PDA

View Full Version : Patrick Yates



-jk
01-27-2008, 10:46 PM
It is with a spirit of community and openness that we post the following note. Almost since the day we launched the new site, moderators and administrators have been trying to figure out how to deal with a problematic poster, Patrick Yates. We tried citations, which really didn't work -- before the Virginia Tech game, Patrick had already amassed nine, which had resulted in brief vacations but no substantial change in behavior. We tried private messages, but most were ignored and some were greeted with insults. For some time, we had discussed whether he should be permanently banned -- that's one of the longest ongoing discussion threads on the moderator board.

After the Virginia Tech game, Patrick crossed a line that we were no longer willing to tolerate. In a post about the Hokies, he made a number of sexist, derogatory comments that did nothing to add to the discussion. His point could have been made without such language or references. In our estimation, it was another attempt by Patrick to push the line as far as he could to incite a reaction.

The moderators unanimously concluded that Patrick would be banned henceforth. But we don't relish such action, and we believe the community deserves an explanation, rather than a simple disappearance. So, please let this serve as an example that we're willing to give people a lot of leeway for a long time. But, in the end, we are going to maintain the desired community. And if that means someone will have to leave, so be it.

The Mods.

DukeDevilDeb
01-27-2008, 11:32 PM
It is with a spirit of community and openness that we post the following note. Almost since the day we launched the new site, moderators and administrators have been trying to figure out how to deal with a problematic poster, Patrick Yates. We tried citations, which really didn't work -- before the Virginia Tech game, Patrick had already amassed nine, which had resulted in brief vacations but no substantial change in behavior. We tried private messages, but most were ignored and some were greeted with insults. For some time, we had discussed whether he should be permanently banned -- that's one of the longest ongoing discussion threads on the moderator board.

After the Virginia Tech game, Patrick crossed a line that we were no longer willing to tolerate. In a post about the Hokies, he made a number of sexist, derogatory comments that did nothing to add to the discussion. His point could have been made without such language or references. In our estimation, it was another attempt by Patrick to push the line as far as he could to incite a reaction.

The moderators unanimously concluded that Patrick would be banned henceforth. But we don't relish such action, and we believe the community deserves an explanation, rather than a simple disappearance. So, please let this serve as an example that we're willing to give people a lot of leeway for a long time. But, in the end, we are going to maintain the desired community. And if that means someone will have to leave, so be it.

The Mods.

I love this site and don't want anyone to demean it or the team it covers. Thank you for taking responsibility for this, for trying many alternatives, and to ultimately deciding that the team (posters) is more important than any one person.

bostonlawyer
01-28-2008, 12:19 AM
While I did not see the comments made by Yates in the Virginia Tech thread, I think this board will greatly miss Yates' insights on recruiting and many other topics. While some may have found Yates' postings to be abrasive, which has apparently led to his dismissal from this board, Yates appeared to be one of the more knowledgeable posters on the board, and often wrote long threads which exhibited his passion for Duke basketball. I hope that if he resumes posting on a different website, he will let his "fans" know where they can find his insights.

Mudge
01-28-2008, 01:18 AM
While I did not see the comments made by Yates in the Virginia Tech thread, I think this board will greatly miss Yates' insights on recruiting and many other topics. While some may have found Yates' postings to be abrasive, which has apparently led to his dismissal from this board, Yates appeared to be one of the more knowledgeable posters on the board, and often wrote long threads which exhibited his passion for Duke basketball. I hope that if he resumes posting on a different website, he will let his "fans" know where they can find his insights.

I'd be interested to know how many "fans" PY had-- my take was that he wasn't particularly knowledgable, but that, like a NYC prop trader who is always willing to pull the trigger first and ask questions later (or never), and then offer brash, ill-conceived post-mortems on his brilliant (at least in his own mind) judgments, PY was always sure of himself, however clueless he was in his opinions. He sure was good for stirring the pot, though, so maybe that's what BL will miss... maybe I shouldn't be surprised-- you know what they say about New York lawyers (and maybe Boston's, too?)

Jumbo
01-28-2008, 01:52 AM
you know what they say about New York lawyers (and maybe Boston's, too?)

I don't. What do they say?

Mudge
01-28-2008, 02:02 AM
I don't. What do they say?

Same thing as clubhouse lawyers...

Jumbo
01-28-2008, 02:05 AM
Same thing as clubhouse lawyers...

Still not getting it. It's late. My brain is dead.

sandinmyshoes
01-28-2008, 07:09 AM
I did not see what finally pushed the moderators over the edge. However, while he could be abrasive, I always appreciated the fact that he was not in the simple "rah, rah, team" mentality. The civility on this board sets it apart from boards like those on the scout or rival systems (including TDD), but we do sometimes err on the side of being too slavishly loyal to Duke at the expense of quality basketball discussion. Unfortunately Patrick appears to have erred to much the other way and I will miss his sometimes contrarian viewpoints, even if he too often presented them in a strident and combative manner.

rthomas
01-28-2008, 08:01 AM
I read what PY wrote in that thread and it was pretty damn bad. I've heard worse; I've probably said worse and regretted it. I had a feeling readers would object to it.

johnb
01-28-2008, 09:59 AM
I found py's posts to be routinely annoying and provocative. My viewing pleasure will not be reduced by their absence, and it sounds to me like the moderators were reasonable in regards to the process.

Bluedog
01-28-2008, 10:06 AM
I'd like to thank the moderators for the transparency involved in the process and letting us all know about PY's banning. It would have been easier to just ignore that it happened. I personally enjoyed many of PY's posts, especially his long-winded recruiting ones. While sometimes they were provocative/controversial/inane/or even stupid, I still found them entertaining and he did give an interesting perspective whether you agreed with it or not. I, however, did not see his comments in the VTech thread; I'm sure the moderators handled it appropriately after giving him several warnings - and he should have realized he needed to tone down his posts....

freedevil
01-28-2008, 10:12 AM
I often wondered if PY was actually a fan of Duke, given the bent of many of his posts. I don't like that it came to this, but I agree with those who appreciate the transparency of his banning.

watzone
01-28-2008, 11:13 AM
While I did not see the comments made by Yates in the Virginia Tech thread, I think this board will greatly miss Yates' insights on recruiting and many other topics. While some may have found Yates' postings to be abrasive, which has apparently led to his dismissal from this board, Yates appeared to be one of the more knowledgeable posters on the board, and often wrote long threads which exhibited his passion for Duke basketball. I hope that if he resumes posting on a different website, he will let his "fans" know where they can find his insights.

I disagree. I found his recruiting posts baiting and the glass was always half full. He bordered on parody, imo.

AtlDuke72
01-28-2008, 12:00 PM
The moderators unanimously concluded that Patrick would be banned henceforth. But we don't relish such action, and we believe the community deserves an explanation, rather than a simple disappearance. So, please let this serve as an example that we're willing to give people a lot of leeway for a long time. But, in the end, we are going to maintain the desired community. And if that means someone will have to leave, so be it.

The Mods.

Glad to see him go. Thanks for addressing a problem. IMO he contributed nothing but pessimism and asinine comments particularly about recruiting.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-28-2008, 12:18 PM
I'm not remotely close enough to the situation to make any pronouncements about whether or not the banning was the right call. PY was one of several posters with whom I didn't always agree but I was never present for anything that really made me uncomfortable or angry. I do want to join others who are deeply grateful for the transparency of the process and the obvious seriousness with which the mods are taking this issue. The interweb is cluttered with petty tin-pot tyrant moderators, powertripping with every ban. It's a testament to the atmosphere of this board that the process here is so different.

Lord Ash
01-28-2008, 01:52 PM
While I did not see the comments made by Yates in the Virginia Tech thread, I think this board will greatly miss Yates' insights on recruiting and many other topics. While some may have found Yates' postings to be abrasive, which has apparently led to his dismissal from this board, Yates appeared to be one of the more knowledgeable posters on the board, and often wrote long threads which exhibited his passion for Duke basketball. I hope that if he resumes posting on a different website, he will let his "fans" know where they can find his insights.

Thank you, Mr. Yates!

Er, I mean... Mr. Bostonlawyer.

:)

Clipsfan
01-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Thank you, Mr. Yates!

Er, I mean... Mr. Bostonlawyer.

:)

What, you also noticed that was the only post by bostonlawyer?

bostonlawyer
01-28-2008, 02:05 PM
That may have been my first post on dbr since it revamped its bulletin boards, but bostonlawyer has made numerous posts on the old dbr bulletin board going back years.

I assure you that I, thankfully, am not Patrick Yates.

pamtar
01-28-2008, 02:15 PM
When I first joined this board I had posts deleted, warnings issued, and threads canceled.

Then I learned to play by the rules. That is really what its all about here. If you dont like the rules post somewhere else.

Almost every time I log on I'm tempted to post something(s) that might get me banned for a while. I like it here though, so I dont.

I liked a lot of Yates' posts and I also dislike a lot of the mods' decisions. However, in all I think they (mods) do a great job. Why else would I spend 1/6 of my working day reading this stuff!

throatybeard
01-28-2008, 02:41 PM
Just to back up Bostonlawyer, s/he is coming from a way different IP address from ones associated with Yates.

paulie dogs
01-28-2008, 02:50 PM
I love this thread. As someone who knew Yates personally in school, it was always good times to sit around and talk about Yates, so I am 100% in favor of threads which do precisely this.

You have to have known Yates to know that he is all talk. He likes to talk big, either to sound knowledgeable or to get a rise out of people, but in truth he is harmless. Then again, when all you have to judge a person is thier postings (as in a forum like this) I can see how you might get a bit tired of him. I am just here to say that as one who knew him...he wasn't as bad as some people here are saying.

