PDA

View Full Version : Community: What Would You Do?



Jumbo
03-24-2008, 05:28 PM
Please read this (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=124784&postcount=79)post. In particular, scroll down to the parts about Zoubek, Paulus, McClure and Wojo. Feel free to read the subsequent back and forth. People have raised some issues about moderation. So, based on the forum guidelines (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3350), how would you handle the situation?

Should Boston Dukie be banned permanently, be given a citation worth points that would enable him to keep posting or not be reprimanded at all? Please vote in the poll, and then please explain your answer.

Edit: These are the comments I'd like you to read:

1) "To solve, they need to give up on Paulus. He is going to be a senior and he is never going to take the team anywhere."

2) "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD."

3) "Well, why is Wojo (a 5-9, white, suburban, PG) our big man coach? If you were Patterson, Monroe or any other good big man, would you come play for Wojo? Be honest with yourself. Could't they get anyone else to take the job?"

And this is the section from the DBR Posting Guidelines:

"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."



Also, as a bonus question, what does such a post add to the community here? Let's hear what you have to say.

CameronBornAndBred
03-24-2008, 05:34 PM
I didn't see any offensive language, just valid criticism. It's his opinion and he is asking our thoughts on it. I agree with some, disagree with some. I'm an artist, and have to face criticism in everything I create. I don't always enjoy it, but it is also worth listening to. I might be more clear if your pointed out the offending language or points.

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 05:37 PM
I didn't see any offensive language, just valid criticism. It's his opinion and he is asking our thoughts on it. I agree with some, disagree with some. I'm an artist, and have to face criticism in everything I create. I don't always enjoy it, but it is also worth listening to. I might be more clear if your pointed out the offending language or points.

I tried to. Read the portions lower in the post where he talks about "giving up" on Paulus, Zoubek and McClure. Then look at his words used to talk about Wojo. Then please read the board guidelines, particularly the definition of "destructively negative." Let me know if you feel the same way after reading it all.

RelativeWays
03-24-2008, 05:38 PM
I wouldn't ban him because IMHO, he didn't really say anything that severe. Banning really should be reserved for constant trolls and people who post overtly distasteful and hurtful remarks. Saying Zoubek stinks is juvenile, but not overwhelming harmful If he reads this, he's a big boy and can take it, and he knows most of us Dukies are behind him.

I think you have two options: You could send a warning to him to refine his criticisms of Zoub and GP to something less childish....

or you could opt for frontier justice and let regs, oh how do you americans say.....ahhhhh yes, "pwn" him. "Pwn" is boardinese for own which is to thoroughly refute a point made by a previous poster, and make him feel a little foolish in the process. Despite rankling your fur a bit, Bostondukie, may not know the ropes yet. Let him get a feel for the place and get some burn marks and bruises. That type of experience usually makes the best posters.

Duvall
03-24-2008, 05:41 PM
I tried to. Read the portions lower in the post where he talks about "giving up" on Paulus, Zoubek and McClure. Then look at his words used to talk about Wojo. Then please read the board guidelines, particularly the definition of "destructively negative." Let me know if you feel the same way after reading it all.

It still reads more as blatantly wrong than destructive. It's harsh criticism, but I didn't see anything that rose to the level of a personal attack.

Honestly, I think he deserves to stay and try to defend his positions.

CathyCA
03-24-2008, 05:44 PM
It was a hard post to read with all of the grammatical errors in it, but beyond that, I didn't find the post to be harsh or destructive.

Believe me, Coach K has read far worse from fans.

Huh?
03-24-2008, 05:52 PM
I like it, don't agree with some of it, but maybe it will make those guys work that much harder.
Opinions; just because they sound like a 3rd grader wrote them doesn't mean he isn't entitled to them.....

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 05:56 PM
I like it, don't agree with some of it, but maybe it will make those guys work that much harder.
Opinions; just because they sound like a 3rd grader wrote them doesn't mean he isn't entitled to them.....

I'm just curious as to whether you've read the posting guidelines. Keep in mind that we have to make our decisions based on those, not our own views of what should and shoudn't be acceptable on a message board.

weezie
03-24-2008, 05:57 PM
I'm impressed that Jumbo is asking the community.
While I agree that BosDukie might not have "sounded" inflammatory, it is mean spirited to come down so harshly on Zoubek, to wit: (Personally, I would like it if Zoubek never played.) is simply poison.

I wonder if BosDukie will come back after this discussion but I think he/she deserves another chance.

colchar
03-24-2008, 05:58 PM
I didn't see anything in that post that was offensive. Personally, I wouldn't have posted in caps (about Zoubek) but, beyond that, there was nothing wrong with that post (I might also have chosen other wording for the comments about Zoubek).

Questioning why Wojo is the big man coach is perfectly legitimate and I've often wondered myself why he holds that position - are there really no former Duke big men who could take on that role and let Wojo concentrate on the guards, recruiting, or whatever else K needs him to do? He wasn't a big himself, didn't guard any (outside of situational necessity), and has absolutely no experience playing that position. Having him coach the big guys makes no sense to me whatsoever.

JBDuke
03-24-2008, 06:02 PM
I didn't see anything in that post that was offensive. Personally, I wouldn't have posted in caps (about Zoubek) but, beyond that, there was nothing wrong with that post (I might also have chosen other wording for the comments about Zoubek).

Questioning why Wojo is the big man coach is perfectly legitimate and I've often wondered myself why he holds that position - are there really no former Duke big men who could take on that role and let Wojo concentrate on the guards, recruiting, or whatever else K needs him to do? He wasn't a big himself, didn't guard any (outside of situational necessity), and has absolutely no experience playing that position. Having him coach the big guys makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The question is not whether or not the content is offensive; the question is, based on the posting guidelines established by the owners, what would you do about this post? Your personal opinion regarding the statements in the post is not relevant.

twisterduke81
03-24-2008, 06:07 PM
The statements you separated from the entire text violate the guidelines for the boards and could easily warrant a permanent ban. If the entire post is read, there is an attempt to provide heartfelt (apparently) criticism of the team. I would therefore vote for the points + warning. If he objects, let him post elsewhere.

colchar
03-24-2008, 06:09 PM
The question is not whether or not the content is offensive; the question is, based on the posting guidelines established by the owners, what would you do about this post? Your personal opinion regarding the statements in the post is not relevant.

Based on the guidelines I guess he did cross the line (but I also think the guidelines need to be viewed as black, white, and grey rather than simply as black and white). What he was saying would have been fine had he chosen another way to say it. The choice of words was poor but the sentiments themselves are completely justified.

As to how I would handle this situation if I were a mod...I would explain to him exactly what I just said. The sentiments are fine but he expressed them poorly. Tell him to watch his step and, so long as he doesn't make the same mistake again, no other action would be needed. If he persisted in crossing that line then I would give him a vacation. If he chose to come back at the end of that then explain the issue to him again and warn him that one more infraction will result in a permanent ban. If he bahaved fine, he learned his lesson. If he didn't behave then turf him permanently.

CameronBornAndBred
03-24-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm impressed that Jumbo is asking the community.


I totally agree with that. Thanks much for taking this approach Jumbo.

hughgs
03-24-2008, 06:11 PM
The statements you separated from the entire text violate the guidelines for the boards and could easily warrant a permanent ban. If the entire post is read, there is an attempt to provide heartfelt (apparently) criticism of the team. I would therefore vote for the points + warning. If he objects, let him post elsewhere.

