it. I probably should not have posted after last nights game as I was quite frustrated. But hopefully I did not go overboard. If you guys feel things are getting out of hand then I support whatever moves you feel are neccessary.

captmojo
02-16-2009, 10:10 PM
I probably should not have posted after last nights game as I was quite frustrated. But hopefully I did not go overboard. If you guys feel things are getting out of hand then I support whatever moves you feel are neccessary.

I am quite opinionated, as my post count might reveal. If I could offer a suggestion, it would be to wait until the "heat of the moment" has had a sufficient time to pass before sounding off. I promise it will be more clear-headed and you will feel more fair in your assessments. (I didn't read your post-game comment following the BC game. In fact, I've purposely stayed away from the thread for now.)

Jumbo
02-17-2009, 01:32 AM
exactly why message boards exist.....

As MulletMan already responded, you couldn't be more wrong. Except I'll go a step beyond what he said. This is not a place to vent. Everything your write here is available for the rest of the world to see. If you need to vent about Duke, do it in the privacy of your own home, or find some friends who will listen to you talk about how hard you are taking a loss.

This is Julio's house. I've been around here since the beginning. I used to fight him on that very idea. I pointed out that he relied on the posters as much as we relied on him, that without posters, there'd be no board. But as the Internet has changed and I've been exposed to more and more websites, my opinion has shifted, too. He can do what he wants. The way we can judge whether we like it is by deciding whether or not we want to participate here. There are a bunch of other boards on the Web to talk about Duke basketball. No one is forcing anyone to post on this one.

I haven't posted much lately. I haven't even moderated that much. Part of that has been the realities of life -- I've just been too busy. But, I'm sad to say, part of that has been the way this board has changed. I just can't keep up with it anymore. There's too much noise. Not enough people want to engage in thoughtful, respectful hoops conversations anymore. Too many people want to fight, want to point fingers, want to vent.

This place was always defined by a particular culture. It involved intellect and wit, humor and perspective. It used to be such a challenge to post, because so many bright people brought their A-Game on every post. If you were going to enter an argument, you'd better have done your homework.

Those days are long gone. I get it. I get that the site has grown in popularity, that a lot of old posters have disappeared, that many, many newer ones have taken their place. And some of the newbies have been fantastic additions.

But too many people have come along and decided that they don't need to bother learning the culture here. They just want to rant. And then they want to complain about moderators who are merely enforcing the rules established by the owners of this site.

I mean, that's just freaking brilliant. Come into someone else's home, put your feet on the furniture, order up a pot of coffee. That's really respectful. Me? I've changed my game. I've adapted my posting style to fit Julio's guidelines. Do I get down after Duke loses? Absolutely! Sunday was terrible. I yell at the TV. I have complaints. But I realize there's no reason to post every thought I have in a public forum, especially those that could be damaging to someone reading it. The rest of the world doesn't care about every tantrum I want to throw following a Duke game.

So yeah, I'll keep trying to update plus/minus stats (I'm two games behind, of course). I'll try to post a "Phase" topic when I can. But otherwise, I'm running out of energy trying to keep up with the noise level here. I really, really hope people can just pay attention to what Julio is saying and adjust accordingly. And if not, and you decide that this site isn't for you, just leave. Please.

DukeVol
02-17-2009, 10:37 AM
I agree with Jumbo and I think he is right.


I think we should play Plumlee, Williams and Pocius more minutes because our starters get tired.


I think we should hire a big man coach and I think Coach K would have better teams if he recruited more players like Elton Brand.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[Infraction in 3....2....1.....BOOM!!!]



I can see how mods might get a "tad" frustrated....

Cavlaw
02-17-2009, 02:00 PM
A couple of points that seem to come up repeatedly in criticism of the mods are (i) a lack of communication with posters when action is taken, and (ii) the feeling that mods behave as though they are "above the law" on the DBR. A number of mods have tried to address these points in different ways, and I'm not sure if there is a more straightforward response than what has already been offered. For what it's worth, this is my perspective on these two issues, a couple of specific points, and the coming changes on the DBR, generally.

The owners like what the mods are doing. To the extent there is a philosophical disagreement regarding management of the DBR, they're on our side. Some posters seem to suggest that if only the owners would pay more attention, they would see the evils that the mods do and create a utopia for the posters. In fact, the owners have only complained that we aren't strict enough, because they want us to run a tighter ship so they don't have to be hassled about the forums, whereas we typically don't like to kick posters off or give infractions that restrict their ability to post because we like open communities. Unfortunately, that philosophy leads to a lot of noise on the boards which reduces their value. Things have deteriorated so much now that people who have been around the DBR for a decade or more don't even recognize the site anymore, and they've asked us to rein things in and restore old posting standards. So, the behavior that some of you are complaining about is what the owners have asked us to do more of, not less.

With respect to the rules applying to the moderators, well, to a large extent they do. We let each other know when one of us has done something that is out of line, we bcc each other on most communications with posters so that everything we do is open to scrutiny from the other mods, and we try to keep everything above board. You don't get see the infractions we give to regular posters; you also don't get to see us chew each other out. It happens. We're not regular posters, though, and I don't think that's going to change. Moreover, by the nature of the job we have to protect each other's authority. Be snarky to another poster and we're likely to give you an infraction so you respect that other poster. Be snarky to a mod, and you're almost guaranteed to get an infraction because the authority we wield has to be respected, otherwise our cajoling and directing and polite requests have no effect and the only thing we can do to get people to behave in the manner the owners demand is to ban people (which we generally don't like to do).

We do a thankless job, and it wears us out. Most of us individually spend more time on the boards than the top 5 people by post count combined, just trying to weed out the worst of the garbage that gets thrown up there. Most of it is gone before more than a couple of other posters can see it. When we do our job right, you don't even know we're doing it (unless you're the one we need to moderate, or unless the moderated poster makes a big stink). That takes a lot of time, and I don't think any of us has a 9-5 job. By way of example, I had 3 back-to-back-to-back weeks of 100+ hours at the office at the end of January through early February, and I still jumped on to help moderate after every game and tried to keep an eye on things during the rest of the week.

Some of you seem to want a lengthy explanation of every action that takes place on the boards the moment it happens, you may even have good reason for wanting it (i.e., to understand the rules better), but we just don't have the time. We have to read every post in every thread in order to do our job, and moving stuff around, deleting inappropriate content, awarding infractions, and discussing controversial issues with other mods on the private board or via PM takes a significant amount of time. And, from our point of view, the rules are pretty clear, anyways.

Sometimes that means we're abrupt when we moderate. It isn't a matter of being power hungry, as some have ridiculously accused (Seriously? Power hungry on an internet forum? We all have bigger things going on in our lives), it's a matter of being frustrated at the end of a long day of work and moderating when we encounter people who act as though they own the boards and should be able to post whatever the want, however they want. They don't own the boards. Neither do we, but we enforce the rules according to the instructions we receive from the people who do, and they aren't happy with how the boards have changed so we're going to be enforcing at an even stricter level of scrutiny going forward.