I can also assure you that despite his time-to-time negativity towards elements of Duke or Duke basketball, he was a fan of Duke.

BD80
01-28-2008, 04:07 PM
I imagine there have been studies regarding the psychology of group message boards such as these. I wonder at the psychology of the negativity about the very topic of the group. Why join a group supporting Blue Devil Basketball if you are negative about the team? Why express such negativity?

I disliked Mr. Yates' posts, but I despised the ensuing bitterness where some would defend the right to be negative and criticize those that feel that the board should be nearly void of negativity. I lean toward the Polly Anna side, relying on this sight for info - good or bad - but dislike any negative comments about recruits or players, even if it is something like "Nolan is better than Greg." Suffice it to say that I won't miss Mr. Yates, and hope that this "new" poster BostonLawyer who joined just as Mr. Yates is banned, will be less negative and appreciate that this is a board for Duke fans.

blueprofessor
01-28-2008, 04:36 PM
:) I immensely enjoy the various opinions of the DBR posters.Obviously, some folks are very knowledgeable about basketball and the Duke team.I know I learn a good deal, as my bball playing days are long past.Many posts reflect the writer's impressions, conceptions,feelings,and valuations---all subjective and immune to proof through the scientific method.This fact makes posts interesting and enjoyable to read, as well as subject to disagreement.Thanks to all who post.
At the same time, I appreciate conflicting ,contrary, non-conventional wisdom posts as they do enrich the discussions.So, I am for free expression of any sort within the rules as interpreted by the mods.
Consider how pedestrian and tedious this board would be if a post were followed by 20 "I agree" statements( excepting,of course,"GTH,C,GTH!").
Is Yates' sentence capital punishment or life,with the opportunity for parole?
Best regards to all Duke fans.Professor of ethics.:D

Wander
01-28-2008, 05:48 PM
:) I immensely enjoy the various opinions of the DBR posters.Obviously, some folks are very knowledgeable about basketball and the Duke team.I know I learn a good deal, as my bball playing days are long past.Many posts reflect the writer's impressions, conceptions,feelings,and valuations---all subjective and immune to proof through the scientific method.This fact makes posts interesting and enjoyable to read, as well as subject to disagreement.Thanks to all who post.
At the same time, I appreciate conflicting ,contrary, non-conventional wisdom posts as they do enrich the discussions.So, I am for free expression of any sort within the rules as interpreted by the mods.
Consider how pedestrian and tedious this board would be if a post were followed by 20 "I agree" statements( excepting,of course,"GTH,C,GTH!").
Is Yates' sentence capital punishment or life,with the opportunity for parole?
Best regards to all Duke fans.Professor of ethics.:D

I agree.

blueprofessor
01-28-2008, 06:01 PM
I agree.

:) Heh,heh! Wander, you are a glib writer and a person of savoir-faire!:) I think you will agree with that as well.
Best regards,Duke fans.Beat State! Professor of ethics

jimbonelson
01-28-2008, 06:25 PM
you only spend 1/6 of your working day here
When I first joined this board I had posts deleted, warnings issued, and threads canceled.

Then I learned to play by the rules. That is really what its all about here. If you dont like the rules post somewhere else.

Almost every time I log on I'm tempted to post something(s) that might get me banned for a while. I like it here though, so I dont.

I liked a lot of Yates' posts and I also dislike a lot of the mods' decisions. However, in all I think they (mods) do a great job. Why else would I spend 1/6 of my working day reading this stuff!

Uncle Drew
01-28-2008, 06:49 PM
It is with a spirit of community and openness that we post the following note. Almost since the day we launched the new site, moderators and administrators have been trying to figure out how to deal with a problematic poster, Patrick Yates. We tried citations, which really didn't work -- before the Virginia Tech game, Patrick had already amassed nine, which had resulted in brief vacations but no substantial change in behavior. We tried private messages, but most were ignored and some were greeted with insults. For some time, we had discussed whether he should be permanently banned -- that's one of the longest ongoing discussion threads on the moderator board.

After the Virginia Tech game, Patrick crossed a line that we were no longer willing to tolerate. In a post about the Hokies, he made a number of sexist, derogatory comments that did nothing to add to the discussion. His point could have been made without such language or references. In our estimation, it was another attempt by Patrick to push the line as far as he could to incite a reaction.

The moderators unanimously concluded that Patrick would be banned henceforth. But we don't relish such action, and we believe the community deserves an explanation, rather than a simple disappearance. So, please let this serve as an example that we're willing to give people a lot of leeway for a long time. But, in the end, we are going to maintain the desired community. And if that means someone will have to leave, so be it.

The Mods.

1. I didn't know PY personally, never met the guy, talked to him on the phone etc.

2. I didn't see the post VT comments that stirred up yet more controversy, but I know he had been given previous warnings, suspensions and censoring.

3. As someone who has been censored and given warnings I'm sure there are are a ton of posters and mods who don't like my posts either.

DBR is free to censor, suspend and even ban whomever they want to. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to a privately owned website, and as the mods and many other posters have said there are plenty of other places to post on line. That being said, sometimes the DBR message boards seem like a little club where controversy is looked down upon and if you don't agree with the majority you're out of the clique. I'm sure some people would say PY's posts lacked basis, foundation and weren't backed up with hard data etc. from time to time. While others tag his post with the "negativity" label because he didn't share the glass is half full opinion of most of the posters on here.

In some ways I like that DBR isn't a "______ sucks", "______ should be benched and needs to transfer" and "I'd like to take a bat to _________'s knees to where he never walks again just for playing for ________" kind of board. At the same time I have seen incidents IMO where DBR even posted an article link they knew would stir controversy, yet when someone such as myself commented I got chastised for not being politically correct enough when the articles themselves were far from politically correct. (Barry Saunders articles for example!) Or like in the recent recruiting posts when someone such as PY second guesses recruiting strategy, laments on UNC success and questions how close player A, B or C is actually leaning toward giving a Duke verbal he got blasted from all sides when a lot of us have concerns over the same issues.

To insinuate PY wasn't a Duke fan at all is insane. Nobody would take the time to type the lengthy posts and responses he did if they didn't truly care about Duke. In fact if anything I think his posts demonstrated he was one of the most fervent Duke fans on here. DBR states they want the board to be a "community" which in theory sounds fine and perfectly PC. But in any "community" there are going to be neighbors who don't agree, get along have different core values and beliefs. The mods have the right to whatever they choose, even ban me after this post if they so choose. But as many times as PY crossed the lines, it's almost like the city councilmen of this community put it to a vote and evicted a citizen from stepping foot in the town ever again. We all look at things from different angles and we bring our own perspectives. IMO whether PY deserved to be banned or not, the insinuation is, "think like we think, post like we post or don't post at all".


Finally, after being censored once several months back one of the mods told me to consider who could be reading my posts before I submitted them. And if I'd be embarrassed for my grandmother or a six year old to read it to err on the side of caution. The Internet is a dark, seedy place a lot of times with plenty of uncensored images and blogs to be found and they didn't want DBR to be remotely linked to that type of on line experience. But at times IMO some of the posts are a bit "high brow" and what freakin' six year old is going to read and post on DBR? When I read a post that says, "John Scheyer makes facial expressions like Elmo" or "Tyler Hansbrough has a butt like Sponge Bob Square Pants", THAT'S the time to post somewhere else! Again I defend the mods right to do as they choose and as stated they debated long and hard about what to do in the PY situation. I just wonder if PY had the same viewpoint and glass in half full attitude if he might not be allowed to continue posting here. :rolleyes:

dukestheheat
01-28-2008, 06:53 PM
I love this thread. As someone who knew Yates personally in school, it was always good times to sit around and talk about Yates, so I am 100% in favor of threads which do precisely this.

You have to have known Yates to know that he is all talk. He likes to talk big, either to sound knowledgeable or to get a rise out of people, but in truth he is harmless. Then again, when all you have to judge a person is thier postings (as in a forum like this) I can see how you might get a bit tired of him. I am just here to say that as one who knew him...he wasn't as bad as some people here are saying.

I can also assure you that despite his time-to-time negativity towards elements of Duke or Duke basketball, he was a fan of Duke.

Certainly, I didn't know him and his posts at times took on an ascerbic tone but I, for one, have the choice of to read/not to read the posts of others. So I would prefer him to remain but I respect the decision of the moderators. We have one of the best discussion boards on the planet and it may take moves like this to keep things above board.

dth.

-jk
01-28-2008, 06:58 PM
:)
Is Yates' sentence capital punishment or life,with the opportunity for parole?
Best regards to all Duke fans.Professor of ethics.:D

Since we moved to this version of board software late last season, he's earned ten citations. His parole eligibility is long since past. He has posted his last message here.

Anyone paying attention can see that we don't censor negativity, per se. Only that which goes "beyond the pale."

-jk

throatybeard
01-28-2008, 08:06 PM
Since we moved to this version of board software late last season, he's earned ten citations

So, he's like Willie Williams. :D

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

kcduke75
01-28-2008, 10:11 PM
He likes to talk big, either to sound knowledgeable or to get a rise out of people, but in truth he is harmless.

I am glad to hear from someone with this perspective. I will not miss him, though. Thanks mods.

SeattleIrish
01-28-2008, 10:32 PM
I didn't agree with most of PY's posts, and I didn't feel many of them added much to this "community" (specifically those regarding recruiting "misses"). However, I didn't feel his posts (I didn't read them all) crossed the line to warrent citation or removal.

