Is DBR Hypocritical?

[DrChainsaw]

Just a quick thought after my 2nd cup of coffee this fine Sunday morning - while I support the effort to keep the boards "positive" and am probably blissfully ignorant of the worst offenses & offenders, is it "positive" to single out 10 individuals as the biggest "Losers of the ACC"?

While it is important to report NEWS, negative or otherwise, is it proper to subjectively bash people on the front page of the site? Is this just hype for a now commercial website at some poor souls' expense?

Cheers. On to my 3rd cup.

[SilkyJ]

Just a quick thought after my 2nd cup of coffee this fine Sunday morning - while I support the effort to keep the boards "positive" and am probably blissfully ignorant of the worst offenses & offenders, is it "positive" to single out 10 individuals as the biggest "Losers of the ACC"?

While it is important to report NEWS, negative or otherwise, is it proper to subjectively bash people on the front page of the site? Is this just hype for a now commercial website at some poor souls' expense?

Cheers. On to my 3rd cup.

I dont know if its hypocritical, but I was definitely surprised to see that. Not sure what the impetus for it was - maybe just the offseason and the need to come up with some things to do, lists to create...top 10 lists are always fun...and I'm all for calling people out when they do something foolish/dumb/whatever, but do we need to rehash mistakes from the 70s for no reason? Julio and Bos certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt, but I definitely raised an eyebrow at that myself...

May also be worth noting that "keeping the boards positive" is an entirely separate from the news/articles/opinions Julio and Bos choose to post on the frontpage.

[Lulu]

And here I thought this thread was going to be about rumor mongering...

[brevity]

I have a general quibble with online lists as a substitution for real content, but this particular one may have some historical value. I for one don't know that much about corruption in the ACC, and could use the education.

Also, the idea of keeping the boards positive has more to do with developing threads that serve a legitimate function, and not about maintaining a small world devoid of negativity. I think the moderators allow a great deal of disagreement in the threads (as they should), and only get involved when a thread devolves into two members getting a little too personal in the back-and-forth, long after everyone else has lost interest.

Rumor-mongering is one thing, but also annoying is when someone comes across a vague notion that disturbs them, and then decides to share that vagueness here in order to disturb everyone else. It's tiresome. There are more constructive ways to spend the offseason on the Main Topic forum.

[Bostondevil]

Also, the idea of keeping the boards positive has more to do with developing threads that serve a legitimate function, and not about maintaining a small world devoid of negativity. I think the moderators allow a great deal of disagreement in the threads (as they should), and only get involved when a thread devolves into two members getting a little too personal in the back-and-forth, long after everyone else has lost interest.



Not exactly, they get involved for more reasons than that, although that is one of the reasons they get involved. Some give more leeway than others.

[darthur]

Just a quick thought after my 2nd cup of coffee this fine Sunday morning - while I support the effort to keep the boards "positive" and am probably blissfully ignorant of the worst offenses & offenders, is it "positive" to single out 10 individuals as the biggest "Losers of the ACC"?

While it is important to report NEWS, negative or otherwise, is it proper to subjectively bash people on the front page of the site? Is this just hype for a now commercial website at some poor souls' expense?

Cheers. On to my 3rd cup.

For what it's worth, I think the distinction is not so much boards vs front page stories like a couple people have suggested, so much as it is Duke vs non-Duke. On DBR, you are expected to not trash Duke or things associated with Duke. Negativity on other topics is mostly fair game I think, as long as you're not a jerk about it.

[SupaDave]

Think about it like this my friends. If the negative happens to be fact we tend to let it stand if it has identifiable legs. There is a difference between identifying shortcomings (i.e. Zoubek needs to work on the high pick and roll) vs. all out blasting an individual, program, or entire network such as "we hope Kentucky burns in hell b/c Cal's a great recruiter and must be cheating".

It's a delicate balance and a dangerous dance we dance but just like with anything else, if you sit back and pay attention - you'll figure it out.

For example, I like the poster who said he was educated about some things. This is somewhat the point of the article. The ACC has benchmarks - some good - some bad. In order to appreciate what the ACC is today, you have to understand what it used to be. I am one of those who wishes teams still got to play each other twice.