Thank you for putting this in the public domain. It demonstrates the lack of understanding between what people think is/should be acceptable and the guidelines set forth by the owners.

Can you add bring back codes to the poll :)?

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 06:11 PM
Based on the guidelines I guess he did cross the line (but I also think the guidelines need to be viewed as black, white, and grey rather than simply as black and white). What he was saying would have been fine had he chosen another way to say it. The choice of words was poor but the sentiments themselves are completely justified.

As to how I would handle this situation if I were a mod...I would explain to him exatly what I just said. The sentiments are fine but he expressed them poorly. Tell him to watch his step and, so long as he doesn't make the same mistake again, no other action would be needed. If he persisted in crossing that line then I would give him a vacation. If he chose to come back at the end of that then explain the issue to him again and warn him that one more infraction will result in a permanent ban. If he bahaved fine, he learned his lesson. If he didn't behave then turf him permanently.

Colchar,
We have to go by the posting guidelines. None of that is part of the guidelines.

Channing
03-24-2008, 06:16 PM
what I see as the violations in the post, I suppose, would be that the OP stated his opinions on Paulus and Zoubek as if they were fact.

I do not think they they warrant permanent banning, perhaps a couple of points.

My question for the mods is this:

Had the OP stated his opinions as-
(1) Paulus has just finished his junior year and I have not seen anything out of him that leads me to believe he will take this team anywhere. More often than not he can't guard opposing guards, and when his defense breaks down at the point it causes the entire defense behind him to crumble. Yea, he is a good shooter (possibly the best we have), but his decision making seems to suffer at inopportune times and as stated - I believe he is a defensive liability.

(2) We have been waiting for Zoubek for two years now. He was touted as the second coming of Gminski, but all he seems to do is get in the way. I can honestly only recall one occasion when this 7 footer actually dunked the ball. I would have hoped to see some improvement out of Zoubek, but I don't think I have and it is getting to the point where I dont know if I ever will. If Duke is going to succeed in the future, they need big men who are reliable, bruising, and able to finish amongst other players

- would that have been a violation and would there be this conversation right now?

(**please note - the above are not my opinions, I am just wondering)

-I agree with the Wojo criticism. I mentioned in another post that his ability to coach big men is irrelevant, it is his perceived notion, and whether other big men want to trust their development and ultimately their draft position to a former point guard who probably never had to execute a drop step in a gametime situation.

RepoMan
03-24-2008, 06:18 PM
People do not seem to grasp the issue. The question is not whether his statements were fair or in accord with your beliefs. The question is whether they violate the rules. And, clearly, they do. I am not sure whether the rules speak to the issue of what it takes to convert sanctions into a permanent ban and don't have time to do so. But, if the rules are silent on the point, I would be inclined to save permanent bans for consistent rule flouters. I don't know this poster's history, so I would simply sanction. If, however, there is a pattern of rule violation, a permanent ban could be in order.

Really, people need to focus on the issue that has been raised here and elsewhere. This is a private website. The owners can impose whatever rules they like. You are free to question the legitimacy of the rules, but they don't have to listen. If you don't like the rules, then post elsewhere. If the rules were completely outlandish, everyone would leave. Evidently, that's not the case, because the site remains active. So, you have a choice: abide and stay or ignore and go. It's really that simple.

colchar
03-24-2008, 06:19 PM
I'm impressed that Jumbo is asking the community.
While I agree that BosDukie might not have "sounded" inflammatory, it is mean spirited to come down so harshly on Zoubek, to wit: (Personally, I would like it if Zoubek never played.) is simply poison.

I wonder if BosDukie will come back after this discussion but I think he/she deserves another chance.

After reading your post I went back and read the BosDukie's post again. The first time I had read it I had run through it quite quickly, this time I read it more carefully (I had missed the wish that Zoubek never play).

Based upon this closer reading I would give him a temporary vacation (I originally voted that nothing be done so can a mod change my vote for me?). While I agree with his general sentiments about the team I do not agree with the manner in which they were expressed - the comments about Zoubek were vitriolic and are uncalled for (not to mention the fact that they violate the guidelines).

dw0827
03-24-2008, 06:19 PM
According to the guidelines as set out by the owner(s) of this site, I would say that this particular post is destructively negative.

Therefore, the poster should, according to the rules established by the owner(s), be given a three point penalty.

Of course, I'm only being asked to judge this one post. The sticky on decorum also indicates the impact of accumulating points on a poster's status.

I think the sticky on decorum is fairly straightforward. This ain't rocket science.

rockymtn devil
03-24-2008, 06:23 PM
I think that the guidelines for "Destructive Negativity" are not very helpful and don't provide posters a good enough view of what is and is not acceptable. They say "destructive negativity" is anything that isn't "constructive criticism". That's like saying reckless driving is anything that isn't careful driving. It begs a question, which inherently leaves an ambiguity. The examples given are not very helpful because, as we can all imagine, there are too many possible posts to be encompassed by one "good" example and one "bad" example.

With that said, a look at the three statements.

1. Paulus--Boston Dukie's post states an opinion. Yes, it's negative. Is it destructive? I don't know because the definition is so vague. You could certainly argue that it's constructive criticism. BD might truly believe that it's constructive for the Duke team to place Paulus on the bench. This especially comes to light in how he later discusses the value Paulus could bring the team from the bench. No infraction for this.

2. Zoubek--This is negativity without much to back it up. The context that existed in the Paulus point isn't there in the Zoubek critique, IMO. It's also unfair to a player who needs some time to grow given his injuries. But, again, this could be viewed as constructive to team (see above). Mild infraction might be warranted.

3. Wojo--Again, could be constructive to the team as a whole. The "suburban" comment is bizarre and unnecessary, as is the last point about nobody else taking the job. Mild infraction might be warranted.

I think the problem is the vagueness of the guidelines. All three of these points do have constructive value and as such might not satisfy the definition of "destructively negative".

colchar
03-24-2008, 06:35 PM
I think the problem is the vagueness of the guidelines. All three of these points do have constructive value and as such might not satisfy the definition of "destructively negative".

I agree that the guidelines are a tad vague. Then again, had they tried to write them so that they covered every possible situation all of the lawyers here (and there are a bunch) would still be trying to write out them out. Perhaps they need to be rewritten but they simply cannot be comprehensive and will always be subjective to some degree.

As for the suburban comment - it hadn't tripped any warnings when I first read it because I was so focussed on the overall argument about Wojo not being the right guy to coach the bigs (because he is small and was a PG himself) but, thinking about it now, it seems like veiled racism. This is what I take from it: Wojo is too white and suburban to recruit bigs who are likely to be black and from the inner city. Yeah, that definitely goes over the line.

ETA: I think the mods should try their best (as I'm sure they do) to adhere to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes (ie. choose our words poorly sometimes), and we should be dealt with according to the spirit of the law. That being said, however, the more I think about the original post the more it bothers me. The veiled racism of the comment about Wojo really crosses the line. If I were a mod I'd ban him just for that comment without even worrying about anything he said about Zoubek.

monkey
03-24-2008, 06:35 PM
Please read this (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=124784&postcount=79)post. In particular, scroll down to the parts about Zoubek, Paulus, McClure and Wojo. Feel free to read the subsequent back and forth. People have raised some issues about moderation. So, based on the forum guidelines (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3350), how would you handle the situation?

Should Boston Dukie be banned permanently, be given a citation worth points that would enable him to keep posting or not be reprimanded at all? Please vote in the poll, and then please explain your answer.