But, while we may not reach consensus on whether PY's posts merited permenant banishment, I think we can all agree that someone who received 10 warnings that his behavior is seen as inappropriate by those charged with monitoring this community, and still failed to moderate his behavior to meet those repeatedly stated expectations, in full understanding of the consequences, is effectively CHOOSING to banish himself.

Perhaps I wouldn't have thought his posts warrented citations, but I won't bemoan the loss of someone who chooses not to be a member of this community.

s.i.

dukie8
01-28-2008, 10:39 PM
did anyone else feel like they were reading an obit at the start of this thread?

devildeac
01-28-2008, 11:29 PM
Why else would I spend 1/6 of my working day reading this stuff!

Why so little time reading the boards? Don't you like us;) ?

KandG
01-29-2008, 01:03 AM
I'm mostly a lurker here, but I've been a member of enough forums to have a good feel for when someone is pushing the line of discourse as set by the moderators and the community.

Looking at many of Patrick Yates' posts at a superficial level, he hardly seemed the type who would be banned. He wasn't particularly loud, insulting, inflammatory, or trollish. However, he had a pretty unique ability to irritate by the way he made his points, and some of his long posts seemed designed to deflect or obfuscate any reasonable points that could have served as a rebuttal or stimulated further discussion. Some of his posts were almost a mockery or parody of reasoned discussion -- a lot of verbiage to basically say "this is what I think based on what I believe, never mind what the facts actually are".

I am sorry to hear about the posts that led to his banning. I never saw them, but I wasn't aware of how crude they actually were.

Duvall
01-29-2008, 01:18 AM
After the Virginia Tech game, Patrick crossed a line that we were no longer willing to tolerate. In a post about the Hokies, he made a number of sexist, derogatory comments that did nothing to add to the discussion.

It will be interesting and instructive to see if the Patrick Yates standard will be applied to all posters, or just most of them.

Jumbo
01-29-2008, 01:22 AM
It will be interesting and instructive to see if the Patrick Yates standard will be applied to all posters, or just most of them.

Keep in mind that the statement you quoted can't be taken in isolation. Patrick had received 10 infractions already, and the moderators had been debating what to do about him for a while. That he lasted as long as he did is a testament to our willingness to allow leeway and to discuss things as a group, I think. His final post was just so far over the line that it finally made the decision easy. That said, if someone with no history of difficulty had posted the same thing, I can't say it would have led to an immediate banishment. This is about a pattern of behavior that got worse with each rebuke, not better.

stickdog
01-29-2008, 01:26 AM
Yates? Yates?! He still owes me money!

Jumbo
01-29-2008, 01:28 AM
Yates? Yates?! He still owes me money!

You're back! This had better not be your last post...

sandinmyshoes
01-29-2008, 07:37 AM
I agree with the posters who have said it would be boring if this board was just full of complete Duke sycophants. I'd rather have respectful UNC fans than Duke fans who are mindlessly loyal and have this conception that the Duke program (or school) is perfect or if it's not we'll hid the imperfections in the closet and just not discuss them.

There are fans that are over-worried about any imperfection, and I sometimes felt like Patrick was that way. I would like to believe this didn't color the decision of the mods, and DO believe that is the case in any concious decision they made. But they are only human and I believe they are doing their best to be fair. They may have even given Patrick more leeway than most to compensate for their personal distaste.

Uncle Drew
01-29-2008, 08:49 AM
did anyone else feel like they were reading an obit at the start of this thread?


Patrick Yates Eulogy:rolleyes:


DBR lost a noted member this week, removed from this community before his time.
Officials said his demise was in his own hands, and a victim of self inflicted crime.
His posts were long winded yet detailed to the point where rebuttals were long as War and Peace.
Though they say he crossed the line numerous times, his addiction for conflict never ceased.
When the sky fell and the glass was half empty, he used no umbrella and poured no more wine.
On recruiting he worried Duke wasn't reeling them in and had somehow fallen far behind.
The mods blood pressure shot up and shot down depending on what week he was allowed to post.
But after non PC comments following the Virginia Tech game, Mr. Yates future postings were toast.
To some he'll be missed, to others good riddance, while still others couldn't give a (insert your own curse word.)
But as Mr Patrick rides off to post somewhere else, I assure you he's flipping us all the bird.



PY's Tombstone :p

Here lies Patrick Yates

There once was a man from Western North Carolina,
who nearly gave Jumbo angina.
Jason "PY is Satan" Evans, Throaty and Mullet,
wanted to cut out his gullet.
But their warnings Patrick thought nothing of it!

All in kidding mods!!!! I'm not insinuating the baning wasn't warranted. Just poking a little fun all around and you still have me to censor and keep in line. Cheers!

JasonEvans
01-29-2008, 10:01 AM
I want to be clear about something--

Patrick was not banned for being negative about Duke. we are not here to squash all negative comments. However, if you make comments that are harmful to the Duke program, you can expect us to take some action. What's more, if you are not arguing in good faith and are seeking to disrupt our little community, we'd be foolish not to try to get you to stop.

The discussion about what to do about Patrick went on for a loong time, a couple months if not even longer. In addition to the 10 citations/warnings Patrick received, several mods had extensive backchannel conversations with him. We detailed exactly what he was doing wrong and pleaded with him to clean up his act.

It is worth noting that Patrick is a knowledgeable Duke fan and someone who appears to care passionately about the program. He made many valuable contributions to the boards and will be missed. But, he kept on engaging in the same destructive activities and provocative behaviors. In the end, the decision to remove him actually became an easy one because we had given him sooo much leeway and sooo many second, third, fourth... chances.

There are a couple posters who have gotten multiple infractions from the mods in the past who should see this as a warning about what their fate could be. For the vast, vast majority of DBR posters, we would never even begin to consider this action. There is no "Patrick Yates standard" that applies to others because this is such a rare thing for the mods to do. Still, I hope everyone who reads this thread will understand that at some point repeated flouting of the rules will result in more than a 1 or 2 day break from the boards.

Thanks! We appreciate all the words of understanding and support in this thread. There was some concern about what would happen if we allowed public discussion of this, but I think you all have shown it was certainly for the best.

-Jason "lets get back to talking basketball now!!" Evans

Duvall
01-29-2008, 11:49 AM
I want to be clear about something--

Patrick was not banned for being negative about Duke. we are not here to squash all negative comments. However, if you make comments that are harmful to the Duke program, you can expect us to take some action. What's more, if you are not arguing in good faith and are seeking to disrupt our little community, we'd be foolish not to try to get you to stop.

The discussion about what to do about Patrick went on for a loong time, a couple months if not even longer. In addition to the 10 citations/warnings Patrick received, several mods had extensive backchannel conversations with him. We detailed exactly what he was doing wrong and pleaded with him to clean up his act.

I was not privy to those conversations with Mr. Yates, and thus cannot second-guess the decision of the moderators regarding his situation. That said, Patrick Yates is not the first regular poster on this board to argue repeatedly in bad faith, seek to disrupt this community, and post extensive sexist and derogatory comments.

He is, however, the first to receive a permanent ban for doing so.

paulie dogs
01-29-2008, 12:20 PM
If someone is going to be kicked out of an actual community for rowdy behavior isn't there a town hall meeting where everyone in the community gets a say? Can we have a referendum vote on whether Yates should be allowed to continue in this community? It could be like a MOTM vote.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-29-2008, 12:27 PM
I imagine there have been studies regarding the psychology of group message boards such as these. I wonder at the psychology of the negativity about the very topic of the group. Why join a group supporting Blue Devil Basketball if you are negative about the team? Why express such negativity?

I disliked Mr. Yates' posts, but I despised the ensuing bitterness where some would defend the right to be negative and criticize those that feel that the board should be nearly void of negativity. I lean toward the Polly Anna side, relying on this sight for info - good or bad - but dislike any negative comments about recruits or players, even if it is something like "Nolan is better than Greg." Suffice it to say that I won't miss Mr. Yates, and hope that this "new" poster BostonLawyer who joined just as Mr. Yates is banned, will be less negative and appreciate that this is a board for Duke fans.

I feel like this issue is at the heart of a lot of debates (the "elephant in the room," as it were) and I'd love to briefly address it. It appears to me that there are at least two major schools of thought on what a message board is for.

For some posters, the purpose of the board is simply to get pumped up about Duke. Cheer on accomplishments, celebrate successful recruits, and perhaps have some minor discussions about strategy as long as we strongly highlight our strengths and almost totally downplay our weaknesses. For these posters, talking about Duke seems to be like talking about friends: we enjoy the success and bite our tongue about anything less-than-positive.

For other posters, the boards are for good-natured but no-holds-barred discussion about Duke basketball. They are Duke fans who passionately love the team, but want to have a grown-up discussion about the team, the program, and the state of college basketball. This includes praising what we do well, but also noting what we can improve. By honestly trying to evaluate Duke, warts and all, this group hopes to have a more measured, and perhaps insightful, conversation.

I've noticed that these two groups seem to butt heads a lot. From Group A's perspective, Group B sounds needlessly, even aggressively negative, almost like a guest who comes over and starts mocking your children's photos. From Group B's perspective, Group A is being frustratingly unrealistic. A discussion that only recognizes (or excessively highlights) our positive qualities and puts its fingers in the ears for anything negative seems pointless and even a bit disturbing. Clearly there are people from each side that are actually living up to the worst extremes of these, but I suspect most people are somewhere in the middle.

Short of simply placing draconian restrictions or allowing total chaos I'm not sure there is any silver bullet for this problem. I guess I mostly want to urge tolerance for all points of view. If you're a "Group A" person, try to recognize that the desire to debate, and even question, recruiting, strategy, etc comes from a place of wanting success but also wanting a realistic discussion. Also recognize that, as fans, the prevailing sentiment here is that Duke is great. Think how boring the site would be if everyone just typed "I love Duke!!!1! Trust in K!" over and over. That's not discussion, that's propaganda.