Generally, we're happy to discuss moderating activities when someone shoots us a PM and asks to discuss in a polite fashion. I'd like to think that I, in particular, have a good reputation for responding in a fulsome fashion to questions when I have the time to do so. I typically do respond when someone shoots me a PM and indicates they didn't understand something. Maybe not right away, but we're busy folks. I've seen the exchanges that moderators have had with posters that have raised controversies (particularly recently), and frankly, while we can certainly be curt, I've not read very many posts or messages from a mod that could be read as demeaning or insulting. When we see it, we call it out to each other and the mod in question generally apologizes, but in most cases a person would have to be looking for a reason to feel insulted to read an insult into mod comments, and even then they'd have to try pretty hard.

Lately there has been a lot of drama on the OTB over the thread about a lack of communication regarding action taken with respect to Earljam's NCAA pool. No one even got an infraction, let alone a temporary (or even permanent) ban, based on the thread. So we didn't spend much time addressing it. To the extent we have the time and inclination to "justify" our actions, we have to prioritize the people who actually had their posting privileges reduced. That's just fair. A lot of the complaining that occurs over closing threads or deleting or moving posts, none of which reduces posting privileges, seems like an effort to create drama for drama's sake, and again, we don't have the time for it.

And should the thread have been closed? Of course! Gambling is illegal in the U.S. outside of a few jurisdictions. The DBR doesn't need to host any potential legal liabilities. Earljam should have known better. If he didn't, he should have PMed one of us and asked before posting. I flagged the thread immediately to the rest of the mods and was surprised it took so long for someone to get around to closing and deleting it (and even that took two separate mods). Even so, no one gave him an infraction for it until he asked to be banned.

We do hope everyone wants to continue to participate on the DBR under the new guidelines or modding standards or forum structure or whatever it is that ultimately results from the instructions we've received from the owners, but if you don't, well, the site isn't going to stay the way it is or change back to something else in order to suit you. It's Julian's site, he's told us what he wants to change, and we're going to do our best to implement his requests.

We can't please everyone, but the internet is a big place and there are a lot of other sites out there where people who are unhappy with the DBR can go to discuss Duke Basketball.

rockymtn devil
02-17-2009, 06:46 PM
I've gone back and forth on whether or not to post in this thread and decided to do so.

1. The "power hungry mods" accusation is not an appropriate characterization of how I see some of the action of the deputies here. It isn't "power hungry" because the mods really don't have that much "power" (they can ban you from an internet message board). There is, however, a air of self-righteousness in which a small number of moderators seem to take themselves a bit too seriously.

Examples: 1) in the original "let's start a facebook group" thread, there was a post from a moderator shooting down the idea that read more like a letter from the DBR's General Counsel than what you'd expect from an internet message board moderator. It spoke in all sorts of legalese that was completely unnecessary. I got a chuckle. 2) In a recent thread that devolved into a mod defending the editing of a front page column (in response to some light hearted comments), another moderator came in and noted that the defending mod's previous post nicely summed up their position on the matter. My initial thought was "there's a position on the matter? Really? Is this a joke?". Both of these examples go to a moderating style that, while not power hungry, looks like the work of people who take themselves way too seriously.

2. The guidelines are ambiguous and can sometimes be difficult to follow for that reason.

3. In line with the ongoing question regarding who moderates the moderators, I noticed that, in the Post BC-Game thread, a particular mod posted quite a bit and, IMO, some of his posts could be construed as violating the guidelines.

Specifically, looking through the first ten pages or so, this moderator made a fair amount of contribution. In my estimation, 9 of the posts arguably violated the guidelines with a combination of needless posting (the most common by far), lack of civility, and repetitive rant.

Now, I'm not sure if a poster receives an infraction for each individual post or if, for example, no matter how many needless posts you make in a thread, you only can get one infraction point for that given thread. If it's the former, this moderator could've picked up 26 points in those 9 posts alone with my interpretation of the rules and an admittedly strict application (9 for needless posting, 9 for lack of civility, 8 for repetitive rant). If it's the latter, he could've received 7 infraction points.

As of writing this, the poster/moderator is not "on holiday" so, I speculate that no infractions were given, although a less stringent application of the guidelines may have only given 1-4 infraction points and not led to a 48-hour ban. A couple of explanations (not exhaustive):

1. I've misinterpreted the rules (which hints at the rules being vague)
2. The offending posts slipped through the cracks
3. No infractions were given in that thread; or, at least not for the violations this moderator possibly committed
4. The mods don't really moderate each other with the veracity that they moderate others.

To me, the most effective moderators are those who you forget are moderating. They provide contributions without coming across as taking themselves too seriously and, IMO, create a better atmosphere.

allenmurray
02-17-2009, 07:52 PM
A couple of explanations (not exhaustive):

1. I've misinterpreted the rules (which hints at the rules being vague)
2. The offending posts slipped through the cracks
3. No infractions were given in that thread; or, at least not for the violations this moderator possibly committed
4. The mods don't really moderate each other with the veracity that they moderate others.



Another explanation. The moderators are moderating exactly the way the owner of the site wants them to (or they wouldn't still be moderating!), and the rest of us should get over ourselves, and either act like guests in someone else's home or go back to our own house.

Stray Gator
02-17-2009, 09:20 PM
I've gone back and forth on whether or not to post in this thread and decided to do so.

1. The "power hungry mods" accusation is not an appropriate characterization of how I see some of the action of the deputies here. It isn't "power hungry" because the mods really don't have that much "power" (they can ban you from an internet message board). There is, however, a air of self-righteousness in which a small number of moderators seem to take themselves a bit too seriously.

Examples: 1) in the original "let's start a facebook group" thread, there was a post from a moderator shooting down the idea that read more like a letter from the DBR's General Counsel than what you'd expect from an internet message board moderator. It spoke in all sorts of legalese that was completely unnecessary. I got a chuckle. 2) In a recent thread that devolved into a mod defending the editing of a front page column (in response to some light hearted comments), another moderator came in and noted that the defending mod's previous post nicely summed up their position on the matter. My initial thought was "there's a position on the matter? Really? Is this a joke?". Both of these examples go to a moderating style that, while not power hungry, looks like the work of people who take themselves way too seriously.

2. The guidelines are ambiguous and can sometimes be difficult to follow for that reason.

3. In line with the ongoing question regarding who moderates the moderators, I noticed that, in the Post BC-Game thread, a particular mod posted quite a bit and, IMO, some of his posts could be construed as violating the guidelines.

Specifically, looking through the first ten pages or so, this moderator made a fair amount of contribution. In my estimation, 9 of the posts arguably violated the guidelines with a combination of needless posting (the most common by far), lack of civility, and repetitive rant.

Now, I'm not sure if a poster receives an infraction for each individual post or if, for example, no matter how many needless posts you make in a thread, you only can get one infraction point for that given thread. If it's the former, this moderator could've picked up 26 points in those 9 posts alone with my interpretation of the rules and an admittedly strict application (9 for needless posting, 9 for lack of civility, 8 for repetitive rant). If it's the latter, he could've received 7 infraction points.