Edit: These are the comments I'd like you to read:

1) "To solve, they need to give up on Paulus. He is going to be a senior and he is never going to take the team anywhere."

2) "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD."

3) "Well, why is Wojo (a 5-9, white, suburban, PG) our big man coach? If you were Patterson, Monroe or any other good big man, would you come play for Wojo? Be honest with yourself. Could't they get anyone else to take the job?"

And this is the section from the DBR Posting Guidelines:

"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."



Also, as a bonus question, what does such a post add to the community here? Let's hear what you have to say.

My two cents - does it matter whether the destructively negative language was in the context of a larger posting? Much of what was said would not fit into my opinion of "Destructively negative", just perhaps negative. "Giving up on someone" is not necessarily destructively negative - it could be getting rid of a cancer (I do not agree with such sentiments with respect to either Paulus or Zoubek; I might have agreed with respect to (hope this doesn't violate the guidelines itself) Greg Newton senior year) and actually a constructive option - addition by subtraction as they say. "HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD" does seem to cross the line - but to me it seems a bit different than "NATE JAMES SUCKS" if only because the entirety of the post wasn't really just about a destructively negative comment and perhaps and perhaps the spirit of the rule should be whether the destructive negativity was in the context of not offering anything else positive in the post.

With respect to Wojo, this is a question that has been debated about here for some time and has yet lingered on. That even Duke basketball supporters continue to debate the question seems to suggest it may have some legitimacy. "Could't [sic] they get anyone else to take the job" seems a bit harsh and again could be seen as destructively negative (on the other hand, I'm not sure how you could ever constructively say that a coach isn't up to his assigned task). To the extent there is ambiguity about it, it makes a difference to me that Wojo, as a coach, is paid to do a job, as opposed to being a student.

I guess I look at it this way - I don't think banning is how I would handle it. I tend to think more speech equals better as long as its not just pure destructive negativity, trolling, etc. I think the responses of the community forcing someone to support their opinions ought to be good enough. As to what it adds, I think it's better to confront negative opinions on a DBR bulletin board than just letting them be posted unchallenged on message boards I don't frequent (e.g., Inside Carolina or the Devils Den). I also think as much diversity of viewpoints (even if wrongheaded) should be encouraged.

If the rules absolutely required giving points, then I would give points. Otherwise, an e-mailed suggestion about posting tone/warning/encouraging the author to change how he phrased things might be what I would go for.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-24-2008, 06:37 PM
I also really appreciate this thread. As I've been thinking about the recent back-and-forth on what is/isn't modded, what is/isn't shot down by non-mods with personal attacks (i.e. "you're not a 'true' Duke fan"), and what we'd like the boards to be like, I've really been wishing for some examples.

This post, to my mind, is not all all out of bounds. Lots of constructive discussion is offered, and Boston Dukie even points out spots where his/her earlier assumptions about Jon and Greg were wrong. As others have noted, taken out of context I can see how the "offending" passages would rankle, but as part of a whole, BD is stating his/her case about how we should build the team going forward.

Point 3 seems very wrongheaded and easily rebutted (Newell, Gut, the host of other great big man coaches who were not big guys). It's foolish, but hardly offensive to me. Points 1 and 2 are phrased very badly and I can understand giving points for tone (although I wouldn't as a mod). Both "arguments" are supported with an attempt at evidence and a constructive change is suggested (make Greg a back-up and use Z's minutes to give the younger guys experience). I disagree with both, but my response would be to rebut them, not ban BD.

Overall, this post presents a lot of opinions that are generally backed up by some thought and argument. Take away the phrases "they need to give up on Paulus" and "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD." and I'd have trouble understanding even having this conversation. The post admits to earlier mistakes, presents an analysis with supporting evidence, and concludes with a friendly opening for further discussion. This isn't a flame, it isn't a troll, and it invites, rather than destroys further discussion. I respect the right of the owners and mods to make their own decision, but this post strikes me as a great opportunity to meet bad (i.e. faulty but fair-minded) speech with good speech, rather than silence.

freedevil
03-24-2008, 06:48 PM
I want to clarify my vote for points: I think he should get a lot of them. I got a "Destructively Negative" infraction this weekend, and at the time I was annoyed because I thought the comment was actually accurate, but whatever. I just went over to The Devils Den to check out the reaction over there to Echenique picking Rutgers and I would much prefer the environment here, even if it is too protective or cautious or whatever, than that environment.

Lavabe
03-24-2008, 06:48 PM
According to the guidelines as set out by the owner(s) of this site, I would say that this particular post is destructively negative.

Therefore, the poster should, according to the rules established by the owner(s), be given a three point penalty.

Of course, I'm only being asked to judge this one post. The sticky on decorum also indicates the impact of accumulating points on a poster's status.

I think the sticky on decorum is fairly straightforward. This ain't rocket science.

I believe the spirit of dw's post, but isn't the points accumulation for each instance within the thread? If that's the case, the points accumulation rises to much more than 3 points. The Paulus, Zoubek, and Wojo comments total 9 pts, but I also feel the "White suburban" aspects of the Wojo remark required double point values. I say an instant 12 pt tally at a bare minimum. I can easily see going with a decision to ban.

"Vitriolic" is NOT what the owners want. But a minimum of four instances just crosses the line too much.

I went with permanent ban, but colchar's "temporary vacation" idea would describe me better.

PLEASE, no codes.:o

Jumbo: I earlier expressed that I didn't think you should post the offensive comment. I can now see that I was wrong. I am glad you let it rest it a day or so. I just hope this thread continues in good spirit. Just how many comments like this did y'all (moderators) have to handle? Did they all rise to this level, or were some worse?

Cheers,
Lavabe

dukestheheat
03-24-2008, 06:50 PM
Jumbo,

I voted for a Points Infraction; this educates the poster on what is allowed here and allows for a time of reflection and growth. If, after that warning and a cooling off period, the poster continues to commit errors against the policies of the board, then a Permanent Ban should be considered.

Posts that are offensive can be removed and he/she can be warned; removing the poster at this point, in my opinion, doesn't help the person to grow.

Thank you for asking and you are a DYNAMITE moderator; the best, simply.

dukestheheat

colchar
03-24-2008, 06:52 PM
I went with permanent ban, but colchar's "temporary vacation" idea would describe me better.


Well that makes sense since I am always right ;)



PLEASE, no codes.:o


Word!



Did they all rise to this level, or were some worse?



I've got $500 that says there were a lot of them that were a lot worse.

Cavlaw
03-24-2008, 06:53 PM
Perhaps my judgment is colored by the fact that I write and interpret rules for a living, but when I read the guidelines I see exactly that: guidelines. Maybe half of them are specific enough to be considered "rules", but they generally appear to be open to interpretation on the part of the individual enforcing them.

It appears that Julio and Boswell didn't want to put in the time to develop really clear rules, or to send that message that doing so would send. And that's probably right, given that we're all supposed to adults here who can handle ourselves civilly. The fact that they had to create the guidelines at all was probably a big disappointment, but has become a fact of life on the contemporary internet.

After reading the initial post, I think three things:

(1) The excerpts in the first post are biased against the poster, being among the most negative of his statements and taken out of their context. They should have been given in context or not excerpted.