As far as the article being negative, well there's a saying that goes "the only bad publicity is no publicity". Just like noone was checking for Saul Smith before he had bad words to say about Kentucky, some of the same guys in the article get a chance to see their names and walk down memory lane. Even in losing there's good times. All good coaches use these things to motivate their teams for the next game, good fans should do the same...

[-jk]

There is some truth to these statements.

The front page is managed completely separately from the boards, though they complement each other. The front page is Julio's blog, a site with his thoughts and just a little meaningful interaction from the rest of our little community.

Julio does most of his work at 0-dark-hundred (making the occasional spelling, grammar, and factual errors - it happens) so that we get new stuff pretty much every morning of the year.

On the other hand, the boards are participatory with a voluntary team of mods - mods with a wide variety of experiences and expectations - doing our best to interpret J&B's guidelines to maintain an interesting and civil place. It goes pretty much non-stop, 24/7/365.

Julio generally leaves the board to us for day to day management and we ask y'all to help us by adhering to J&B's guidelines.

Overall, the balance between the front page and the boards works, but there are occasional disconnects where Julio might post something we mods wouldn't allow on the boards. We're all human.

-jk

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I've obviously taken issue with some aspects/applications of the "destructively negative" rule in the past, and I've done my best to stay quiet for the last few weeks while a lot of things have played out so as to respect the board rules (on the "if you can't say anything nice" principle). But I did want to pop up and say "thank you" to the mods for the obvious good-faith attempt to be transparent and open-minded about several board issues lately (most obviously this and the Email thread).

I can see how these are tough issues for everyone and there is clearly some disagreement between the mods, but I've been very much impressed with the way that the mods have handled a lot of sensitive and complex issues. Y'all don't get nearly enough praise for all of your hard work, usually only hearing anything when there is a disagreement. So, thanks guys. Your effort to be open and fair means a lot to myself, and I'm sure most other posters as well. :)

[mgtr]

Well, I was totally broadsided by this. I expected an article about who were the worst offenders on the DBR boards, and was anxious to see if I was up there. Instead, it is stories about people who, for the most part, I never heard of. Maybe I should have heard of them, but I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the ACC outside of Duke. Whooo! I am relieved, I don't have to wear the scarlet A.

[Scorp4me]

I kind of thought the list was in poor taste, but felt perhaps I was alone in this. I do think the DBR should consider the feelings of it's viewers and perhaps change or stop the list. Perhaps a more humorous slant on it seems more like the DBR I've come to expect. Not that they have to do what the readers want, but they usually like to take our input into account at least. Just my $0.02.

[hurleyfor3]

The bigger (potential) hypocrisy is that one could make strong cases for quite a few Duke folks on any "Worst of the ACC" list. I doubt we'll see any. Not that it's my site or anything.

[DrChainsaw]

I guess there could be some value to examining some of the greatest failures (tragedies, mishaps, errors-in-judgement, etc) in the league history. The case of the Wolfpack's Chris Washburn could have any (ro all) of these labels applied and the story is an illustrative example of how some ACC programs operated not too long ago. Len Bias was drafted the same year as Washburn, I think and was a true Tragedy.

I also can see people's arguement that the Front Page is a "blog" & separate from the Boards, but I think there is something to be said for having a common thread of integrity (journalistic or otherwise) for the entire site. There are a variety of ways that critical opinions & writings can be presented.

I'm only halfway through my 2nd cup of coffee this morning, though, so maythink otherwise after the 5th.

[Jeffrey]

Locke may have been an asset for Duke basketball. Locke hired Bobby Knight, as an assistant coach, at West Point. Not sure that Duke basketball should consider Locke one of the greatest losers of all-time.

[Biscuit]

Hypocritical, no.

Completely misguided and pointless, yes.

I'll start with the obvious: if you don't define your terms, then you are not making a list at all. What are you ranking? ACC careers? Basketball careers? Lives? Is it subjective based on their talent level and socioeconomic background? What's the criteria for a "loser"?

Let's take your preposterous #10 pick, Skip Wise. Is your list confined only to a players' ACC career, as you suggest that it is in the initial post by saying that several of the guys you've picked turned their lives around? Or are you looking at their "big picture" despite suggesting to the contrary?

In either case, Skip Wise has no business making this list. If you are talking about his playing career, he doesn't belong on a Top 1000 losers' list, let alone Top Ten.