And conversely, if you're a "Group B" person, try to remember that a lot of folks do come here simply to cheer for their team. Duke is a singularly hated program and there is tremendous value in having a place where we can get away from the "D**k sux, they get all the calls" attitude that gets foisted on us. Also remember that these are college kids doing the best that they can while coping with life in college. They have parents and buddies who may be reading what you type. Also remember that our coach is pretty good and has earned some leeway from fans with an unmatched track record over the past several decades.

At the end of the day, we're all fans and I hope we can all get what we want from the boards without impinging too heavily on what other fair-minded fans want. Otherwise, we could just split the board into "positive" and "negative"... (Just kidding). ;)

dw0827
01-29-2008, 12:45 PM
I can't really say that I was ever put off by Yate's postings . . . not that I've read them all. And I sure don't care that he was contrary and obnoxious, as some would suggest he was. So what. Was he not showing the proper school spirit? So what. Was he not always politically correct? So what. Was he unduly negative? So what.

Having said that, I don't know if I read the posts that the mods considered to be over the top. Maybe they were pulled before I read them. Or maybe I am coarse and crude myself. Actually, I know I am.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that he wasn't banned because of his views . . . whatever they might be. That would be very scary.

So I'm assuming that he expressed things that were racist or sexist or otherwise intolerant of other groups of people . . . and thats what got him banned. That I can understand. Since I don't know what he said that was so awful (and therefore cannot judge for myself), then I simply have to take it on faith that the mods made the correct call.

But never, ever ban someone for what he or she believes and expresses . . . ALWAYS err on the side of tolerance.

Jumbo
01-29-2008, 12:53 PM
I was not privy to those conversations with Mr. Yates, and thus cannot second-guess the decision of the moderators regarding his situation. That said, Patrick Yates is not the first regular poster on this board to argue repeatedly in bad faith, seek to disrupt this community, and post extensive sexist and derogatory comments.

He is, however, the first to receive a permanent ban for doing so.

Really? On what are you basing this information? You seem to be having trouble understanding that Patrick was warned 10 times. Ten. T-E-N. At some point, warnings are no longer suitable. If you feel that other posters are repeatedly behaving in a way that warrants moderation, I encourage you to report them.

JBDuke
01-29-2008, 12:55 PM
If someone is going to be kicked out of an actual community for rowdy behavior isn't there a town hall meeting where everyone in the community gets a say? Can we have a referendum vote on whether Yates should be allowed to continue in this community? It could be like a MOTM vote.

Nope. As has been noted by others in the past, this is a privately-owned site, run by Julio and Boswell. They can refuse service to whomever they choose.

The moderators have been entrusted by Julio and Boswell to maintain the standards that they have set for these bulletin boards, and to enforce them when necessary. Outside of persuasion via public or private message, our only recourse is to temporarily or permanently ban a user's posting access to the boards. Now, believing that discussions are best when given relatively free reign, any ban - even a short one - is very rare, given the volume of traffic here, and bans are only used after several other attempts at persuasion have failed (with exceptions for egregious behavior such as spamming). As we have detailed earlier in this thread, Yates was given many, many chances to fix the problematic parts of his posting behavior, and yet refused to do so.

There will be no public vote.

Jumbo
01-29-2008, 12:59 PM
I feel like this issue is at the heart of a lot of debates (the "elephant in the room," as it were) and I'd love to briefly address it. It appears to me that there are at least two major schools of thought on what a message board is for.

For some posters, the purpose of the board is simply to get pumped up about Duke. Cheer on accomplishments, celebrate successful recruits, and perhaps have some minor discussions about strategy as long as we strongly highlight our strengths and almost totally downplay our weaknesses. For these posters, talking about Duke seems to be like talking about friends: we enjoy the success and bite our tongue about anything less-than-positive.

For other posters, the boards are for good-natured but no-holds-barred discussion about Duke basketball. They are Duke fans who passionately love the team, but want to have a grown-up discussion about the team, the program, and the state of college basketball. This includes praising what we do well, but also noting what we can improve. By honestly trying to evaluate Duke, warts and all, this group hopes to have a more measured, and perhaps insightful, conversation.

I've noticed that these two groups seem to butt heads a lot. From Group A's perspective, Group B sounds needlessly, even aggressively negative, almost like a guest who comes over and starts mocking your children's photos. From Group B's perspective, Group A is being frustratingly unrealistic. A discussion that only recognizes (or excessively highlights) our positive qualities and puts its fingers in the ears for anything negative seems pointless and even a bit disturbing. Clearly there are people from each side that are actually living up to the worst extremes of these, but I suspect most people are somewhere in the middle.

Short of simply placing draconian restrictions or allowing total chaos I'm not sure there is any silver bullet for this problem. I guess I mostly want to urge tolerance for all points of view. If you're a "Group A" person, try to recognize that the desire to debate, and even question, recruiting, strategy, etc comes from a place of wanting success but also wanting a realistic discussion. Also recognize that, as fans, the prevailing sentiment here is that Duke is great. Think how boring the site would be if everyone just typed "I love Duke!!!1! Trust in K!" over and over. That's not discussion, that's propaganda.

And conversely, if you're a "Group B" person, try to remember that a lot of folks do come here simply to cheer for their team. Duke is a singularly hated program and there is tremendous value in having a place where we can get away from the "D**k sux, they get all the calls" attitude that gets foisted on us. Also remember that these are college kids doing the best that they can while coping with life in college. They have parents and buddies who may be reading what you type. Also remember that our coach is pretty good and has earned some leeway from fans with an unmatched track record over the past several decades.

At the end of the day, we're all fans and I hope we can all get what we want from the boards without impinging too heavily on what other fair-minded fans want. Otherwise, we could just split the board into "positive" and "negative"... (Just kidding). ;)

Perhaps you didn't read Jason's post. This was not an issue of positive/negative. In fact, I'd argue that there are more posters who are/were more "negative" than Patrick. Patrick's dismissal involved a multitude of issues, and none of them can be taken alone and used as a standard for dismissal.

The rest of your post is faulty based on its premise -- that there are only two groups here. My favorite posters are mixtures of what you call Groups A and B. They are smart, analytical, willing to engage in debate and criticism, but who do so with respect and a sense of perspective, with proper adherence to the potsing guidelines. This is not a hard example to follow. And to divide people into two camps does nothing more than drive a wedge between the community, rather than appreciate its diversity.

Jumbo
01-29-2008, 01:01 PM
I can't really say that I was ever put off by Yate's postings . . . not that I've read them all. And I sure don't care that he was contrary and obnoxious, as some would suggest he was. So what. Was he not showing the proper school spirit? So what. Was he not always politically correct? So what. Was he unduly negative? So what.

Having said that, I don't know if I read the posts that the mods considered to be over the top. Maybe they were pulled before I read them. Or maybe I am coarse and crude myself. Actually, I know I am.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that he wasn't banned because of his views . . . whatever they might be. That would be very scary.

So I'm assuming that he expressed things that were racist or sexist or otherwise intolerant of other groups of people . . . and thats what got him banned. That I can understand. Since I don't know what he said that was so awful (and therefore cannot judge for myself), then I simply have to take it on faith that the mods made the correct call.

But never, ever ban someone for what he or she believes and expresses . . . ALWAYS err on the side of tolerance.

I'm wondering why you would create this straw man -- that he was banned for his "views" -- when you admittedly didn't even see the posts in question. JK's initial post provides a very clear account of why Patrick was banned. Did you read it?

JBDuke
01-29-2008, 01:11 PM
I feel like this issue is at the heart of a lot of debates (the "elephant in the room," as it were) and I'd love to briefly address it. It appears to me that there are at least two major schools of thought on what a message board is for.

For some posters, the purpose of the board is simply to get pumped up about Duke. Cheer on accomplishments, celebrate successful recruits, and perhaps have some minor discussions about strategy as long as we strongly highlight our strengths and almost totally downplay our weaknesses. For these posters, talking about Duke seems to be like talking about friends: we enjoy the success and bite our tongue about anything less-than-positive.

For other posters, the boards are for good-natured but no-holds-barred discussion about Duke basketball. They are Duke fans who passionately love the team, but want to have a grown-up discussion about the team, the program, and the state of college basketball. This includes praising what we do well, but also noting what we can improve. By honestly trying to evaluate Duke, warts and all, this group hopes to have a more measured, and perhaps insightful, conversation.

...

"Good natured" and "grown-up", yes - "no-holds-barred", no. When a poster, as Mr. Yates did when he stepped over the line the final time, sinks to taunting posts regarding feminine anatomy, that "hold" is barred.

As many others have noted, the negativity isn't the problem. It is the relentlessly destructive negativity that is the problem.

I would submit that in addition to your two groups above, there is a small number of posters that fit into a group C - those that enjoy the freedom and relative anonymity of the Internet to stir up trouble. Rather than argue in good faith and with some decorum, they blindly rant about the topic at hand, heedless of the consequences of their posts. People from Group A and Group B are welcome here. People from Group C are not. People that drift across the line from Group A or B into Group C will be given many, many chances to keep themselves on the acceptable side of that line, but if they do not correct this drift, will find themselves joining Mr. Yates.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-29-2008, 01:12 PM
I must have been unclear (imagine...)

I totally understand that the repeating nature of his offenses (as well as some sexist comments) was the reason for removal and I'm not at all second-guessing the decision. If I gave the impression that I was, I apologize.