(2) It is the tone of the argument, not the substance, which is arguably offensive. That said, I'm not entirely certain how you propose benching the popular senior point guard of the team without coming across as somewhat negative or offending someone. The OP wasn't suggesting that Greg needs to work on something over the summer, per the guideline's suggestion, he was suggestion that there is a limit to the talent there which should be recognized. Maybe it isn't possible to have that debate without being "destructively negative", and I don't necessarily agree with the point, but it does seem to be a valid discussion point.

3. One thing I did glean from the guidelines is that this isn't a democracy. Moderating is a generally thankless job and moderators are going to be the subject of criticism from some corners at all times. There are enough of you to act as sounding boards for each other if you're not sure of something, or if someone appeals via PM, and you've collectively been doing pretty well so far. Yeah this week is tough, but man up and do the job. (apologies if there are any moderators of the fairer sex)

That said, if I were in the position of a moderator, I'd have to think about what to do. In my judgment the post is dangerously close to "destructively negative", despite raising points of debate. According to the guiudelines 3 points is the penalty for that, so banning appears to be off the table.

Because I'm not sure if it's "destructively negative" or just an argument that has been watered down by poorly chosen, inflamatory language, I probably would ask the other moderators for their opinions.

In the absence of that, I would consider the posting history of the contributor. If this is a new poster, I would probably delete the post and send a PM warning, without the points. If this is a habitual problem, I would simply award the points. If this is out of character from an otherwise positive contributor, I would probably send a copy of the post back to the poster (so he has something to restart from), delete the post and invite him to repost without the inflamatory language.

Perhaps I'll get the same response colchar did, that this wouldn't conform with the guidelines. To which I respond, the guidelines don't offer bright line rules, and the mods appear to have quite a bit of discretion. They were selected for their good judgment, after all.

Of course, I think that argument is bunk. There's nothing at all in the guidelines that says a mod can't find something to not be a violation, but then inform the poster that the question was up for debate. Frankly, I think doing things like that that helps promote a better environment because it lets people know when they're getting close to the line without embarassing them.

It would require a lot of work to handle more than a few cases with such attention. That probably isn't possible right now, given the sheer volume of clear guideliness violations that require attention this week.

In light of that, perhaps everyone ought to take a raincheck on deep analysis for a week or two, and in the meantime cut the mods some slack.

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 06:59 PM
Jumbo: I earlier expressed that I didn't think you should post the offensive comment. I can now see that I was wrong. I am glad you let it rest it a day or so. I just hope this thread continues in good spirit. Just how many comments like this did y'all (moderators) have to handle? Did they all rise to this level, or were some worse?

Cheers,
Lavabe

After the WVU game? Oh, a lot of the comments were worse. Much worse.

godukerocks
03-24-2008, 07:01 PM
His post is of the likes I've seen on teen AOL message boards. After a year of lurking this site, I would of guessed he knew how things work, but I guess not. I voted points infraction.

Shammrog
03-24-2008, 07:02 PM
According to the guidelines as set out by the owner(s) of this site, I would say that this particular post is destructively negative.

Therefore, the poster should, according to the rules established by the owner(s), be given a three point penalty.

Of course, I'm only being asked to judge this one post. The sticky on decorum also indicates the impact of accumulating points on a poster's status.

I think the sticky on decorum is fairly straightforward. This ain't rocket science.

Agreed.

I applaud the mods/Jumbo for asking feedback on this issue, and for repeatedly referencing the posted guidelines.

This post clearly violates those guidelines. And, per the rules as stated, this merits a 3 point infraction - hopefully with guidance as to be more appropriate for this forum in the future.

TwoDukeTattoos
03-24-2008, 07:04 PM
The crazy thing is, most of his points are right on. All of us have shared at least some of his opinions, if not all of his opinions, at some point during the season. I mean, let's be honest with ourselves. How many of us didn't blurt out (and mean) at least some of his assessments during a heated moment during the season?

It is true that his many of his opinions are accompanied with questionable "passionate" remarks, however, there is still some validity at the root of nearly every point that he makes.

This guy is a definite Duke fan. One couldn't fake such insight if he weren't at least moderately in-tune with the happenings of the Duke program. Cut the guy a break. If you want to reprimand him based on community rules, fine. But he certainly doesn't deserve a ban. Not even close.

Ben63
03-24-2008, 07:09 PM
I vote a points infraction.

He was destructively negative and that warrants a points infraction. The language was not severe and the general tone wasnt malicious. I agreed with some points, disagreed with others, but were all entitled to our opinion right? I wouldnt have said it the way he did, but what he said deserves 3 points. Plain and simple.

I received a 3 point infraction a few months ago for my destructive comments about McClure and what I said was much worse than what he said so in no way should he be banned. Saying this why points dont seem like they would do anything, they really make you think about what you say before you say it.

RelativeWays
03-24-2008, 07:11 PM
"Guidelines" seems to indicate that the parameters for posting on DBR are somewhat malleable and and a bit nebulous, thus leaving room for interpretation for the poster, and oftentimes the mod (giving him leeway to deep 6 any post he disagrees with). Jumbo, a pretty good mod, does seem a bit beholden to them and insists that he has been charged with upholding them with no room for interpretation or lenience so help him God. So they aren't really guidelines...more like mandates or, y'know, rules. I petition DBR to dispense with such flowerly nomenclature like "guidelines" and instead embrace something more hardline and iron fisted. I propose that the DBR Guidelines should now be called DBR COMMANDMENTS and each one should rightfully begin with the phrase "Thou shalt not" We're an Old Testament kind of people.

colchar
03-24-2008, 07:25 PM
I propose that the DBR Guidelines should now be called DBR COMMANDMENTS and each one should rightfully begin with the phrase "Thou shalt not" We're an Old Testament kind of people.

Nah, that would just ignite another of the religion arguments from the OT and PP boards and nothing good can come from that.

killerleft
03-24-2008, 07:28 PM
After this post I will vote for points infraction. I didn't get to read the post as written, but the statements about Greg and Brian pretty much defined "destructive criticism".

All of us are exasperated with the way the season ended, but as I understand the reasons for the existence of DBR, which have been stated over and over, this kind of post is just not acceptable.

Madrasdukie
03-24-2008, 07:31 PM
Warning and reminder of board decorum.

The fact that he took the time to write all this suggests that he might be a frustrated fan, (but a fan nevertheless), whose choice of words didn't comply with the rules of this board. I'm guessing if he had actually read the relevant rules before he posted he probably wouldn't have used the words he did. In other words I think it is a case of oversight than blatant disregard of rules.

BCGroup
03-24-2008, 07:48 PM
It is clear that this warrants a points infraction. However, if this is a pattern, with earlier warnings, then it should be a ban. I think the moderators do a great job with little to no rewards. They see the bigger picture, since they are looking at all the posts. Therefore, if this poster was banned, I give the benefit of the doubt to the moderators.

Chard
03-24-2008, 08:03 PM
I voted for points. The rules are the rules and some of what was written was over the line. A different choice of words and the post would not warrant any moderation.

I think posters are missing the idea of the mods having to abide by the rules and the mods are missing the idea that the posters find the rules a bit vague.

Sometimes, the community can police itself just fine without a higher power stepping in. Other times, like Saturday afternoon I imagine, the higher powers need to step in.

Guys, you just have to learn to be constructive with this obsession we all have with Duke Basketball. This is all just entertainment. I didn't come here on purpose after the loss on Saturday because I know that I wouldn't have too many great things to say. After I had regained some composure and cleaned my entire kitchen and prepared one of my gardens and did some laundry and....you get the point....I then decided to see what others were saying at my local cyber hangout. Unfortunately, a bar fight had broken out and the bar was closed.