As of writing this, the poster/moderator is not "on holiday" so, I speculate that no infractions were given, although a less stringent application of the guidelines may have only given 1-4 infraction points and not led to a 48-hour ban. A couple of explanations (not exhaustive):

1. I've misinterpreted the rules (which hints at the rules being vague)
2. The offending posts slipped through the cracks
3. No infractions were given in that thread; or, at least not for the violations this moderator possibly committed
4. The mods don't really moderate each other with the veracity that they moderate others.

To me, the most effective moderators are those who you forget are moderating. They provide contributions without coming across as taking themselves too seriously and, IMO, create a better atmosphere.

Although I'm a moderator in an advisory capacity only--never gave an infraction, never deleted a post, never banned a poster--I'd like to weigh in on this one, in part because one specific criticism is aimed directly at me, and in part because this post leveling broadside criticisms at the moderators and the posting guidelines exemplifies what I consider to be a primary symptom of the underlying problem that has caused so much frustration among the site owners, the moderators who are trying to fulfill the responsibilities entrusted to them by the site owners, and the dwindling number of participants who still genuinely care about the quality of the DBR forums. And while this message may cause me to be drummed out of the corps by J & B and the real moderators, I believe it's a message that needs to be conveyed, while there's still time.

First, let me address this portion of the message:

In a recent thread that devolved into a mod defending the editing of a front page column (in response to some light hearted comments), another moderator came in and noted that the defending mod's previous post nicely summed up their position on the matter. My initial thought was "there's a position on the matter? Really? Is this a joke?". Both of these examples go to a moderating style that, while not power hungry, looks like the work of people who take themselves way too seriously.

Just to ensure that everyone understands the context, the incident being referred to occurred when rockymtn devil posted the following "light hearted comments" regarding an article written by the site owners on the DBR's Main Page:

The real beauty is that, despite its own errors in writing about the Maryland game (math and name recognition) the DBR has a post today calling out the Washington Post for misspelling the name of a certain Durham restaurant. Pot, meet kettle.

In response to this "light hearted comment" taking a shot at J & B, I posted the following message:

No one asked me, but feel obliged to respond to this post. While the distinction may be of little import to some, writers for the Washington Post are professional journalists. Expending the time and attention required to proofread the articles their employer will publish and eliminate mistakes is part of their job. I expect they understand and accept that errors in their work are fair subject for criticism.

Julio and Boswell would be the first to admit that they are not professional journalists. They are fans who created this site at their own expense, and who maintain it on their own spare time, purely out of a desire to share their love for Duke Basketball with other fans. Both have jobs and families that rightfully must be given priority. As far as I know, the only thing they get in return after paying expenses is the personal satisfaction of knowing that many people are able to enjoy visiting the DBR and appreciate their efforts in making the site available as a source of information and entertainment.

Those who have frequented the DBR over the years realize that J & B don't always have time to perform the kind of "quality control" they would like, and that they welcome messages from readers pointing out mistakes that need to be corrected. Fortunately, most readers have the appreciation and courtesy to do so privately without using the mistake as a gratuitous opportunity to give the DBR--and J & B--snarky poke in the eye.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, my message, which was plainly intended to ask for people to be more generous in their understanding and appreciation of what the DBR owners provide us, evoked the comment--quickly lauded by another as the "best comment in this whole thread"--that "You mods should remember this exact same argument in the future." Another moderator then closed the thread, commenting that my post "nicely sums up our position on the matter."

What do all of these posts, including the one that prompted this reply, have in common? Simple: The sole objective is to denigrate and criticize and snipe at the DRB owners, the DBR mods, and the DBR posting standards. And unfortunately, as such negative messages--towards both the DBR and the Duke basketball program--have become increasingly prevalent here, the proportion of posts on these boards that have something valuable and informative and interesting to share continues to steadily decline.

Well, the purpose of this thread was to serve one last notice that the owners and the moderators have had enough of the incessant, non-contributory criticism. None of us professes to be perfect, and I assure you that J & B and the mods welcome criticism that will help us do a better job of making the DBR the best it can be. Why? Because we take pride in the DBR and our association with it. We fancy the notion that the DBR, and those who participate in forming its identity, should represent the Duke community on the Internet with the same "class," if you will, that the Duke basketball program represents the Duke community in the sphere of college hoops.

Do the moderators take themselves too seriously? To the extent that the moderators work very hard trying to do what the site owners have asked--maintain high standards against a constant barrage of destructive negativity--they certainly take that responsibility seriously. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because J & B can't do it by themselves, and I think it's fair to say they wouldn't tolerate having message boards at all if their standards are being persistently disregarded. Do the moderators have "a position"? Absolutely. Our position is that the DBR and its forums are intended to be a fun and entertaining and uplifting place for fans and friends of Duke and college basketball generally to gather and share their insights, opinions, experiences, and passion for the subjects of common interest in a civil, mutually respectful, good-humored atmosphere. And our position is that snarky criticism that does more to defeat that objective than to promote it is a waste of bandwidth that has no place here. Anyone who thinks that is "a joke" needs to reassess whether the DBR is the appropriate venue for the kind of posting experience they seek.

You think the posting guidelines are "ambiguous"? I think it's a sad commentary that we even need to articulate any posting guidelines. I don't believe there's a person who regularly posts on the DBR who doesn't comprehend the difference between a message that adds value--whether it be a bit of basketball acumen, a humorous observation, an interesting anecdote, an historical perspective, or a thoughtful question--and a message that is empty of substance, or destructively negative in tone, or likely to provoke controversy or to be perceived as a personal attack. To be more pointed, I don't believe anyone who has been hanging out here for more than a week or two pulls the trigger on a post without realizing which side of the line it falls on.

The irony of your complaint is that posting guidelines are inherently ambiguous. The best guidelines for posting on the DBR are simple and intuitive:

1. Avoid offending anyone. Don't even take the risk of saying something that might offend anyone or might be perceived as a personal attack.

2. Don't post something that you wouldn't say out loud if you were sitting at a table with the people who will be reading it.

3. Be mindful of the fact that many of the people who will be reading what you post don't know anything about you except that you are a Duke fan; and, whether you like it or not, many of those readers will assume that your posts are representative of the attitudes--and aptitudes--of Duke fans generally. It's not only your reputation at stake. Just as Coach K tells the players that they are taking each shot "for the team," contemplate the fact that you are, in effect, posting "for the DBR community."

4. If you feel the need to criticize or complain, ask yourself first if the problem is one that anyone who reads the DBR has the ability to remedy. If not, then there's always a way to present it in a positive framework that prevents it from being unnecessarily hurtful or accusatory. In fact, there's no more effective vehicle for conveying a "biting comment" than to wrap it in humor.

5. And finally, my personal favorite: Whether you're a parent or not, pretend that everything you're about to post will be read by your children--and ask yourself if you're setting the kind of example that you would be proud to have them emulate.

Okay, that's what I have to say. It's not my call, but from what I'm hearing, there aren't going to be any more warning shots fired across the bow. If the participants here don't clean up the mess and put things back in order and start exercising the kind of self-restraint that ought to make moderators obsolete, I think the owners are prepared to take drastic measures. And I assure you that this is no joke.