In terms of the "camps" I wasn't trying to suggest that all/most people here fall into one or the other. Just like most people are a mix of liberal/conservative or any other philosophical school of thought, I recognize (and explicitly stated in my fourth paragraph) that "most people are somewhere in the middle." My point was only that I've noticed some different expectations about what the boards are "for." I recognize (and said) that both extremes, "cheerleading" vs. "take-no-prisoners discussion", are just that; extreme. The boards are for a fair-minded and good-nature mixture of the two. I recognize that PY was too often neither fair-minded nor good-natured (and I would argue that some posters on the other side have done the same) and appreciate the effort to keep discussion on the right track.

Uncle Drew
01-29-2008, 01:30 PM
I apologize if the Eulogy post opened a can of what appeared to be dead worms. (The thread at the time was nearly off the front page.) I wasn't trying to get something started I swear. That being said, even though people are making valid points and suggestions I need to point out the mods have the right to do what they did. Someone else may do similar activities and get banned after six infractions, while someone else twelve or fourteen. There are no "laws" in this community except for the decorum rules and they don't have to make further "laws".

Any single one of us could start our own website, about Duke or anything else that strikes our fancy and we would set the precedent of what could be said / shown and how. To some people the moderator position is like that of hall monitor, but it doesn't matter if you respect their authority they still have it. There have been times when I was censored and it ate away at me a little bit I must admit for one reason or another. But after all was said and done I realized this community has standards, maybe even standards I don't agree with sometimes when it comes to certain things. But like every town has it's own laws, if I or anyone else want to visit I have to heed those laws or suffer the consequences of the community. DBR is not a democracy, shouldn't try to be one to please everyone and clearly doesn't. As far as I know it's the best free site on the net to post and discuss Duke, positive and negative and actually make "points" (no pun intended) and express views. If I get tired of the rules I don't have to check in, post or visit the site at all. The sky isn't going to fall either way.


JB typed, As many others have noted, the negativity isn't the problem. It is the relentlessly destructive negativity that is the problem.


Julio typed, Destructively Negative - It means the opposite of constructive criticism, especially in the context of Duke players and coaches. Unacceptable: Duke Player X is abysmal, a complete liability, and couldn’t rebound if he was the only player on the court. Acceptable: Duke Player X really needs to work on his rebounding and ability to block out over the summer. Includes rumor mongering.


I'm a bit confused. If the subject in ones opinion is not getting addressed by Duke repeatedly and a poster keeps bringing it up that's wrong? I could cite Duke football from the time Spurrier left up until very recently and be repeatedly negative (no matter how much I coated it with sugar) and I'd be right. Now granted I hate to hear the same negative comments over and over again, it's why I kicked my first wife to the curb! But it's kind of like politics, if you think the country is going down like a lead balloon, is that relentlessly destructive negativity to actually harp on it?

SeattleIrish
01-29-2008, 01:50 PM
As an aside, I do want to note an appreciation for a 3(and growing) page thread debating/discussing/dissecting the fact that a fellow member of this community was banned.

I've been a member of other on-line communities where discussions of such issues are effectively cut short with an "It's the moderator's call - if you don't like it, leave!" type of response.

I should think that the very existence of a thread such as this should allay some of the concerns expressed that moderators are acting to censor views or diminish dissent.

s.i.

Clipsfan
01-29-2008, 02:08 PM
As an aside, I do want to note an appreciation for a 3(and growing) page thread debating/discussing/dissecting the fact that a fellow member of this community was banned.

I've been a member of other on-line communities where discussions of such issues are effectively cut short with an "It's the moderator's call - if you don't like it, leave!" type of response.

I should think that the very existence of a thread such as this should allay some of the concerns expressed that moderators are acting to censor views or diminish dissent.

s.i.

I think this is a very good point, as the mods could always just close the thread and move on. I happen to also spend too much time on this board (often I read rather than post) and like the community which we have. I'll admit that I try to be on the "glass half full" side of the spectrum, largely because I really like rooting for our team. We have a great group of young men playing their hearts out, and a coach who wants them to be both the best people and the best players possible, so why wouldn't I root for them? However, the community does allow people to tear them apart (excessively at times) and the mods allow us our discourse.

Personally, I stopped reading most of PY's posts a long time ago, but believe the mods when they say it wasn't an easy decision and that he had plenty of warnings. I hope that this community remains what it is, a place for relatively open (not destructive) discourse where even fans of other programs feel able to participate and often receive warm responses. Most posters here are able to see reason, even if we tend to have slightly tinted glasses.

dw0827
01-29-2008, 02:23 PM
I'm wondering why you would create this straw man -- that he was banned for his "views" -- when you admittedly didn't even see the posts in question. JK's initial post provides a very clear account of why Patrick was banned. Did you read it?

Could you please point out to me, or highlight, the exact location in my post where I said 'he was banned for his "views"' . . . ?

What's your beef here, Jumbo? You are being unduly defensive. We're just having a little honest discourse here. Have a problem with that?

Clipsfan
01-29-2008, 02:26 PM
Anyway, I sincerely hope that he wasn't banned because of his views . . . whatever they might be. That would be very scary.

I'm guessing he was referring to the above statement.

BD80
01-29-2008, 02:28 PM
For some posters, the purpose of the board is simply to get pumped up about Duke... and bite our tongue about anything less-than-positive.

For other posters, the boards are for good-natured but no-holds-barred discussion about Duke basketball... and perhaps insightful, conversation. ...

I guess I mostly want to urge tolerance for all points of view. ... the desire to debate, and even question, recruiting, strategy, etc comes from a place of wanting success but also wanting a realistic discussion. ...

Also remember that these are college kids doing the best that they can while coping with life in college. They have parents and buddies who may be reading what you type. Also remember that our coach is pretty good and has earned some leeway from fans with an unmatched track record over the past several decades.



Thanks for reaching toward the middle ground - the hyperbole notwithstanding.

I was just trying to understand the mentality of the negativity. I understand it wasn't his negativity that led to PY's banishment, but the nature of his arguments, many of which ensued from his negativity.

These "realistic discussions" DCDfD speaks of may not start off critical of players or recruits, but the threads quickly devolve into unabashed bashing. Why is it necessary to speak ill of a player or recruit or recruiting effort (or another poster) to make an argument?

The right to speak freely should NOT be confused with an obligation to speak.

dw0827
01-29-2008, 02:33 PM
I'm guessing he was referring to the above statement.

Then he needs to read it a little more closely. It does not say that he was banned for his views. Don't infer things that aren't there.

Uncle Drew
01-29-2008, 02:33 PM
The right to speak freely should NOT be confused with an obligation to speak.

BD80, that's very eloquent, almost poetic even. Did you make that up or is that a quote from some famous person and I'm just not familiar with it?

3rd Dukie
01-29-2008, 02:37 PM
what the guy did, exactly? I have no quarrel with a privately owned business being run as the owners choose. However, since I usually found Yates' posts to be boring, I very quickly began to ignore them. Frankly, I found him to be a tiresome bag of wind. Having said that, I have no idea why he was banned.

Can someone PM me with the specifics? The main reason I ask is that I sometimes get a tad crusty myself and would like to know what the rules are. This site has changed a lot since the renovation. I never used to worry about what I said, but there does seem to me to be an air of censorship, which, as I said, is the right of the owners to impose. However, it would seem to make sense to spell the rules out quite clearly.

Thank you.

Bos: If you ave a chance, could you fill me in? Much appreciated.
Tim

P.S. I took a peek at the IC site yesterday. Where did they find so many illiterate people with internet access?

Clipsfan
01-29-2008, 02:38 PM
Then he needs to read it a little more closely. It does not say that he was banned for his views. Don't infer things that aren't there.

I personally read it differently than he did, and I would assume closer to your actual intent (based upon your subsequent comments). However, I would guess that was what led to his statement.

Clipsfan
01-29-2008, 02:40 PM
I never used to worry about what I said, but there does seem to me to be an air of censorship, which, as I said, is the right of the owners to impose. However, it would seem to make sense to spell the rules out quite clearly.

The old system had the post approval process, as you remember. With the joys of easy posting comes the fact that all sorts of posts can make it into the board, even if only for a short period.

Uncle Drew
01-29-2008, 02:41 PM
P.S. I took a peek at the IC site yesterday. Where did they find so many illiterate people with internet access?

It's called Orange County North Carolina, home of the University of Northern Carborro!

JBDuke
01-29-2008, 02:42 PM
...

JB typed, As many others have noted, the negativity isn't the problem. It is the relentlessly destructive negativity that is the problem.


Julio typed, Destructively Negative - It means the opposite of constructive criticism, especially in the context of Duke players and coaches. Unacceptable: Duke Player X is abysmal, a complete liability, and couldn’t rebound if he was the only player on the court. Acceptable: Duke Player X really needs to work on his rebounding and ability to block out over the summer. Includes rumor mongering.


I'm a bit confused. If the subject in ones opinion is not getting addressed by Duke repeatedly and a poster keeps bringing it up that's wrong? I could cite Duke football from the time Spurrier left up until very recently and be repeatedly negative (no matter how much I coated it with sugar) and I'd be right. Now granted I hate to hear the same negative comments over and over again, it's why I kicked my first wife to the curb! But it's kind of like politics, if you think the country is going down like a lead balloon, is that relentlessly destructive negativity to actually harp on it?

There is a difference between being negative, or, more preferably, I would say "offering criticism", versus being destructively negative. The former is welcome; the latter is not. Julio's example is pretty clear, IMO.