No codes. Blech. Good riddance.

TillyGalore
03-24-2008, 08:08 PM
I'm on the fence with this, thus haven't voted as of this writing.

The comments are destructive, giving up on Paulus and Zoubek is just uncalled for. He/She could have said the same thing in a more constructive way, or at the very least less flammable.

The comment about Wojo was WAY WAY out of line. As Colchar noted, it was veiled racism. Wojo may not be able to coach the big guys, but it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or where he grew up.

As others have noted if this was a pattern then definitely ban BD. If this was the first time BD had made such comments editing or removing the post, giving points and a reminder of board decorum is warranted.

I realize the mods don't want to write to everyone they yank posts on, which I disagree with though respect their time, this is a post that definitely should have caused a mod to write BD and explain why their post was removed.

Jumbo, thank you for starting this thread and letting us have this debate.

colchar
03-24-2008, 08:10 PM
The comment about Wojo was WAY WAY out of line. As Colchar noted, it was veiled racism. Wojo may not be able to coach the big guys, but it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or where he grew up.

As others have noted if this was a pattern then definitely ban BD. If this was the first time BD had made such comments editing or removing the post, giving points and a reminder of board decorum is warranted.


I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

TillyGalore
03-24-2008, 08:18 PM
I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

Good point.

Okay, I vote ban.

Doctor Joe
03-24-2008, 08:20 PM
While I've been a reader of this board for years, I only have made a few comments. So maybe I don't have the "resume" to vote or comment. But anyway.... that gentleman is certainly pretty ignorant and seems to me to be trying to incite controversy. I'd say points and a firm warning. The Wojo "white suburban" comment was totally out of line. Yes, Wojo did attend a catholic prep school in Baltimore, but the poster obviously was ignorant of Wojo's blue-collar upbringing as the son of a Baltimore longshoreman. Schools like Cardinal Gibbons do offer financial aid. And why even mention his race??? More ignorance with the Zoubek comment. Big men often take time to develop, and it doesn't help that he's had the injuries and resultant setbacks. I could go on, but anyway.....

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-24-2008, 08:30 PM
I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

Huh, I had a very different reaction to the race issue. The point, as I read it, is that Duke's reputation as a preppy, elite school is perceived as "white" and unwelcoming to African-American players, particularly players who are poorer and more attuned to Af-Am youth culture.

This caricature is obviously complete bunk, but if you don't think it's out there then you aren't paying attention to the general sports' world's view of Duke. Given this fact, it might be argued that Wojo is a lighting rod himself for the "scrappy white hero" stereotype that sticks in the craw of many Af-Am commentators (Cf Mike Freeman's argument (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/841337,couchtalk031308.article) that "America loves a tough white guy. The media loves Tough Whiteness, too. Never mind that college basketball is full of blue collar intense African-American players with more desire than ability. . .").

We all know that Duke has a proud history of welcoming any player of any background (and some not-so proud moments that C.B. Claiborne could tell us about), but race is a major part of the discussion about any sport. I've seen and joined in some heated debates about K requiring guys like Lance to cut off their dreadlocks, about "scrappy" white guys playing in favor of scrappy Af-Am guys, and a host of other topics and I've generally learned a lot from those conversations. I'd hate to sanitize our conversations such that any reference to race in any context is not permitted. Anything that smacks of racism or race-baiting is, of course, not at all welcome. But I hope race itself will not be off-limits.

HK Dukie
03-24-2008, 08:33 PM
Close call for me because personally the vast majority of the post was within the bounds, even if I disagreed with much of it. Personally, I would be more condemning of short posts that say "XYZ sucks" vs posts like this that explain rationale for an opinion. The post was also balanced with some positives and negatives.

The Zoubek comments were out of bounds though (not to mention wrong). Thus I was swayed to a minor infraction.

As an aside, perhaps we could have points infractions listed under the name of the poster temporarily instead of "Bench Warmer", " In the Rotation" etc. Best to shame them into respecting the rules than ban a poster who actually does like Duke basketball.

cspan37421
03-24-2008, 08:41 PM
IMO the post is clearly destructively negative based on the rules. The "white" comment was totally unnecessary, irrelevant, and racist.

ForeverBlowingBubbles
03-24-2008, 08:50 PM
I think that the guidelines for "Destructive Negativity" are not very helpful and don't provide posters a good enough view of what is and is not acceptable. They say "destructive negativity" is anything that isn't "constructive criticism". That's like saying reckless driving is anything that isn't careful driving. It begs a question, which inherently leaves an ambiguity. The examples given are not very helpful because, as we can all imagine, there are too many possible posts to be encompassed by one "good" example and one "bad" example.

With that said, a look at the three statements.

1. Paulus--Boston Dukie's post states an opinion. Yes, it's negative. Is it destructive? I don't know because the definition is so vague. You could certainly argue that it's constructive criticism. BD might truly believe that it's constructive for the Duke team to place Paulus on the bench. This especially comes to light in how he later discusses the value Paulus could bring the team from the bench. No infraction for this.

2. Zoubek--This is negativity without much to back it up. The context that existed in the Paulus point isn't there in the Zoubek critique, IMO. It's also unfair to a player who needs some time to grow given his injuries. But, again, this could be viewed as constructive to team (see above). Mild infraction might be warranted.

3. Wojo--Again, could be constructive to the team as a whole. The "suburban" comment is bizarre and unnecessary, as is the last point about nobody else taking the job. Mild infraction might be warranted.

I think the problem is the vagueness of the guidelines. All three of these points do have constructive value and as such might not satisfy the definition of "destructively negative".

agree with this one.

allenmurray
03-24-2008, 08:59 PM
Ban. The comments about Wojo are racist. They are not "veiled racism" as some have suggested, they are simply racist. It is no different than if he had said, "how is an inner city black guy like Dawkins ever going to coach a player like JJ - a white kid from the suburbs. I find the "destructively negative" criticsm far less offensive than the blatant racism.

Lavabe
03-24-2008, 09:16 PM
I think the racism calls for an immediate ban regardless of the rest of the post.

The question then remains....

temporary ban or permanent ban?

Although I voted permanent, what kind of temporary ban were you suggesting earlier? 6 months? 1yr?

Cheers,
Lavabe

brevity
03-24-2008, 09:37 PM
Please read this (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=124784&postcount=79)post. In particular, scroll down to the parts about Zoubek, Paulus, McClure and Wojo. Feel free to read the subsequent back and forth. People have raised some issues about moderation. So, based on the forum guidelines (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3350), how would you handle the situation?

Should Boston Dukie be banned permanently, be given a citation worth points that would enable him to keep posting or not be reprimanded at all? Please vote in the poll, and then please explain your answer.

Edit: These are the comments I'd like you to read:

1) "To solve, they need to give up on Paulus. He is going to be a senior and he is never going to take the team anywhere."

2) "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD."

3) "Well, why is Wojo (a 5-9, white, suburban, PG) our big man coach? If you were Patterson, Monroe or any other good big man, would you come play for Wojo? Be honest with yourself. Could't they get anyone else to take the job?"

And this is the section from the DBR Posting Guidelines:

"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."



Also, as a bonus question, what does such a post add to the community here? Let's hear what you have to say.

I know I'm relatively new here, and therefore irrelevant, but this whole thread feels like a charade. The constant calls to readers to stop shading these comments with their personal opinions and stick to the topic at hand are very illustrative. It seems as though Jumbo has already decided on Bostondukie's fate, and wants to publicize the process for added ridicule.