78Devil
02-17-2009, 09:36 PM
I have a question for the Mods. There was a recent thread -- the title of which supposedly had to do with coaching but was really just a diagnosis of performance vs. recruiting -- which was just deleted. I had just read it at work and although some posters had a pretty pessimistic view, most were analytical, not overemotional, and not inappropriate. What was the basis for the delete? I've been lurking for a long time, but seldom post, and was concerned that my post -- which was pretty supportive of the program -- was the last one before it was shut down. Makes me truly puzzled over the standards. This is not a cynical or sarcastic post. Just truly trying to understand.

FireOgilvie
02-17-2009, 09:51 PM
I have a question for the Mods. There was a recent thread -- the title of which supposedly had to do with coaching but was really just a diagnosis of performance vs. recruiting -- which was just deleted. I had just read it at work and although some posters had a pretty pessimistic view, most were analytical, not overemotional, and not inappropriate. What was the basis for the delete? I've been lurking for a long time, but seldom post, and was concerned that my post -- which was pretty supportive of the program -- was the last one before it was shut down. Makes me truly puzzled over the standards. This is not a cynical or sarcastic post. Just truly trying to understand.

It's still there and your post is still the last post in the thread.

I think the moderators do a great job. I have no complaints. If I do something wrong, I want the moderators to let me know so I can stop it. Thanks guys.

devildownunder
02-18-2009, 09:11 AM
Another explanation. The moderators are moderating exactly the way the owner of the site wants them to (or they wouldn't still be moderating!), and the rest of us should get over ourselves, and either act like guests in someone else's home or go back to our own house.


Respectfully, I submit that someone who took as much time as Rockymtn devil did to make a post is probably a person who is sincere trying to learn how to be a welcome contributor around here, while still being able to speak his/her mind. Therefore, she/he probably isn't interested in just firing off negative, offensive stuff. As such, perhaps a better way to approach responding to her/his post would be to attempt (maybe through private messages, to avoid board clutter) to foster some understanding, rather than firing off a dismissal.

mcdukie
02-18-2009, 09:15 AM
I am glad I decided to read this post. I have been "flagged" recently for comments I made. One thing I am taking from reading this is that this board belongs to someone else and not me. If I don't want to post according to their directions I just can't say it. I made a comment that I didn't think was that bad and was called destructively negative. I was very upset at first but now I will watch what I put in print. I still don't think what I said was that bad, more or less a fact, but again this is Julio's board.

allenmurray
02-18-2009, 09:17 AM
Respectfully, I submit that someone who took as much time as Rockymtn devil did to make a post is probably a person who is sincere trying to learn how to be a welcome contributor around here, while still being able to speak his/her mind. Therefore, she/he probably isn't interested in just firing off negative, offensive stuff. As such, perhaps a better way to approach responding to her/his post would be to attempt (maybe through private messages, to avoid board clutter) to foster some understanding, rather than firing off a dismissal.

You are correct, and if you are reading this Rockymtndevil, I apologize for my abruptness. My frustration wasn't with you personally, but with the barrage of posters who do not seem to usnderstaad the idea that this board does not belong to them personally, but it does belong to somebody personally, and we should respect his (thier) rules or simply turn out the lights on our way out. Just like in a basketball game it is often the second person who commits a foul that gets called for it - not quite an exact paralell, but that is what I did to you.

killerleft
02-18-2009, 11:22 AM
I used to get upset at times, too. But once I took the time to think, it was easy to see Julio's point of view.

The site is not mine. I have no responsibility. I just read and post.

The owners have (thank goodness) a sense of responsibility regarding their creation. They have nurtured DBR for a long time to reflect THEIR version of a great Duke website. I have been reading and posting for years because I agree with what they do. And I very much appreciate what they do.

As others have said, if the owners' values and rules do not agree with what you expect from a Duke website, then create or visit one that does.

That said, I have inadvertantly crossed the line before. It really does help to take a breath before responding to a comment that makes your hair stand on end.

Lord Ash
02-18-2009, 04:34 PM
Howdy all,

First off, lemme say that I love DBR. I started lurking the year after I graduated (1997) back before I even knew what an "internet forum" was. I eventually started posting on the old blue code board, always pretty slowly, and have always thoroughly enjoyed the discourse and maturity of DBR.

As a Duke grad, a former varsity athlete (a lot of years of being a Blue Devil and wearing the colors of my school went into getting that ring in my avatar!) and as a former intramural manager, I've been involved with Duke and Duke athletics for years and years. I've also moderated and been the admin of a number of forums and websites, from hundred thousand member wide-open boards to much smaller, much more restricted boards (a number of which did not even include an off-topic option.) I've always appreciated DBR for what it offers and, most importantly, for the tone it has offered it in. In fact, I didn't even realize other Duke forums existed until about a year ago:)

I appreciate that some of the old-time posters and, more importantly, the owners of the site are a bit uneasy (for lack of a better term) with the "way things have been going."

I know that moderating on a rapidly-growing public forum can be a challenging job, especially one with as narrow a set of posting parameters and guidelines as DBR, at least when compared to most internet forums.

I do think, if I may share, that maybe more transparent moderating TEMPORARILY might actually HELP move the forum back towards Julio's and Boswell's original ideal.

It seems to me that maybe by making more public what is and is not acceptable and why and even pointing out specific examples, it might help create a more specific understanding of what is expected here than simply saying "Don't offend anyone or say anything destructive," which is surely common sense but is also a very open-for-interpretation statement.

Simple, publicly viewable notes on posts that garner an infraction for a few weeks might be a bit more work to start, but in the end might go a LONG way towards codifying in a more tangible sense exactly what is and is not considered "kosher" here on DBR. For example; a quick note in red of "Highlighted comment above considered destructively negative; 1 point infraction" at the bottom of an offending thread might really help people understand the DBR difference between what might be considered a valid critique and an invalid attack.

I feel like I have not heard much unhappiness about what is expected at DBR... rather, it feels more like posters simply want more guidance. Think of it like "Supernanny;" Jo Frost is always very clear about what is wrong ("You do not hit mummy,") what the consequences are ("If you hit mummy again, you will go to the Naughty Corner,") and when she follows through about why it happened ("You were sent to the Naughty Corner for hitting mummy.") And once the kids hit that Naughty Corner and understand specifically why, the behavior always, always changes. (Either that, or they don't air the episodes where it doesn't change?) Maybe just a little Supernanny to start might reap rewards in the future?