WRT Duke Football, the cynic could make the case that a poster has grounds to have been relentlessly negative since Spurrier left - after all, there has been little positive news in the last 18 years or so. But again, the key is nature of the comments offered - are they constructive or destructive criticism? And again, I point you to your Julio quote to note the difference.

Destructive negativity will get you a citation. Repeated (or relentless) destructive negativity will eventually earn you a ban.

Does that allay your confusion?

dw0827
01-29-2008, 02:48 PM
I personally read it differently than he did, and I would assume closer to your actual intent (based upon your subsequent comments). However, I would guess that was what led to his statement.

Thats fine. No problem. Perhaps he misunderstood my point. But I don't need the infamous Jumbo straw man invective hurled at me when I don't deserve it . . .

BD80
01-29-2008, 02:54 PM
The right to speak freely should NOT be confused with an obligation to speak.

BD80, that's very eloquent, almost poetic even. Did you make that up or is that a quote from some famous person and I'm just not familiar with it?

Probably heard it somewhere along the long and winding road, and have misstated it here. Was it from Spiderman - after the "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" speech?

3rd Dukie
01-29-2008, 02:57 PM
The old system had the post approval process, as you remember. With the joys of easy posting comes the fact that all sorts of posts can make it into the board, even if only for a short period.

Well that certainly seems reasonable. However, I still wish someone would quit talking in riddles and spell out the rules. What is "destructive criticism?" Destructive to whom? Let's drop the political correctness for one second and call a spade a spade in the interest of clarity.

For instance, I detest listening to Dick Vitale (note, please, that that is different from detesting Vitale as a person). How vocal may I be about this, about which I feel quite strongly, without incurring some form of repercussion? This is simply an example and not intended to start a debate. I am a very literal person, and sometimes my words are misinterpreted.

What is unreasonable about requesting the rules, or at least examples of same, as in, what did Yates do?

Thanks.

Jumbo
01-29-2008, 03:00 PM
Could you please point out to me, or highlight, the exact location in my post where I said 'he was banned for his "views"' . . . ?

What's your beef here, Jumbo? You are being unduly defensive. We're just having a little honest discourse here. Have a problem with that?

Sure. And thanks for calling me defensive. It doesn't seem like you're looking for a fight or anything...
Anyway, you said...

Anyway, I sincerely hope that he wasn't banned because of his views . . . whatever they might be. That would be very scary.

So, at that point, you are painting a scenario that didn't exist. I sincerely hope Patrick wasn't banned because his name is Patrick. Now I'm going to list all the reasons that he could have been banned because his name is Patrick. What's that? You didn't list thing about his views? Then what was this section?

And I sure don't care that he was contrary and obnoxious, as some would suggest he was. So what. Was he not showing the proper school spirit? So what. Was he not always politically correct? So what. Was he unduly negative? So what.


Basically, your whole post was about banning someone for "views," when that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Heck, you even concluded with:

But never, ever ban someone for what he or she believes and expresses . . . ALWAYS err on the side of tolerance.

So, I'm not sure what's confusing you at this point.

Uncle Drew
01-29-2008, 03:01 PM
Probably heard it somewhere along the long and winding road, and have misstated it here. Was it from Spiderman - after the "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" speech?


LMAO!!!!!!!!! Happy birthday to me. Thank you BD, that made me laugh so hard I cried. Perfect response. I give you credit for saying something that made a great point almost to the point it was "deep". And you go ahead and give credit to Peter Parker. LMAO!!!!!!!! Thank you.

3rd Dukie
01-29-2008, 03:05 PM
Suffice it to say that JBD has more than adequately answered my concerns! I wholeheartedly agree with the mods decision, not that my opinion is important.

My piehole is now stapled shut, as well as my fingers.

Good job, guys!

BD80
01-29-2008, 03:12 PM
Let's drop the political correctness for one second and call a spade a spade in the interest of clarity.



Actually, he called it a "M*^&$r F@%#$&g" shovel, thus, the ban.

3rd Dukie
01-29-2008, 03:14 PM
Actually, he called it a "M*^&$r F@%#$&g" shovel, thus, the ban.

Beautiful! I'm still laughing.
I should have guessed that. :)

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-29-2008, 03:17 PM
These "realistic discussions" DCDfD speaks of may not start off critical of players or recruits, but the threads quickly devolve into unabashed bashing. Why is it necessary to speak ill of a player or recruit or recruiting effort (or another poster) to make an argument?

I think JBDuke's post above answers a lot of this. What JB calls "offering criticism" is, imo, an absolutely necessary part of any meaningful discussion. Maybe it's just the law school talking, but any good discussion must recognize both the strengths and weaknesses of a player, a team, an offense, a style of recruiting, whatever.

If we're discussing, say, Christian Laettner's ability as a team leader, it's not interesting or meaningful to say "he was great." In order to discuss his leadership, we need to address his strengths (toughness, led by example, etc) AND his weaknesses (could be a bully, little positive encouragement, etc.) To ignore either the good or the bad is a disservice, imo, to both the accuracy and the purpose of the conversation. If we're comparing, say, Shane's leadership we need to consider and discuss Christian's faults. I'm not sure if you would consider this "speaking ill" of Christian, but I simply can't imagine a meaningful discussion without it. The same is true when we discuss recruiting, the spread offense, or any other issue.

JB's point, and I think it's a great one, is that tone, more than content, is where the line is (properly) drawn. Saying "Christian was a great leader, but he was sometimes unreasonably harsh. For example his treatment of Cherokee did more harm than good" is, as I understand the rules, a fine way to express "negative" opinions. Saying "Laettner was a jerk" is not. I can't tell from your posts if you consider even the former "unabashed bashing" but it is that sort of negative comment that I think is not "destructively negative" and is, in fact, an entirely necessary aspect of thoughtful (and interesting) discussions.

RPS
01-29-2008, 03:21 PM
Also remember that these are college kids doing the best that they can while coping with life in college. They have parents and buddies who may be reading what you type.This is an excellent and underappreciated point, I think (spoken as a dad who has seen multiple threads elsewhere specifically about his kid, by name, even though said kid is still in high school and has only commited --to a school other than Duke and in a sport other than hoops -- at this point). Thank you.

BD80
01-29-2008, 04:39 PM
JB's point, and I think it's a great one, is that tone, more than content, is where the line is (properly) drawn. Saying "Christian was a great leader, but he was sometimes unreasonably harsh. For example his treatment of Cherokee did more harm than good" is, as I understand the rules, a fine way to express "negative" opinions. Saying "Laettner was a jerk" is not. I can't tell from your posts if you consider even the former "unabashed bashing" but it is that sort of negative comment that I think is not "destructively negative" and is, in fact, an entirely necessary aspect of thoughtful (and interesting) discussions.

This isn't about drawing lines. Your legal background should inform you that we are talking shades of gray. Fortunately, the moderators have been so forgiving that it isn't really an issue. Even though I would draw a line toward the other end of the spectrum (grayscale) the moderators provide plenty of leeway to permit you your view of constructive criticism. Your examples do not seem unduly negative even under my standards - even if we were talking about current players or recruits, I personally think that past players are more open for criticism because we are speaking with benefit of viewing their entire Duke careers. Laettner was a jerk - my opinion based upon observations made over his career. OTH , questioning whether Zoubek will be a productive member of the rotation next year or the year after seems to me to be unnecessarily negative and unproductive.

My question remains, why do some posters find it necessary to discuss Zoubek's future productivity - in terms that will invite criticism of a current player? How is it productive or interesting?

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-29-2008, 07:30 PM
I think "line vs gray area" is something of a semantic debate. There are rules that are enforced and can lead to a ban. Those rules are not hard and fast, but instead open to interpretation and subject to the distinct impressions of several mods. I have zero problem with this and never meant to even enter into any sort of debate about PY. He's gone and I have no reason to think that decision was anything other than completely justified. He was abrasive, he was warned, he persisted, he is no more. He has ceased to be, as the Python boys would say. :)

The second point is what I am interest in, but I think we're just of sufficiently different minds. To me, how well Z develops and how that will affect the team this year and beyond is exactly what should be discussed on message boards. I completely agree that it isn't helpful to rip on Z as a person. By all accounts he's a great guy and he obviously has more reason to want to play well than any of us do to want to WATCH him play well.

That said, saying "Z still brings the ball down too often after a rebound" isn't, to my mind, being destructively negative. It's analysis of a weakness in his game. Similarly, saying "giving Z no help at the 5 will expose the weaknesses in his game and make him vulnerable to fatigue and foul trouble" isn't personal. It's analysis of our team's strengths and weaknesses next season. In fact, the discussion about how we will fill the 5 spot has led to a debate I've really enjoyed and learned a tremendous amount from.

I'm not sure anything we do here could be considered "productive" (I'll bet my boss would argue strenuously that it isn't). But discussing things like how Z's game has/will develop and what effect that will have on our team is, to me, very interesting. In fact, I'm kind of at a loss for what else we would discuss. I'm not trying to be obtuse or a smart aleck; I'm genuinely curious. If we're not tracking player development, recruiting, team strategy, etc, then what should we be talking about?

dw0827
01-29-2008, 08:00 PM
I'm not sure anything we do here could be considered "productive" (I'll bet my boss would argue strenuously that it isn't). But discussing things like how Z's game has/will develop and what effect that will have on our team is, to me, very interesting. In fact, I'm kind of at a loss for what else we would discuss. I'm not trying to be obtuse or a smart aleck; I'm genuinely curious. If we're not tracking player development, recruiting, team strategy, etc, then what should we be talking about?

I basically agree with you. I'm not fond of being negative about players or coaches but, jeez, sometimes, realistic observations and analysis can't always be rosy.