If you are talking about his decision to leave school early for the pros based on wildly overestimating his worth and maturity making him a "loser," then I can come up with at least 50 other ACC players who missed the mark on self-evaluation of talent and pro potential far worse than Wise did. Heck, I can think of two or three from the last decade from Duke alone.

If you are talking about the players' entire basketball career as a "loser," then again I would say that I can find plenty of ACC guys who left early to find less successful professional careers.

And finally, if you are talking about who was "losers" for their entire adult lives, then yes, his drug use and jail time are not good things. But I can find way more than ten former ACC players who committed violent crimes or property crimes after leaving school, and I'd say all of those are far worse than his victimless crimes. And Wise got his life back together, too- which again, puts him ahead of all the drug and alcohol abusers who failed to do so.

My advice? Abort this terrible idea, before you start naming names that people are familiar with and end up with a lot of angry email in your inbox and a less-reputable site in the eyes of ACC basketball fans.

[Spret42]

Hypocritical, no.

Completely misguided and pointless, yes.



I have to agree.

Really DBR!!! You are going to spend your time pointing out ranking others failures. This may be the type of thing that makes people think Duke fans are a bunch of apple polishers.

There have beenthings I haven't handled well in my life. I made a decision out of frustration and despair recently that cost my wife and I a little chunk of money. Where do I rank on the list of "Top DBR poster Losers"

[Duvall]

A reminder (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=259502&postcount=1).


* 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.

I'm begging you - stop embarrassing the University and Duke fans everywhere with this nonsense.

[killerleft]

No good can come of a "losers" list. I would stop the presses and delete what has been done so far.

[allenmurray]

Making a list of losers always says more about the person making the list than it says about anybody on the list. It is juvenile and only reduces the image of Duke fans and DBR alike.

[AtlDuke72]

No good can come of a "losers" list. I would stop the presses and delete what has been done so far.

I agree completely. Today's on Lefty Driesell is wrong for many reasons. Lefty was one of the true characters that made the ACC what it is today. Not to mention that he is in the Duke Hall of Fame. Enough about Len Bias - Lefty did not make his take drugs, Bias did that all by himself. I suppose Jim Valvano will be the next Biggest Loser due to his bad ending at State. Time to end this nonsense.

[Jeffrey]

The mid-70's was a great time for ACC hoops and, IMO, Lefty played a positive role in that great period. In many ways, IMO, the mid-70's was the best of ACC hoops.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The mid-70's was a great time for ACC hoops and, IMO, Lefty played a positive role in that great period. In many ways, IMO, the mid-70's was the best of ACC hoops.
I always loved seeing Cameron filled with skullcaps. Many valid points have been made in this thread, I agree that the list is less than useful and does not shed a positive light on DBR.

[Scorp4me]

Can one of the mods explain how those who run this sight view this thread? What are their thoughts? I really kind of thought they might listen to it, but today I see they have posted #9. It's obvious our feelings, just curious theirs.

[Jeffrey]

Can one of the mods explain how those who run this sight view this thread? What are their thoughts?

IIRC, a couple have already participated in this thread. Given their position, I think they've been very kind to let this thread continue.

One more Lefty thought.... Does saving 10 kids from burning buildings (while coaching in the ACC) earn any DBR points? It certainly does in my world.

[allenmurray]

IIRC, a couple have already participated in this thread. Given their position, I think they've been very kind to let this thread continue.

One more Lefty thought.... Does saving 10 kids from burning buildings (while coaching in the ACC) earn any DBR points? It certainly does in my world.

Apparantly not enough.

For those not familiar with the story: http://www.nabc.org/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/012003aaa.html

[BD80]

I don't think that this thread is a true reflection of the feelings of those that read DBR. It may reflect the opinions of those more willing to state their opinions. I would guess many enjoy DBR's original content - I know I do. Of course, I was a proponent of Mike O'Koren for All-ACC ugly team.

A few people don't approve of the loser list, but that does not a consensus make.

[DrChainsaw]

IIRC, a couple have already participated in this thread. Given their position, I think they've been very kind to let this thread continue.