Anyway... I know no one asked for my opinion, and I know I am not a moderator or owner of DBR (said as a firm member of the "the internet is NOT a democracy" camp) but I do feel that, after 12 years of reading DBR and after many more years dedicated not only to Duke but to Duke athletics at the highest level, that I have a tiny little personal stake in these forums, and I would love to see DBR kept at the highest standards it already holds.

bjornolf
02-19-2009, 11:25 AM
I noticed that several people have complained that one of the problems is that the mods are some of the best posters, but don't have enough time to post since they're spending all their time modding. According to the member list, there are 3483 members and only 20 mods (really 19, since people say Julio doesn't mod much anymore). That's a RIDICULOUSLY small percentage in my book (about .6%). There have GOT to be more people that are qualified to mod out there. Why not have 100 mods (a little under 3 percent), broken up into teams of 25 with 5 of the experienced mods to "head" each group? Rotate them every week (or every month), so that any one mod only has to mod for a week or so a month (or a month every four months). The rest of the time, they'd be "off-duty", and be just regular posters. That way, there'd be less pressure on the mods, and they'd get a break to spend more time just posting and contributing like everybody else. More people would see the mods' side and the mods would have more of a feel of what it's like to just be your average poster. Also, people would worry less about some power play by the mods if they were only mods one week a month (or one month every several). How much progress would they make in a week? And if one mod was out of line, the five head mods of that goup could get together and critique him/her. If that mod just can't rein it in, they could be replaced and go back to being a regular poster. Head mods could be regulated by the head mods of the other groups, if there's a problem there.

Anyway, just a thought. Seems like it would take a LOT of pressure off the mods AND make them more efficient. Like I said, .6% just doesn't seem like enough mods to fairly (both to them and to the posters) and efficiently mod such a large board. If there were 500 members, 20 might be enough. But with almost 4000, 20 is RIDICULOUSLY small.

MulletMan
02-19-2009, 11:54 AM
I noticed that several people have complained that one of the problems is that the mods are some of the best posters, but don't have enough time to post since they're spending all their time modding. According to the member list, there are 3483 members and only 20 mods (really 19, since people say Julio doesn't mod much anymore). That's a RIDICULOUSLY small percentage in my book (about .6%). There have GOT to be more people that are qualified to mod out there. Why not have 100 mods (a little under 3 percent), broken up into teams of 25 with 5 of the experienced mods to "head" each group? Rotate them every week (or every month), so that any one mod only has to mod for a week or so a month (or a month every four months). The rest of the time, they'd be "off-duty", and be just regular posters. That way, there'd be less pressure on the mods, and they'd get a break to spend more time just posting and contributing like everybody else. More people would see the mods' side and the mods would have more of a feel of what it's like to just be your average poster. Also, people would worry less about some power play by the mods if they were only mods one week a month (or one month every several). How much progress would they make in a week? And if one mod was out of line, the five head mods of that goup could get together and critique him/her. If that mod just can't rein it in, they could be replaced and go back to being a regular poster. Head mods could be regulated by the head mods of the other groups, if there's a problem there.

Anyway, just a thought. Seems like it would take a LOT of pressure off the mods AND make them more efficient. Like I said, .6% just doesn't seem like enough mods to fairly (both to them and to the posters) and efficiently mod such a large board. If there were 500 members, 20 might be enough. But with almost 4000, 20 is RIDICULOUSLY small.

Its an interesting point, but you also need to realize that the total number of users in no way reflects the numbers who actually post. The vast majority of registered users are lurkers.

bjornolf
02-19-2009, 12:04 PM
Its an interesting point, but you also need to realize that the total number of users in no way reflects the numbers who actually post. The vast majority of registered users are lurkers.

Okay, so stupid idea. Sorry.

MulletMan
02-19-2009, 12:16 PM
Okay, so stupid idea. Sorry.

Its not a stupid idea. In fact, I said that its an intersting point. Sorry if it came across as dismissive. I think that adding some mods might be an option, and believe it or not, we actually are discussing many of the suggestions that you all are making. (No guarentees on what we do about those suggestions, but we're discussing them!)

I think the issue is this... and its just my take... not some official DBR position... you're right that the mods spend a lot of time modding and not posting. Of course, I think that you're right that we could add more mods to decrease the burden on the current moderators. However, in order to decrease that burden, we could all (and I mean posters, not mods) take it upon ourselves to see to it that our posts don't need moderation. In that way, we would ALL be moderators.

(I know, I just blew your mind :D)

But in all seriousness, the solution probably lies with a little from your suggestions (more mods), and a little from my ideal (no need for mods).

bjornolf
02-19-2009, 12:23 PM
Oh, believe me, I wish we didn't need mods. That should be evident from the fact that I lasted over a decade on this board before getting my first infraction or having my first post deleted. I didn't mean to sound as if you were dismissive. I didn't take it that way. I just thought my idea wasn't good if only a small percentage of the membership was posting, that's all (of course, I guess number of posts per day or week is a better measure of how busy the mods are than how many people are posting...a board with 100 members that each post 50 times a day is much busier than one with 10000 members who only post once a day). Anyway, just like police officers and fire fighters get "off" time, I don't think JUST increasing the number of mods is enough. I think some sort of rotation is necessary so that the mods have a chance to be "normal" posters. I've never been a mod, but I've had friends who were mods on other boards that had far too few mods, and it's very stressful to them. They tried a rotation method, and it really helped a lot. Maybe start by doubling the mods and rotate every other week, and if it works well, grow the numbers from there?

That way the mods would get a little time to just have fun and contribute without having to worry about policing all the time.

allenmurray
02-19-2009, 12:41 PM
I can't believe I'm the first one to think of this (though I am older than the average DBR poster)

MulletMan
02-19-2009, 12:43 PM
I can't believe I'm the first one to think of this (though I am older than the average DBR poster)

Heh. You're not. We've used this term for a while amongst oursleves. You're not that old... clearly.

bjornolf
02-19-2009, 12:44 PM
For the younger crowd: ;)



http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNzc5MzcxNzM0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzk1ODAyMQ@@._ V1._SX98_SY140_.jpg

Bluedog
02-19-2009, 01:32 PM
Its an interesting point, but you also need to realize that the total number of users in no way reflects the numbers who actually post. The vast majority of registered users are lurkers.

Just to back up this assertion with numbers: ;)

Total users: 3484
Users with zero or one post: 1959 (56.2% of total)
Users with zero - five posts: 2365 (67.9% of total)
Users with 100 or more posts: 349 (10% of total)

20 mods / 349 "regulars" (i.e. defined by having around one post per week or more over the last two years) = 5.7%

Stray Gator
02-19-2009, 01:37 PM
Oh, believe me, I wish we didn't need mods. That should be evident from the fact that I lasted over a decade on this board before getting my first infraction or having my first post deleted. I didn't mean to sound as if you were dismissive. I didn't take it that way. I just thought my idea wasn't good if only a small percentage of the membership was posting, that's all (of course, I guess number of posts per day or week is a better measure of how busy the mods are than how many people are posting...a board with 100 members that each post 50 times a day is much busier than one with 10000 members who only post once a day). Anyway, just like police officers and fire fighters get "off" time, I don't think JUST increasing the number of mods is enough. I think some sort of rotation is necessary so that the mods have a chance to be "normal" posters. I've never been a mod, but I've had friends who were mods on other boards that had far too few mods, and it's very stressful to them. They tried a rotation method, and it really helped a lot. Maybe start by doubling the mods and rotate every other week, and if it works well, grow the numbers from there?

That way the mods would get a little time to just have fun and contribute without having to worry about policing all the time.