My rule of thumb is . . . will I feel ok if a player's parents read my post about their kid? If not . . . best not to post it.

jimsumner
01-29-2008, 09:17 PM
Full disclosure.

I wasn't much of a fan of Mr. Yates' posting style. And I didn't see his last-straw-posts. But I think the idea that he was banned just because someone didn't like what he said isn't fair to the mods and isn't supported by the facts as I know them to be. I'm sure this action wasn't taken lightly, wasn't taken without due provocation, and I have no problem with it.

Uncle Drew
01-29-2008, 11:41 PM
Okay first I don't know who this BD80 is, but welcome to the boards. Your posts thus far have been intelligent, well thought out and down right hilarious at times.

You guys can call me a suck up. But if Jim Sumner gets banned (I don't know maybe he has one few too many one night and posts a photo shop picture of Gary Williams in drag along with a stream of obsenities......hey, it could happen!) I'm officially protesting and calling a town meeting. We need his posts so speculation doesn't run rampant! (The sky is not falling, the sky is not falling......this meditation thing is helping Jim!)

BD80
01-29-2008, 11:45 PM
That said, saying "Z still brings the ball down too often after a rebound" isn't, to my mind, being destructively negative. It's analysis of a weakness in his game. Similarly, saying "giving Z no help at the 5 will expose the weaknesses in his game and make him vulnerable to fatigue and foul trouble" isn't personal. It's analysis of our team's strengths and weaknesses next season. In fact, the discussion about how we will fill the 5 spot has led to a debate I've really enjoyed and learned a tremendous amount from.



Frankly, I don't think any of that would draw the ire of the mods, and I don't find it too negative. In fact threads have become a bit more respectfull recently. The downward spiral usually occurs when the "debate" turns into a pissing contest and we get comments like:

CDu: "I just think that unfortunately he's [Z's] a liability on both ends right now"

DukeHoopsGuru: "So just ask other people who watch and are knowledgeable on college basketball. Ask them about Greg. You'll get this. 'Great shooter, gutsy, too slow. Not an top tier college point guard.' "

Samizdat: "I certainly haven't seen a starting point guard who is worse on the ball defender than Greg Paulus in division 1."

My question still comes back to why members of the Duke Basketball Report Forum would pose such critical comments?

Uncle Drew
01-30-2008, 12:10 AM
Frankly, I don't think any of that would draw the ire of the mods, and I don't find it too negative. In fact threads have become a bit more respectfull recently. The downward spiral usually occurs when the "debate" turns into a pissing contest and we get comments like:

CDu: "I just think that unfortunately he's [Z's] a liability on both ends right now"

DukeHoopsGuru: "So just ask other people who watch and are knowledgeable on college basketball. Ask them about Greg. You'll get this. 'Great shooter, gutsy, too slow. Not an top tier college point guard.' "

Samizdat: "I certainly haven't seen a starting point guard who is worse on the ball defender than Greg Paulus in division 1."

My question still comes back to why members of the Duke Basketball Report Forum would pose such critical comments?


While I agree with BD80 that the listed comments are pretty harsh and certainly could have been reworded into more constructive criticism. Most of us are pretty blunt when talking about a non Duke players deficiencies. I think a lot of people look at it in the mind set they are adults (over 18) and need to be thick skinned and not so sensitive. Or they are expressing opinions like they would at the local bar, never thinking a player, recruit or coach might read it. (I didn't believe players checked this site out until Battier thanked those who voted him most popular player.) I guess for a lot of us if we do something wrong at work or don't perform up to expectations our bosses / coworkers don't sugar coat or say negative things in a constructive manner. And lets face it, if my wife sugar coated everything she said to me my thick skull wouldn't understand!

But I guess it's like the old rule if you wouldn't say it to someones face, don't say it at all. I highly doubt those who posted those quotes would say things like that, at least not in the same manner face to face. I'm one of the most blunt / crass people on the planet and it's hard for me to word things in a way that gets the opinion down without offending someone. But it's important to let the nay sayers state their opinions as well and I think DBR has done a good job of that. And if a player reads a negative comment lets hope they use it as bulletin board material to work hard, improve and prove negative opinions wrong. Hell hath no fire like a blue devil scorned!

Mudge
01-30-2008, 12:35 AM
Thanks for reaching toward the middle ground - the hyperbole notwithstanding...
These "realistic discussions" DCDfD speaks of may not start off critical of players or recruits, but the threads quickly devolve into unabashed bashing. Why is it necessary to speak ill of a player or recruit or recruiting effort (or another poster) to make an argument?

The right to speak freely should NOT be confused with an obligation to speak.

What exactly would "unabashed bashing" be? Doesn't bashing, by its very nature required that it be "bashed" rather than "unabashed"... or is "unabashed" a double-negative that equates to "bashed" because the "un-" and the "a-" cancel each other out, leaving only the "bashed"?

Jumbo
01-30-2008, 12:40 AM
While I agree with BD80 that the listed comments are pretty harsh and certainly could have been reworded into more constructive criticism. Most of us are pretty blunt when talking about a non Duke players deficiencies. I think a lot of people look at it in the mind set they are adults (over 18) and need to be thick skinned and not so sensitive. Or they are expressing opinions like they would at the local bar, never thinking a player, recruit or coach might read it. (I didn't believe players checked this site out until Battier thanked those who voted him most popular player.) I guess for a lot of us if we do something wrong at work or don't perform up to expectations our bosses / coworkers don't sugar coat or say negative things in a constructive manner. And lets face it, if my wife sugar coated everything she said to me my thick skull wouldn't understand!

But I guess it's like the old rule if you wouldn't say it to someones face, don't say it at all. I highly doubt those who posted those quotes would say things like that, at least not in the same manner face to face. I'm one of the most blunt / crass people on the planet and it's hard for me to word things in a way that gets the opinion down without offending someone. But it's important to let the nay sayers state their opinions as well and I think DBR has done a good job of that. And if a player reads a negative comment lets hope they use it as bulletin board material to work hard, improve and prove negative opinions wrong. Hell hath no fire like a blue devil scorned!

Latta, a number of mods have already explained the difference between "destructively negative" and negative. I'm not sure why you're still harping on that. Destructive negativity will not be tolerated. Period.

sandinmyshoes
01-30-2008, 07:02 AM
While examples of negative versus positive criticism have been given, the problem is that any example you give is exactly that, a sample. In reality most posts are going to fall somewhere in between the two examples and moderators are going to have to make a realatively subjective call. No doubt a lot of factors are in play, at least in the back of their minds. Does a particular poster constantly post negative seeming material? How personal is the negative post?

It's easy as a poster to get into short cycles of seeming negative. I know that I had to watch myself when the board was in a discussion about Duke's away game scheduling. Since it is one where I think so many posters are blindly loyal to Coach K, I found myself posting mostly negatively about the scheduling.

It follows, as well, that whenever the blind loyalist harp on Hansborough the way opposing fans used to harp on JJ or Shane, I find myself posting in his defense more often than even I like.

But then, I suppose when I feel like others are in what I feel is an unwarrented panic about Duke's recruiting, I seem like a blind loyalist to those posters.

The point being that the wrong perceptions can be made if the moderators were quick to judge. In the case of Patrick, it appears they not only gave him plenty of time, they tried to steer him into an acceptable behavior pattern.

Carlos
01-30-2008, 08:35 AM
You guys can call me a suck up. But if Jim Sumner gets banned (I don't know maybe he has one few too many one night and posts a photo shop picture of Gary Williams in drag along with a stream of obsenities......hey, it could happen!)

You don't need photo shop for that.

gw67
01-30-2008, 08:50 AM
I was going to hit the little triangle on post 86 but, heck, Carlos is one of the mods.

It just amazes me that this thread is as long as it is. I have no idea what Yates posted but a half dozen mods have explained what they went through and why they did what they did. Their explanations are clear and very reasonable to me.

gw67

Jumbo
01-30-2008, 09:22 AM
While examples of negative versus positive criticism have been given, the problem is that any example you give is exactly that, a sample. In reality most posts are going to fall somewhere in between the two examples and moderators are going to have to make a realatively subjective call. No doubt a lot of factors are in play, at least in the back of their minds. Does a particular poster constantly post negative seeming material? How personal is the negative post?

It's easy as a poster to get into short cycles of seeming negative. I know that I had to watch myself when the board was in a discussion about Duke's away game scheduling. Since it is one where I think so many posters are blindly loyal to Coach K, I found myself posting mostly negatively about the scheduling.

It follows, as well, that whenever the blind loyalist harp on Hansborough the way opposing fans used to harp on JJ or Shane, I find myself posting in his defense more often than even I like.

But then, I suppose when I feel like others are in what I feel is an unwarrented panic about Duke's recruiting, I seem like a blind loyalist to those posters.

The point being that the wrong perceptions can be made if the moderators were quick to judge. In the case of Patrick, it appears they not only gave him plenty of time, they tried to steer him into an acceptable behavior pattern.

I don't think it's hard to extrapolate from a sample of "constructive criticism" and destructive criticism.
Constructive: Greg Paulus doesn't move laterally well on defense, and it forces the other guards to cover for him a lot to prevent dribble penetration.
Destructive: Greg Paulus is the worst defensive player in Division I. He couldn't guard me.

Yes, some posts fall into a gray area and require some discussion. Generally, we err on the side of keeping a post, especially if a poster doesn't have a spotty history. That said, it's rarely difficult to differentiate between what needs to be moderated and what doesn't. It's not rocket science.

RPS
01-30-2008, 10:02 AM
He couldn't guard me.Nobody could guard you, Jumbo.