I could put on my lawyer hat and analyze the comments, but I can see that it's not really necessary. Looks like a ban is clearly in order, and how long or permanent that is will depend on existing rules, precedents, and the decision of the powers that be.

Bear in mind that I'm just calling it like I see it, and not intentionally trying to portray anyone in a false light. If I were in Jumbo's shoes, I would do the exact same thing. But then, I derive a certain amount of perverse pleasure in putting the process on display for that extra bit of punishment. That may not be the case with Jumbo, but it's absolutely the case with me.

glutton
03-24-2008, 09:38 PM
I think that the guidelines for "Destructive Negativity" are not very helpful and don't provide posters a good enough view of what is and is not acceptable. They say "destructive negativity" is anything that isn't "constructive criticism". That's like saying reckless driving is anything that isn't careful driving. It begs a question, which inherently leaves an ambiguity. The examples given are not very helpful because, as we can all imagine, there are too many possible posts to be encompassed by one "good" example and one "bad" example.

With that said, a look at the three statements.

1. Paulus--Boston Dukie's post states an opinion. Yes, it's negative. Is it destructive? I don't know because the definition is so vague. You could certainly argue that it's constructive criticism. BD might truly believe that it's constructive for the Duke team to place Paulus on the bench. This especially comes to light in how he later discusses the value Paulus could bring the team from the bench. No infraction for this.

2. Zoubek--This is negativity without much to back it up. The context that existed in the Paulus point isn't there in the Zoubek critique, IMO. It's also unfair to a player who needs some time to grow given his injuries. But, again, this could be viewed as constructive to team (see above). Mild infraction might be warranted.

3. Wojo--Again, could be constructive to the team as a whole. The "suburban" comment is bizarre and unnecessary, as is the last point about nobody else taking the job. Mild infraction might be warranted.

I think the problem is the vagueness of the guidelines. All three of these points do have constructive value and as such might not satisfy the definition of "destructively negative".

Very much agree with this post. At a certain point, what's constructive for the team may be negative towards an individual player; some of the comments about McRoberts from last year come to mind. I don't agree with "giving up" on Paulus or Zoubek, but I can certainly envision a situation where benching a player could prove beneficial for the team.

When I read the entire post and thread in context, I thought it warranted a less serious response than I did after reading this thread. I agree with NYC Dukie in that there's a difference between a long post that is largely thoughtful and positive, but crosses the line occasionally, than one like "Paulus sucks, throw the bum out." It shows that the person is obviously making an effort to contribute something constructive, and likely slipped up inadvertently (unless it was a repeat offender).

I also think people are overreacting to the comment about Wojo. The fact is, Duke is perceived by many as a "white school", with a lot of hated white players- Paulus, JJ, Wojo, etc.- and while it's unfortunate that that has such a negative connotation, I can see where having a "scrappy little white guy" as a big-man coach might not carry a lot of credibility with certain recruits. As unfortunate as that fact may be, I don't think that recognizing it makes a person racist.

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 09:41 PM
I know I'm relatively new here, and therefore irrelevant, but this whole thread feels like a charade. The constant calls to readers to stop shading these comments with their personal opinions and stick to the topic at hand are very illustrative. It seems as though Jumbo has already decided on Bostondukie's fate, and wants to publicize the process for added ridicule.

I could put on my lawyer hat and analyze the comments, but I can see that it's not really necessary. Looks like a ban is clearly in order, and how long or permanent that is will depend on existing rules, precedents, and the decision of the powers that be.

Bear in mind that I'm just calling it like I see it, and not intentionally trying to portray anyone in a false light. If I were in Jumbo's shoes, I would do the exact same thing. But then, I derive a certain amount of perverse pleasure in putting the process on display for that extra bit of punishment. That may not be the case with Jumbo, but it's absolutely the case with me.

Um, his fate was decided long ago. The whole point of this thread is to have a transparent conversation with the community to see how everyone else would handle it. Everyone knew that already.

brevity
03-24-2008, 09:56 PM
Um, his fate was decided long ago. The whole point of this thread is to have a transparent conversation with the community to see how everyone else would handle it. Everyone knew that already.

You can see how a present-tense transparent conversation and interactive vote would lead me to believe that the situation was pending. My apologies.

pfrduke
03-24-2008, 10:54 PM
I know I'm relatively new here, and therefore irrelevant, but this whole thread feels like a charade. The constant calls to readers to stop shading these comments with their personal opinions and stick to the topic at hand are very illustrative. It seems as though Jumbo has already decided on Bostondukie's fate, and wants to publicize the process for added ridicule.

I could put on my lawyer hat and analyze the comments, but I can see that it's not really necessary. Looks like a ban is clearly in order, and how long or permanent that is will depend on existing rules, precedents, and the decision of the powers that be.

Bear in mind that I'm just calling it like I see it, and not intentionally trying to portray anyone in a false light. If I were in Jumbo's shoes, I would do the exact same thing. But then, I derive a certain amount of perverse pleasure in putting the process on display for that extra bit of punishment. That may not be the case with Jumbo, but it's absolutely the case with me.

Bear in mind that the votes on this thread are public, and a simple click at the links on the top of the page would reveal that zero moderators voted for permanent ban and no fewer than three (including Jumbo) voted for points infraction. So yes, their mind may have been made up already, but not in the way you automatically surmise.

CameronBornAndBred
03-24-2008, 11:06 PM
Um, his fate was decided long ago. The whole point of this thread is to have a transparent conversation with the community to see how everyone else would handle it. Everyone knew that already.

I didn't know it. I didn't read his status when I read the post. I also don't think the whole point of the thread as you just stated it was it's intention. It wasn't transparent to me, anyways. What you asked, Jumbo, was this..

"Should Boston Dukie be banned permanently, be given a citation worth points that would enable him to keep posting or not be reprimanded at all? Please vote in the poll, and then please explain your answer."

To find out that "his fate was decided long ago" makes the entire thread moot, and my input/vote useless. I really wish I had looked at his status earlier; I don't see the point of bringing any issue for a vote if the vote has already been passed. That's disturbing. I was actually thanking you before for asking our opinions. I still appreciate all of the mods efforts, you have a good and fun forum here, but I question the methods sometimes.

CameronBornAndBred
03-24-2008, 11:12 PM
Bear in mind that the votes on this thread are public, and a simple click at the links on the top of the page would reveal that zero moderators voted for permanent ban and no fewer than three (including Jumbo) voted for points infraction. So yes, their mind may have been made up already, but not in the way you automatically surmise.

I still don't get it. Was the current post the cause of the ban? Or something different that was more warranting?

brevity
03-24-2008, 11:13 PM
Bear in mind that the votes on this thread are public, and a simple click at the links on the top of the page would reveal that zero moderators voted for permanent ban and no fewer than three (including Jumbo) voted for points infraction. So yes, their mind may have been made up already, but not in the way you automatically surmise.

I didn't bother with the poll because (1) "some kind of ban" wasn't an option, and (2) I doubted my opinion mattered anyway. Now that I look at the poll results, I can see that they didn't choose a permanent ban. I don't know what a "points infraction" is, and whether the temporary ban someone mentioned is even a possibility. Ultimately, I don't really care. I know nothing of the principals involved here and am not that interested to learn the inner workings and bylaws of a private forum. To me, it's kind of laws and sausages thing.