Thanks for the suggestion. I believe it's fair to say that the moderators would welcome the relief of additional help and less demands on their time. But adding more moderators to relieve one set of problems would inevitably exacerbate another set of problems. Specifically, it would dilute our efforts to promote consistency in the application of posting standards--and despite the skepticism frequently voiced on the boards, the moderators really do make serious efforts to improve the uniformity of rules enforcement. Of course, that process requires conferring among ourselves when questions of interpretation arise; and adding more moderators would obviously impede our ability to confer effectively and reach agreement on such issues.

I think some of the moderators might post here more frequently themselves if the atmosphere in the room changed so that (a) they didn't need to spend so much time moderating; and (b) they didn't feel the need, before venturing out among the crowd, to don armor and prepare to defend themselves against those posters who seem ever poised to pounce on a moderator when they can find fault in the content or tone of the moderator's post. Certainly, there are times when a moderator's post crosses the line--and when that happens, they catch a lot of heat about it on the Mods' Board because it fuels the complaints that the moderators apply a double standard to themselves, which impugns us all. As a result, I believe most moderators feel they have to walk on eggshells out here.

Speaking personally, I will say that one major reason I've been reluctant to post here is because I grew weary of people "putting words in my mouth"--twisting and manipulating the meaning of what I said, sometimes for no apparent reason other than to provoke a fight. So I'd take a lot of time to construct a meticulously worded message, but still ended up spending more time than I could afford replying to (mostly baseless and pointless) retorts in an effort to rebut or clarify. No more. If and when I sense that there's a genuine interest in discussing issues and exchanging ideas and sharing experiences here--not just engaging in some kind of contest to see who can "win an argument on the Internet"--I'll welcome the opportunity to enjoy participating on a regular basis once again.

bjornolf
02-19-2009, 01:50 PM
That was part of the reason I suggested having the "old" mods spread amongst the groups of new mods to "regulate" and train them, at least at first. I TOTALLY see the problem, though. I think that rotation is key to helping lower the stress level of the current mods and allow them to contribute like normal posters.

Also, a lot of people have complained about lack of explanation when action is taken. I don't know how deletion or infractions work physically on the net for mods, but is there some way the action of deletion or infraction could open a PM with the recipient(s) filled in and a pull down menu of the common reasons? The mod could just fill in any necessary quotations from the offending thread or post. That way, a mod would only have to send a detailed message and waste a bunch of time if it was an unusual instance. Probably 90% would fit in a common, 10 option menu. An added sentence or two to "personalize" it would be all that was required. People would get an explanation, and a lot of the wasted time and pain in the neck for mods would be removed. Maybe this isn't workable, I don't know. I wouldn't think it would be that hard.

alteran
02-19-2009, 04:05 PM
We seem to have this discussion every six months. IMHO we overthink every aspect of this-- how big the problem is, how to solve it, what specifics we should use, etc.

I think the mods and site admins worry WAY too much about "censorship" and "having a light touch." We aren't founding America here, much as some of us PPB addicts think we are. I say forget infractions, points, warnings, and perfectly consistent modding. Just BLAM! Nuke offending comments. And I mean disappeared, gone, we've-always-been-at-war-with-Eurasia style.

I agree that an involved code of conduct is pointless. The current code of conduct is fine. Fuzzy, sure. But like democracy, it's a horrible system except for all the others.

Sure, some of us will get cheesed off, but so what? Make it clear that getting deleted is not that big a deal, just a tweet of the whistle. We'll either "get it" and conform, or not get it and leave. I think comments from the mods would be helpful, but leave room for it being a loose judgment call, no hard feelings. Include the offending comment, say something like,"that seemed borderline ad hominem to me. BLAM. Play nice. Hugs-n-kisses, Jumbo."

This isn't a court of criminal law. No one's puppy dies. BLAM.

The downside of this is that it's easy to go a little crazy, and to be sure, I've seen a little going crazy from time to time, so keep each other in line behind the scenes. Sounds like that's generally what you're doing. Choose your battles-- personally, I think it's a waste of time going after "me, too" or "great comment" posts. I think they build community because the only alternatives are changing the subject or disagreeing in some particular. But hey-- that's your call.

I think humility would go a long way if this became the plan. If you pulled the trigger too soon and realize it later, tell the victim so, mea culpa, and say you'll try to do better.

If you try this, recognize that things will go a little pear-shaped until people adjust. It's a culture change. Some people will leave-- heck, one of them might be me.

But you did want a culture change, right?

It's just a BBS. If you're thinking about it much, you're thinking about it too much.

One last thing. Maybe the current DBR isn't "good enough." But for all it's current flaws, the DBR is easily one of the better BBS's out there. You may be disappointed and it's fine to be disappointed, but at least acknowledge that this "horrible failure" is way ahead of the curve.

Just my $ 0.02.

Oh, one other last thing-- moderation may be a thankless task, but that doesn't mean it isn't appreciated.

BlueintheFace
02-20-2009, 10:12 PM
Here's a question. How many posters receive an infraction within their first ten posts? That would be a stat that would interest me, though I doubt it is available.

allenmurray
02-20-2009, 10:15 PM
It's just a BBS. If you're thinking about it much, you're thinking about it too much.

We have a winner.

pamtar
02-21-2009, 11:03 AM
As a side note, there's a great atmosphere over at snrub (http://www.snrub.com/) before, during, and well after the games.

Those posters (often myself included) who want to be a part of the convo, but don't feel like dissecting minutes 12-14 of the second half in 1000 words can have a blast, without clogging up the EKB. It can also be a great way to gauge how your planned post may go over on the boards. Sometimes moments of genius happen at snrub and directly find their way to the board. However, blatant negativity is not welcome there either.

Breen has done a great job of maintaining the chat room. (Except for the Clemson game ;)) Many thanks to him for offering that media.

GoingFor#5
02-23-2009, 09:20 AM
How about 2 post game threads? Rant thread and Analysis thread.

There's always going to be a need to rant (can't modify human behavior!) so just try to keep it in one place.

Cavlaw
02-23-2009, 09:28 AM
How about 2 post game threads? Rant thread and Analysis thread.

There's always going to be a need to rant (can't modify human behavior!) so just try to keep it in one place.
Ranting (particularly without any redeeming points in a post) is a good way to get an infraction. If you absolutely must, please find another forum on which to do it.

GoingFor#5
02-23-2009, 09:34 AM
Ranting (particularly without any redeeming points in a post) is a good way to get an infraction. If you absolutely must, please find another forum on which to do it.

I meant this as a suggestion for those who do rant to help rectify the situation discussed in this thread. This is my 10th post and I don't rant.

DukePA's Mom
02-23-2009, 03:24 PM
I meant this as a suggestion for those who do rant to help rectify the situation discussed in this thread. This is my 10th post and I don't rant.

Maybe the "ranters" should do email with each others. Then non-ranters wouldn't have to be subjected. I hate the thought of our players, their families, couches & families reading "rants". I espceially wouldn't like unc or others who don't love Duke to read them.

Jumbo
02-23-2009, 05:20 PM
Maybe the "ranters" should do email with each others. Then non-ranters wouldn't have to be subjected. I hate the thought of our players, their families, couches & families reading "rants". I espceially wouldn't like unc or others who don't love Duke to read them.