Lulu
01-30-2008, 10:05 AM
I like DevilCastDownfromDurham's Group A and Group B description of the posters at this website, pretty accurate, even if there wasn't much attempt to hide which group he/she might prefer.

This sure is a lot of discussion considering almost no one saw the post that got PY banned. Without seeing it I find it hard to comment. I didn't mind any of his other posts, but maybe he really crossed the line. I have no way of knowing. Personally, I wrote a very critical post about this site once (sort of related to the group A and B thing above), got my infraction, and won't be doing that again. I'm dying to know the details of PY's infraction, but I suppose I'll have to live with just wondering, which I understand. (Sexist? Did he say someone "played like a girl" or what? Can't even imagine the context.)

I imagine PY still reads this forum, and probably enjoys this thread in particular, so I just wanted to say that I do miss having him and posters like him around. Maybe I'm not easily offended, or just can't understand the inability of some to simply ignore those they aren't fond of, but it's hard to see what the big deal was. (Again, didn't see his final post myself so I cannot judge.)

Hopefully it really crossed a line and is not just a way of trying to put everyone here under the same umbrella. I honestly find threads such as the post-Maryland game thread entirely BORING ("We're so super tough"... "Wow, look how tough we are"... "We're like nails, we're so tough"... "Who said we weren't tough"... etc etc etc). So here's just hoping there's still some lively discussion to go around. Differing opinions are good to have around.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-30-2008, 10:37 AM
Frankly, I don't think any of that would draw the ire of the mods, and I don't find it too negative. In fact threads have become a bit more respectfull recently. The downward spiral usually occurs when the "debate" turns into a pissing contest and we get comments like:

CDu: "I just think that unfortunately he's [Z's] a liability on both ends right now"

DukeHoopsGuru: "So just ask other people who watch and are knowledgeable on college basketball. Ask them about Greg. You'll get this. 'Great shooter, gutsy, too slow. Not an top tier college point guard.' "

Samizdat: "I certainly haven't seen a starting point guard who is worse on the ball defender than Greg Paulus in division 1."

My question still comes back to why members of the Duke Basketball Report Forum would pose such critical comments?

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, just with different preferences. If I'm reading your posts correctly, we both dislike meanspirited posts that offer little insight but recognize the value of thoughtful critique. I do think we have slightly different definitions of "thoughtful critique" but I believe that both of our definitions can happily coexist and that both are supported by the mods.

For example, "Z is a liability on both ends" doesn't seem over the line to me. I personally disagree, since I think Brian can play an important role, especially on the defensive end, and some support for the statement (i.e. examples, quotes, etc) would be nice. But it's just an opinion that his negatives outweigh his positives at this stage of his career. If CDu believes this, it's an important aspect of our low-post game (since we don't have much backing Brian up right now) and, to my mind a fair comment. Since I disagree I would make an argument about Brian's size and ability to absorb contact, his increasing ability to keep his position rather than jumping for blocked shots, and cite the good job he did slowing Hanstravel down last season. Maybe CDu is right, maybe I'm right, but the debate is, to me, interesting and very relevant to a discussion about Duke basketball.

I agree with you that Samzat's post was pretty much empty hyperbole, and DukeHoopsGuru's post would have been much better if s/he had identified the "other people" being ostensibly quoted. I've never meant to suggest that I had any problem with the mods, who have been great and bent over backward to permit discussion that a lot of them don't like/agree with.

I was mostly just curious about several statements such as "I dislike any negative comments about recruits or players, even if it is something like "Nolan is better than Greg'" and "I despised the ensuing bitterness where some would defend the right to be negative and criticize those that feel that the board should be nearly void of negativity." I read that as essentially advocating for a board "nearly void of negativity", which would be a board, to my mind, void of insight or thoughtful discussion. I do think I misread you and I regret the fact that I may have come across as in some way supporting PY or questioning the mods

Indoor66
01-30-2008, 10:47 AM
Has this horse died yet? Seems like it was buried about 3 pages ago.

ugadevil
01-30-2008, 10:51 AM
Has this horse died yet? Seems like it was buried about 3 pages ago.

Here here! There's a game tomorrow! Next play everyone...

BD80
01-30-2008, 10:58 AM
Has this horse died yet? Seems like it was buried about 3 pages ago.

Merely pining for the fields

Jumbo
01-30-2008, 03:40 PM
Nobody could guard you, Jumbo.

True, true. I'm money off the dribble. I saw you mentioned that your son picked a school, btw. Congrats! I remember when you were talking to everyone last year for advice, and hope everything works out for the best, wherever he is headed.

RPS
01-30-2008, 04:06 PM
True, true. I'm money off the dribble.I'll bet you can spot-up too.


I saw you mentioned that your son picked a school, btw. Congrats! I remember when you were talking to everyone last year for advice, and hope everything works out for the best, wherever he is headed.Thank you. He's going to Cal and is really glad that the recruiting process is essentially over (and officially over next week). His mom and I are very pleased with his decision. Thanks for asking.

cspan37421
01-30-2008, 04:11 PM
Merely pining for the fields

If that's a python reference, isn't it pining for the fjords?

JasonEvans
01-30-2008, 04:30 PM
This sure is a lot of discussion considering almost no one saw the post that got PY banned. Without seeing it I find it hard to comment. I didn't mind any of his other posts, but maybe he really crossed the line. I have no way of knowing. Personally, I wrote a very critical post about this site once (sort of related to the group A and B thing above), got my infraction, and won't be doing that again. I'm dying to know the details of PY's infraction, but I suppose I'll have to live with just wondering, which I understand. (Sexist? Did he say someone "played like a girl" or what? Can't even imagine the context.)

(snip)

Differing opinions are good to have around.

PY's banning had almost nothing to do with his final post. It was about a long, long series of posts that were over the line. His final post was just the last straw. Ironically, the way his final post went over the line was pretty much different from how many of his other posts were problematic. Still, the final decision about a permanent ban was easy and unanimous.

Again, for the umpteenth time, this is not about quashing differing or dissenting opinions. There are some mods who are quite critical of the Duke program and things that Coach K does. This is about acting in a way that is constructive and positive regarding this website and the Duke program.

I have seen some folks sorta worry in this thread about getting a permanent ban themselves. Trust me, you will get tons of warnings before it happens. If you have not gotten many infractions in the past, and 99.9% of you have not, then you have nothing to worry about.

--Jason "I agree that this thread has served its purpose -- thanks for the understanding expressed by so many about how the mods work" Evans

BD80
01-30-2008, 05:03 PM
If that's a python reference, isn't it pining for the fjords?

Norwegian Blues pine for the fjords, a horse of this color would pine for the fields.

BD80
01-30-2008, 05:41 PM
If you have not gotten many infractions in the past, and 99.9% of you have not, then you have nothing to worry about.



If our infractions were for lack of civility responding to PY's more offensive posts during his "heyday", can we have the slate wiped clean? In kindergarten it is the "he started it" defense. How about a more adult sounding defense: "a justifiable response to provocation exceeding the standards of the community"? We have the PY banning as evidence that his provocation exceeded this community's standards.

This is of course, sarcasm. I actually thought PY had mellowed his harsh since that time. I hope I have too. The mods have a thankless job and do it wonderfully.

The board has had its highs and lows for years, and in my opinion, has been making a large comeback recently, in large part due to the efforts of the moderators. Perhaps we can resurrect the interest of a few of the old-timers who haven't posted much over the last couple of years. And when I say old I merely mean those who participated in the early boards. Now THOSE were the days; we would discuss fast breaks and existentialism, and there was never conflict ...

Indoor66
01-30-2008, 05:42 PM
we would discuss fast breaks and existentialism, and there was never conflict ...

Yeah! :rolleyes: (my emphasis)

3rd Dukie
01-30-2008, 06:27 PM
I like DevilCastDownfromDurham's Group A and Group B description of the posters at this website, pretty accurate, even if there wasn't much attempt to hide which group he/she might prefer.

This sure is a lot of discussion considering almost no one saw the post that got PY banned. Without seeing it I find it hard to comment. I didn't mind any of his other posts, but maybe he really crossed the line. I have no way of knowing. Personally, I wrote a very critical post about this site once (sort of related to the group A and B thing above), got my infraction, and won't be doing that again. I'm dying to know the details of PY's infraction, but I suppose I'll have to live with just wondering, which I understand. (Sexist? Did he say someone "played like a girl" or what? Can't even imagine the context.)

I imagine PY still reads this forum, and probably enjoys this thread in particular, so I just wanted to say that I do miss having him and posters like him around. Maybe I'm not easily offended, or just can't understand the inability of some to simply ignore those they aren't fond of, but it's hard to see what the big deal was. (Again, didn't see his final post myself so I cannot judge.)

Hopefully it really crossed a line and is not just a way of trying to put everyone here under the same umbrella. I honestly find threads such as the post-Maryland game thread entirely BORING ("We're so super tough"... "Wow, look how tough we are"... "We're like nails, we're so tough"... "Who said we weren't tough"... etc etc etc). So here's just hoping there's still some lively discussion to go around. Differing opinions are good to have around.

Lulu:

I DID see his final post. Please believe when I tell you I was as skeptical as anyone before I saw it. I am skeptical no longer. The only thing I can say is that if it took THAT post to be the final straw, it is hard to imagine anyone else on these boards being affected in any way by the Mods actions and standards. I do not mean to be cryptic or vague, but I have a promise to keep. Furthermore, my confidence in their competence and fairness has increased substantially. I'm a 60 year old crusty as heck old guy who has heard and uttered more than my fair share of inappropriate language. I almost blanched when I read it.