I disagree completely. In Julio's call to "Clean Up", which was linked to earlier in this thread, he invited thoughtful criticism of the site:

'While we don't mind thoughtful criticism of either the site (fire away)",

which I think this civil thread constitutes. To lock up the thread would put the sincerity of that invitation in question.

I think it would be nice to hear how the Administrators feel the Loser List contributes meaningfully to the site.

[Jeffrey]

Apparantly not enough.

For those not familiar with the story: http://www.nabc.org/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/012003aaa.html

It earned Lefty the NCAA Award of Valor. IIRC, he is the only person associated with the ACC to ever win that award. That makes him anything but a loser in my world.

[Scorp4me]

I think it would be nice to hear how the Administrators feel the Loser List contributes meaningfully to the site.

Not to mention how we can best defend the integrity of the site to those who will seize on this to tear it down. Nothing more than Julio's personal feelings? A front page/message board disconnect? A past thing not a present/future thing? Just wonderin. I know many will say we don't need to say anything at all, but it'd be nice to respond with something.

[Indoor66]

I agree with those who find the "list" to be inappropriate. I have not and do not intend to read the entries after reading the first.

[blueprofessor]

I agree with those who find the "list" to be inappropriate. I have not and do not intend to read the entries after reading the first.
Ditto.
And Driesell was smeared and cleared re the tampering matter. There happened also to be a Maryland chancellor named John Slaughter who wanted to "race norm" the basketball coaching position so he hired Bob Wade who had no college coaching experience. Disaster ensued and Wade's lying and misconduct led to NCAA sanctions and probation ( including 2 years--no tv appearances) until Wade was fired.If we were picking losers they would have to be Slaughter/Wade.
But, agreeing with others, we should not be picking losers.

How about an article/thread on the 20 most unfortunate/unlucky ACC folks?

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

[SupaDave]

Apparantly not enough.

For those not familiar with the story: http://www.nabc.org/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/012003aaa.html

Interesting b/c I was just reading that no good could come from a 'loser's list' but in reality what seems to be happening is a desire to show the good in all of these folks.

[Bostondevil]

Good point SupaDave, but it's still bad form to create a loser's list in the first place. The DBR really shouldn't do it.

[Biscuit]

Interesting b/c I was just reading that no good could come from a 'loser's list' but in reality what seems to be happening is a desire to show the good in all of these folks.

I hate to challenge a mod, but in my humble opinion, this is a really silly point. If I wrote a post listing the top ten DBR posters that I think are jerks and idiots, would you say that I did a good thing, because all the other posters would no doubt come to their defense and say flattering things about the people in my list? Or would you ban me for making the post in the first place?

Some "good," as you use the word, comes of pretty much every malicious or misguided act, if you look at it a certain way. That doesn't make the acts any more defensible.

Edit: I don't mean to suggest that I think anyone here is a jerk or idiot. Quite the contrary.

[Jeffrey]

Interesting b/c I was just reading that no good could come from a 'loser's list' but in reality what seems to be happening is a desire to show the good in all of these folks.

Yes, we're being positive. Those associated with the list are being negative. Thanks for recognizing that what we're doing is "good".

[Kfanarmy]

I don't see this offending list

[DrChainsaw]

I don't see this offending list

They're putting the items up one by one - click on "Headlines" from the front page, then search on "loser". They only have #'s 9 & 10 up so far.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

It earned Lefty the NCAA Award of Valor. IIRC, he is the only person associated with the ACC to ever win that award. That makes him anything but a loser in my world.
The May - June issue of Duke Magazine (publication sent to alumni) arrived in my mailbox today. The magazine has been in publication for twenty-five years and this edition celebrates the anniversary.

One of the articles is titled, "Top Tier: 25 Noteworthy Alumni." You'd recognize many of the names: Les Brown '36, William Styron '47, Dick Groat '53.... and Charles "Lefty" Driesell '54.

In another part of the magazine there is a timeline for the past twenty-five years showing events in Campus News, Sports, Faculty/Research/Academics and Student Life. For Sports in the year 1993: "Charles "Lefty" Driesell '54, credited with starting the nationwide tradition of Midnight Madness, is inducted into Duke's Sports Hall of Fame...."

Interesting that just after he's mentioned on a list of losers (or whatever euphemism one wishes), Duke Alumni Association recognizes him in the anniversary edition of its major publication.