This is not a place to rant. Period. So those who insist on ranting simply won't last long here.

BD80
02-23-2009, 08:08 PM
This is not a place to rant. Period. So those who insist on ranting simply won't last long here.

Can we provide a link to a site for ranting? Perhaps we could also empower the mods to transfer the rants to that site, much as they are able to move posts to an appropriate thread.

BTW, I think rants are appropriate if they pertain to anti-duke sentiment, or about those who aspire to be Duke rivals, e.g. unc, uCon, ky, ucla, md.

Rants about BBQ should also be allowed.

devil84
02-23-2009, 10:32 PM
Can we provide a link to a site for ranting? Perhaps we could also empower the mods to transfer the rants to that site, much as they are able to move posts to an appropriate thread.

It is quite beyond the scope of DBR to suggest a site (or comprehensive list of sites) for ranting. Think of it this way: would the board(s) that we list enjoy being on a list of "places to go to rant?"

And thank you for the empowerment, but technology doesn't allow us to transfer messages between sites. If it did, we'd be getting some interesting stuff from other boards. Not to mention reciprocity: if we could send posts there, then they could send posts here. I don't think we're interested in receiving posts that were deemed inappropriate for those boards!

Come here to discuss Duke Basketball in an intelligent, level-headed fashion (that includes the positive as well as the negative). If you found DBR, you're quite capable of finding an additional site that will accommodate your desire to post in a much less restrictive environment.

Look, we're not saying that you don't have good reason to vent or rant. Vent or rant to your significant other, friends, co-workers, dog, sofa, or potted plant. Or other e-sites. But don't do it here.

In this context, venting or ranting involves language, emotions, or concepts that you likely don't want recorded for posterity. And neither do we. And others (including coaches, players, former players, and their families) don't want to read that, now or archived years from now. If you can express your feelings in a constructive manner, they'll be allowed to stand. That wouldn't be considered a rant or vent for the purposes of this argument.

BD80
02-23-2009, 11:07 PM
It is quite beyond the scope of DBR to suggest a site (or comprehensive list of sites) for ranting. Think of it this way: would the board(s) that we list enjoy being on a list of "places to go to rant?"

And thank you for the empowerment, but technology doesn't allow us to transfer messages between sites. If it did, we'd be getting some interesting stuff from other boards. Not to mention reciprocity: if we could send posts there, then they could send posts here. I don't think we're interested in receiving posts that were deemed inappropriate for those boards!

...

I apologize that my post sounded more serious than intended. I think you appreciate the potential humor in my proposal. I have had several PMs from others who certainly appreciated the humor and suggested potential sites. Why do people seem to think Carolina boards are appropriate venues for ranting?

On the technical end, don't we have some really smart people on this board that could make my proposal feasible but not reciprocal?

devil84
02-24-2009, 12:06 AM
I apologize that my post sounded more serious than intended. I think you appreciate the potential humor in my proposal. I have had several PMs from others who certainly appreciated the humor and suggested potential sites. Why do people seem to think Carolina boards are appropriate venues for ranting?

Ahhh, the joys of communicating with text. Sometimes it's wise to use smilies to ensure the intended inflection. :D (Sorry, I'm also working for another volunteer organization right now who are making requests like this who are dead serious at wasting the next year of my life so they can save 3 minutes.) This does illustrate a point that sometimes the inflection that one means isn't taken that way by the reader.


On the technical end, don't we have some really smart people on this board that could make my proposal feasible but not reciprocal?

Of course we do! But we're a little busy at the moment...(and we wouldn't want to get in trouble!) ;)

BD80
02-24-2009, 12:21 AM
Ahhh, the joys of communicating with text. Sometimes it's wise to use smilies to ensure the intended inflection. :D (Sorry, I'm also working for another volunteer organization right now who are making requests like this who are dead serious at wasting the next year of my life so they can save 3 minutes.) This does illustrate a point that sometimes the inflection that one means isn't taken that way by the reader.
...

It isn't just textual communication. Just when you think you have found something so completely preposterous that you can suggest wryly for humor's sake alone ... someone responds, "Yeah, why don't we try that" - and with nary a hint of humor. Sigh.

Is there an emoticon for malaise?

brumby041
02-24-2009, 08:29 AM
Maybe the "ranters" should do email with each others. Then non-ranters wouldn't have to be subjected. I hate the thought of our players, their families, couches & families reading "rants". I espceially wouldn't like unc or others who don't love Duke to read them.

I rant at my couch quite often...;)

trinity92
02-24-2009, 10:16 AM
Some posts that are sure to garner moderator criticism/infractions have proven to be the most worthwhile. Witness recent threads along the lines of:

-Practice/Schmatice, EW and Plumlee need to play more

-Z/GP/Nolan has/have been really ineffective lately- let's sit him/them and start Scheyer.

-Are the Coaches to blame?

These are threads we've all seen lately, and on their face, they seem destructive in nature. Anyone voicing the above complaints is sure to do so with a fair amount of frustration-- I'd go so far as saying without frustration, those posters wouldn't have taken the time to post. The "Are the Coaches to Blame" thread smacks especially of an "It's Over" mentality.

However, we've seen the coaching staff take steps to address the exact concerns addressed in the above posts-- EW and Plumlee are playing, JS is at the point, and Coach K is jacket throwing to exhort the crowd, which is quite a departure from his recent stoic/face in hands benchsitting, and we have changed our offense and defense appreciably of late. It almost seems the coaching staff has read these "excessively destructive" threads and added them to the playbook.

Unless we're only talking about cleaning up tone, which I don't think was the intent of Julio's original post, "Cleaning up" would tend to squash the threads described above, which have proved to be prophetic. Baby with the bathwater, and all that. Got to be careful.

sagegrouse
02-24-2009, 12:03 PM
Some posts that are sure to garner moderator criticism/infractions have proven to be the most worthwhile. Witness recent threads along the lines of:

-Practice/Schmatice, EW and Plumlee need to play more

-Z/GP/Nolan has/have been really ineffective lately- let's sit him/them and start Scheyer.

-Are the Coaches to blame?

These are threads we've all seen lately, and on their face, they seem destructive in nature. Anyone voicing the above complaints is sure to do so with a fair amount of frustration-- I'd go so far as saying without frustration, those posters wouldn't have taken the time to post. The "Are the Coaches to Blame" thread smacks especially of an "It's Over" mentality.

However, we've seen the coaching staff take steps to address the exact concerns addressed in the above posts-- EW and Plumlee are playing, JS is at the point, and Coach K is jacket throwing to exhort the crowd, which is quite a departure from his recent stoic/face in hands benchsitting, and we have changed our offense and defense appreciably of late. It almost seems the coaching staff has read these "excessively destructive" threads and added them to the playbook.

Unless we're only talking about cleaning up tone, which I don't think was the intent of Julio's original post, "Cleaning up" would tend to squash the threads described above, which have proved to be prophetic. Baby with the bathwater, and all that. Got to be careful.