My first post was simply a comment on how this thread felt like a charade, and that a call for community participation seemed more rhetorical than anything. But I will add that this thread may have value for those members who keep needling the moderators about what constitutes bad posting behavior.

OZZIE4DUKE
03-25-2008, 12:40 AM
Major points infraction, perhaps a one week "vacation" from the board, with little tolerance for a repeat performance.

I think his opinion on Brian Zoubek is completely wrong. The man broke his foot TWICE this season and still came back to play better than he did last year by a long shot. While he may never be an AA at Duke, I think he will be a productive and valuable player - IF he can stay healthy for the next two years. No doubt he has the attitude and work ethic to improve. In the N&O Lucy Chavez article on Monday he said he was going to two (2!) big man camps this summer. There ain't no scholarships for those. He (or his parents) pays for them. The man is dedicated to getting better. He deserves the chance to prove himself when healthy.

I'm also a believer in Greg Paulus. Leadership, instinct, guts. He has everything but foot speed, and I'll bet you he will do everything humanly possible to improve that too.

colchar
03-25-2008, 12:46 AM
The question then remains....

temporary ban or permanent ban?

Although I voted permanent, what kind of temporary ban were you suggesting earlier? 6 months? 1yr?

Cheers,
Lavabe

You don't want Canadian money right now because it slipped below the US dollar last week. It might have climbed past it again but I don't remember hearing anything about that happening.

As for the temporary ban - two weeks might suffice for a first infraction. But, based on the racist comment about Wojo, I think it should be permanent.

JBDuke
03-25-2008, 01:27 AM
... I don't know what a "points infraction" is...

...which makes it clear you didn't bother to read the the "(READ ME FIRST) Board Decorum and Guidelines" thread before posting, since that thread explains infractions and points.

It is difficult for me to give any value to your opinion if you don't even bother to read the guidelines that the owners of this site have posted.

SilkyJ
03-25-2008, 02:15 AM
To quote someone else who quoted the movie "stripes" recently: Lighten up, Francis. Banning this guy is WAY, WAY out of line (to quote another recent poster)

1st off, he is venting after another loss and a 2nd consecutive season with a not so great ending (I guess going 2-3 ain't that bad, but its pretty bad) and the DBR sticky on the main board says the mods need to mindful of that.

Details:

Greg comment: Jumbo: way to do some selective copy and pasting. His sentence immediately following the one you posted on the first page offers a suggestion and dareisay is constructive. Not to mention, he praises him earlier in the post. Now his 1st sentence on giving up was harsh, but heck, I'm ready for Nolan to take over too. Greg has taken us about as far as he can, methinks. I said it nicer, which I realize is part of the point, but I don't see anything wrong with "we need to give up on paulus" which is the worst language he uses. Frankly, he might be right, time will tell...(and he didn't mean give up on him like bench him forever, he meant give up on him as our starting PG and move him to a reserve role. Thats a suggestion. Nothin wrong with making a suggestion, regardless of who agrees with it.)

Zoubek comment: harsher language for sure, and maybe this would warrant a slap on the wrist. Nothing even close to banning material, here, imo. zoubek is slow and kinda oafy...I hope he works out, but he may not...(I aint ready to "give up. period" but I am ready to move on...of course there is nothing else to move on to cause of....well thats a different thread)

Wojo comment: None of this bothered me, and is a legit point. Relatability is important in recruiting, and its fair to suggest that black post-players (often from not so affluent backgrounds) might not relate to a white PG from a more affluent background. I mean what do they have in common other than they play basketball? And then, if you can't really relate to the guy would you want that guy as your position coach? Who knows what kids think, but it would be naive of us to think that this thought doesn't cross the minds of at least SOME potential recruits...(and as sad as it may be, race is a factor and racism still exists in America and acknowledging that does not make you a racist. the fact that he realizes that a black guy might not relate to a white guy as much as he would to another black guy is not racism, veiled or otherwise. Its realism.)

Bottomline: When I look at the post as a whole and its intent (and not Jumbo's selective editing) banning is over the line, imho, and a small reprimand may have been warranted. A lot of the comments he made were quite valid, but lacked some eloquence, which I realize is part of the point. Given the circumstances (our end to the season) I would have given a pass and sent a PM as a warning. I ain't a moderator though.

Lulu
03-25-2008, 02:29 AM
I just don't see anything that would really cross a "destructively negative" line earning any kind of reprimand. I just see one person's opinion, and the wording isn't nearly as severe as I expected before reading the post.

I guess my main question would be: Destructively negative towards whom? Are we supposed to think that the players themselves could be affected by this person's opinion? Or are we concerned about the "health" of the board? Either way I do not see enough to warrant a reprimand, and it's not like these words came out of an assistant coach's or Coach K's mouth. That's giving a lot of weight to one poster's words. As for the board, and this is just my personal opinion, you'd have to be overly-sensitive if not naive (especially to internet content, though that's not the point since DBR doesn't want to be the internet) to be so aversely affected by this post that the poster should be banned. Also, unless I missed it, there were no personal attacks against other posters, just critical remarks about members of the team, and that is really what all of the conversation here is about. There was nothing flaming, obscene or trollish.
(Is the entire objection to the phrase "give up on"? If the poster had written that Paulus should ride the bench behind Smith as a starter, which seems to be what was implied, I'm guessing there would be no problem.)

I don't think the original poster would have said such things about Paulus if we didn't have Smith sitting behind him, and so I find it to be a valid opinion, even if it is indeed a sucky one. The phrase "give up on" only seems slightly harsh to me, but not a big deal all considered. I'm personally praying for some kind of turn-around or sudden development in Zoubek, but again I cannot deny that it might be a valid opinion to think he might never improve much and that it would be in the best interest of Duke as a team to find a replacement. I like Zoubek, so I hope that's not the case.

As for Wojo, I guess the main objection to the poster's comments was that he is white and from the suburbs (it has been widely debated that he is a pg with no objection). All I would say about this is that the original poster might have chosen softer words, or attempted to express the same sentiment in carefully crafted and more politically correct phrasing. I have no further comment here, except that I'm very far from offended.

The last remark I'd make is that it is clear the original poster put some thought into what he wrote. It was, after all, on the lengthy side. I can see the objection if some UNC fan ran over here just to post "You guys should give up on Paulus, he sucks... blah blah", but there was a lot more to this particular post. If it technically crossed the destructively negative line then I think the line should be technically moved just a tad. (It's a little unclear if you ask me, anyway, since saying that someone is a "complete liability" or separately an "abysmal" shooter would probably be tolerated. I understand the rule, and how a line might have been crossed here on a technicality, but it was really far from what I think should be "called".)

ForeverBlowingBubbles
03-25-2008, 03:55 AM
Here goes:

I don't know if you can contrive that BostonDukie is racist because of his comment...

He described wojo as being 5-9 (or just short, which he is), PG (which he was - therefore is his specialty), from the suburbs (guessing so), and white (this is indeed true).

So I'm assuming all of this is true.

So:

If your a big man, you might find it confusing and a bit hard to be sold on how a point guard will help you develop.

You might find it especially hard to see how a shorter PG who might not have backed anyone down in his career is going to help you with your post game.

The next two points are a little trickier.

Would you be offended if he would have left the suburb adjective in there and not the "white" adjective?

In both cases he is simply stereotyping to describe Wojo as being perceived as "soft". Larry Bird used to get offended when white players would guard him because he thought they were soft - and obviously not as good. Like it or not its a little stereotype that exists.