Although undoubtedly an oversimplification, it seems to me there are two kinds of problem postings:

1. Substantive posts in the wrong tone: mean-spirited, overly negative, or edging into ad hominem attacks.

2. Mindless, senseless drivel and schoolyard taunting of no interest to anyone.

I guess I thought this thread was trying to stamp out #2, in an effort to raise the average level of content on this Board. However, there seems to be some angst among posters who feel that the policing of #1 is being done with a heavy hand.

Would it be fair to ask that we agree what we are disagreeing about?

sagegrouse

pfrduke
02-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Some posts that are sure to garner moderator criticism/infractions have proven to be the most worthwhile. Witness recent threads along the lines of:

-Practice/Schmatice, EW and Plumlee need to play more

-Z/GP/Nolan has/have been really ineffective lately- let's sit him/them and start Scheyer.

-Are the Coaches to blame?

These are threads we've all seen lately, and on their face, they seem destructive in nature. Anyone voicing the above complaints is sure to do so with a fair amount of frustration-- I'd go so far as saying without frustration, those posters wouldn't have taken the time to post. The "Are the Coaches to Blame" thread smacks especially of an "It's Over" mentality.

You say these threads are "sure to" garner moderator criticisms and infractions, but do you have any backup for that actually happening? I recall many of those threads flourishing, with substantive discussion on both sides, without being closed and without degenerating into slam-fests against the players and coaches.

If people got dinged in those threads, it's likely for the content, and not the subject, of their post. There is a significant and meaningful difference between a) "Brian Zoubek has not been playing well and shouldn't see the court until he improves" and b) "Zoubek sucks." Both have the same subject matter, but the content of the latter makes it problematic.

Bob Green
02-24-2009, 03:28 PM
There's always going to be a need to rant (can't modify human behavior!) so just try to keep it in one place.

B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandura would disagree with you.

devil84
02-24-2009, 05:03 PM
Some posts that are sure to garner moderator criticism/infractions have proven to be the most worthwhile. Witness recent threads along the lines of:

-Practice/Schmatice, EW and Plumlee need to play more

-Z/GP/Nolan has/have been really ineffective lately- let's sit him/them and start Scheyer.

-Are the Coaches to blame?

These are threads we've all seen lately, and on their face, they seem destructive in nature. Anyone voicing the above complaints is sure to do so with a fair amount of frustration-- I'd go so far as saying without frustration, those posters wouldn't have taken the time to post....

Unless we're only talking about cleaning up tone, which I don't think was the intent of Julio's original post, "Cleaning up" would tend to squash the threads described above, which have proved to be prophetic. Baby with the bathwater, and all that. Got to be careful.

Those threads trinity92 mentioned are worth discussing -- and that kind of discussion is why the site exists. Yes, they do bring up negative aspects of the team. But the tone of the posts is generally constructive. We're talking about the difference in saying, "<player> had way too many turnovers and was out of position a lot," and "<player> sucks and is the biggest disappointment ever in Duke history." If we didn't tolerate general negativity towards the program, we'd have nuked those threads a long time ago.

We are talking about cleaning up the tone, and that was the point of Julio's post. Here's the relevant part of his post, with emphasis added:


So what is expected? Here it is, as simply as we can put it.

* Be civil. You can disagree without getting into a fight. This goes for management and mods, too. Civility is the key to it all.

* Post intelligently. If you just want to insult people, or don't put much thought into it, or you do things which don't contribute meaningfully to the site, we don't want it.

* While we don't mind thoughtful criticism of either the site (fire away) or Duke's program, we have never wanted to be one of those sites where people go to just rip their favorite team. What good is that? It's one thing to say, you know, I think that was a bad move strategically or so-and-so got outplayed. But when you say something that would tend to cause injury to the program...well, that's not what this site is about. There are a million places to go do that. You'll be welcome there. But not here.

So what do we want? We want intelligent, passionate fans who make this the most interesting place to share thoughts about college basketball, and Duke and ACC hoops in particular. We've always seen it as a neighborhood pub, and hooligans are not welcome. We have bouncers!We welcome all opinions here -- just state them in a thoughtful and civil fashion. That's all we're asking.

darkblue2769
02-26-2009, 08:43 PM
In reading the Maryland forum today (particularly the topic regarding Nolan Smith's injury) I can say that I have a new understanding for what sets DBR apart from other "similar" boards. We don't all gather around our computers and applaud the injury of an opponent, and our posts are not peppered with profanity (an amusing alliteration). Looking at their board, I can't help but realize how great DBR is. People on here post well thought out, in depth, and sometimes quite long things that are actually worth reading. There is true insight and analysis of the game and our team, and that is what makes it great. This is more than just a board of basketball crazed fans, it is sophisticated. The last thing I think any of us wants to see is moving, even a little bit, in the direction of certain other boards.

I may be rather new to posting here, and I may also be guilty of the occasional rant, most often at halftime during games that aren't going well, but I don't want to see DBR lose what makes it great. Thanks to the mods who are keeping (or at least trying to keep) the boards under control.

ricks68
02-28-2009, 03:15 AM
I gotta say that after reading the Maryland boards regarding Nolan's injury, etc., I seriously considered contributing a long, very reasonable post as an older neutral (obviously false, but necessary to keep from being immediately banned) observer that had ACC ties. In it, I was going to mention how the IC, DBR and Maryland boards each conducted themselves, and note how comparatively vicious, hatefull, venomous, immature, etc. the Maryland boards are in relation to even the IC board, and how detracting they are to such a fine school. But then, I decided it would be useless.:(

Sigh!

ricks.

duketaylor
03-04-2009, 11:43 PM
you just get some good Texas BBQ;)

namvet1965
03-13-2009, 11:42 PM
Being supporters of such a great basketball program I hate to see us stoop to doing what State College folks do: viz talk trash continuously about UNC and Tyler H in particular. UNC won a good hard victory today even though TH was beaten up (mugged) over and over again. He came throughen it counted. Let's give him his due, like the class fans we are, not trash a genuine All- American!. Dick Groat and his friends would not want this. Hey, I was born in 1932 and studied at both schools so I know what I am talking about. Let's clean up!

sagegrouse
03-14-2009, 12:29 AM
Being supporters of such a great basketball program I hate to see us stoop to doing what State College folks do: viz talk trash continuously about UNC and Tyler H in particular. UNC won a good hard victory today even though TH was beaten up (mugged) over and over again. He came throughen it counted. Let's give him his due, like the class fans we are, not trash a genuine All- American!. Dick Groat and his friends would not want this. Hey, I was born in 1932 and studied at both schools so I know what I am talking about. Let's clean up!

Amen. I think the only thing really worth ragging UNC about are the pas de deux between Coach Roy and whomever is designated to be injured (hors de combat) for the week.

TH is fair game, I suppose, because even his teammates call him "Psycho T," but he won the game for the Heels today.

sagegrouse

-jk
03-24-2009, 09:43 AM
Everyone, please, take a breath and ask yourself what your post adds to the overall content of DBR before you press Submit. Nothing says you have to post each and every thought that crosses your mind.

We've had a lot of taunting, pettiness, and snarkiness in the last few days. Let's dial it back a notch and enjoy the dance.

thanks,

-jk