Suburban kids are more likely to be judged as soft then someone who came from the street - again another stereotype. Just because BostonDukie might not know what Wojo is made of doesn't mean he should necessarily get a ban.

If you had the privilege to go to diverse public school, you would probably recognize that persons of the same ethnicity enjoy being around people of the other ethnicity. People are even known to go to schools to be educated among others of the same ethnicity (see NC A&T among others). I know theres more to it than that but I'm trying not to get too civil.

One could argue that the fact Wojo is white could draw away some black recruits (If you notice, at others schools a majority of the basketball players are black; if you also notice our last 3 big men recruits we've missed on have been black). Not saying this is the case - but it is an argument however weak.

Just because you throw the word black or white in a sentence does not necessarily make it racist. If you think of those factors then read the users statement again - it might not be as offensive. It depends on how sensitive you are and how cultured you might be.

I have just tried to offer a different perspective on the situation and maybe add to some discussion. I have no problem with Wojo as the big guy mentor. That being said if he meant anywhere near the above he should have worded what he said a lot differently. I understand in some cases we come here and post off the top of our heads and don't leave ourselves enough time to think because we have stuff going on...

And now with that being said - his comments about Big Z were completely uncalled for.

rickshack
03-25-2008, 05:51 AM
I am amazed at the parsing going on.
The poster was out of control,impolite and abusive as well as racist.
He should be banned,and for a very long time.

BoC
03-25-2008, 06:55 AM
I voted no reprimand, but plenty of others have given my reason, just better than I could.

I want to address one point, however.

I think that Boston Dukie being labeled a racist is outrageous. Maybe what he said could have been said a different way, but when I think of racist behaviour, I think of several members of Dukes own faculty (think of the recent lacrosse rape hoax), I think of members of the New Black Panther Party during the same affair, I think of the KKK, etc...

Those people/organizations are racist. Are some of you really putting Boston Dukie on the same level?

Look at it this way; if you and BD had the same conversation (what he/she said in the other post), in a public place, would you call him/her a racist? I certainly hope not.

(As I write this I see Boston Dukie has already been banned; I'm still going to post this anyway. Seriously, drop the racist angle.)

Lord Ash
03-25-2008, 07:08 AM
I voted no reprimand. I disagree with him, but I don't think it was so bad. The Greg comment was dumb, but not offensive. The Brian comment... well, after two years of watching Brian, if someone thinks that he isn't a good basketball player, I think they should be able to say so.The comment about Wojo in particular I don't find too offensive; it is clearly an important point, and not every point about race and recruiting is offensive, although for some reason some people seem to have a kneejerk reaction to it. And there is a point, although not articulated, that is fairly clear; people do sometimes look for someone like themselves. Look at the many African American coaches in the league, and the racial composition of the teams they recruit. Heck, look at the "Black Bench" on our own West Campus. I took the Wojo comment to mean simply that as a guard Wojo isn't necessarily a draw for bigs, as a SHORT guard he isn't necessarily a draw for bigs, and being white and suburban he doesn't have a "common identity/culture" on which to draw and thus create a bond with a player... and these all hurt our ability to get a big.

whereinthehellami
03-25-2008, 07:30 AM
I thought he had a lot of good points but sounds somewhat frustrated. I think his tone was a little harsh regarding giving up on the players. I guess to me it would really come down to his posting history.

_Gary
03-25-2008, 08:12 AM
I voted for a reprimand, not so much because I think he said things that were way over the top destructive, but based on the way the rules read right now. And that's the deal. The rules are written in such a way that they don't give quite as much leeway as I would personally give for dissenting comments. But since they are written the way they are, I had to vote for a reprimand. And the guy was a little over the top with his comments about "Z" in particular. I don't think it's cool to roast the kid like he did. But it didn't deserve a ban. Heck, I got a warning this weekend and my first "points" ever and I honestly didn't think what I wrote was anywhere close to deserving any reprimand or points. So I do think the entire rules system could use a little more analysis. Then again, whether anyone wants to admit it or not the mods are only human and sometimes when things get as heated as they did Saturday everyone is going to be on edge and posts are going to judged even more harshly than usual. And I can understand that. But in this case I would not have banned the person in question just based on that post alone. A warning would have been sufficient, and even then only because of the way the rules were written. I actually prefer when the board moderates itself. I'm sure a number of people would have busted this guys chops (as it concerned "Z", Paulus, and other comments) if given the chance to respond. Sometimes that's the best way to deal with things of this nature, IMHO.


Gary

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 08:32 AM
I don't know what a "points infraction" is, and whether the temporary ban someone mentioned is even a possibility.

If you don't know what a points infraction is, that reveals a large part of the problem. People, every single one of you needs to read the guidelines before posting here. It's hard enough to enforce rules around here anyway; when the posters don't even know what the rules are, it's that much harder. Read them. Please.

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 08:39 AM
Just a note -- the poster was not "banned" for that post. He received points. Unfortunately, he received points for another post. Those added up to a 48-hour ban.

_Gary
03-25-2008, 08:52 AM
Just a note -- the poster was not "banned" for that post. He received points. Unfortunately, he received points for another post. Those added up to a 48-hour ban.

Oh. Thanks for that info, Jumbo. I sincerely thought the guy was banned just for that one post alone.

rthomas
03-25-2008, 08:54 AM
Boston Devil's post exposes his stupidity. (Can I get banned for saying that?) Why would anyone post what he did 48 hours after our last game? It's inane.

Karl Beem
03-25-2008, 08:56 AM
Boston Devil's post exposes his stupidity. (Can I get banned for saying that?) Why would anyone post what he did 48 hours after our last game? It's inane.

I agree. Points.

duke.kahanamoku
03-25-2008, 09:11 AM
If you want to talk about destructively negative comments, I would say accusing a person posting on the site of racism based on comments such as those in the Boston Dukie post in question itself crosses the line and warrants reprimand.

One does not toss around serious accusations such as racism simply to impugn a poster with an opposite opinion in the court of public opinion. Just because you are on a bulletin board posting anonymously (sort of) against another person who is also posting anonymously does not mean its ok to make such accusations. If we were all debating this post about Wojo/ Zoubek/ Paulus/ etc in open air on campus nobody would say something like this because we all know its not true, not fair, not right.

Enough

devildownunder
03-25-2008, 09:14 AM
First, I seriously gotta hand it to you, Jumbo, for posting this poll and thread. You have really been going the extra mile of late to make this place a better forum -- not that it isn't a great place already -- and I respect you for that. Fantastic job.

I voted that bostondukie should get a points infraction. He definitely brought something to the table, in termsof explaining why he feels the way he does and I think the points he makes in the post are provocative, no matter how they are presented, though they could have been worded more nicely.

I was tempted to say that he should just get a warning, with (and this is important) a clear explanation of exactly why he got. But thinking about it, I think a points infraction is more appropriate. Something with some real consequence. Primarily because of the "xxx stinks" remark and the comments about wojo's ethnicity and all that they imply. Those types of points need to be handled with more care.

Kfanarmy
03-25-2008, 09:20 AM
Giving up on Paulus is an unnecessary swipe at a player who has dedicated 3 years a lot of sweat and personal emotion to the Duke team.

The comment on zoubek is just an attack...both are also simply wrong headed, Paulus assist to turnover ratio doesn't support the argument and Zoubek may be a killer down low at the end of a healthy season.

Points are appropriate, I just don't think they rise to the level of warranting a ban

rockymtn devil
03-25-2008, 09:49 AM
If you don't know what a points infraction is, that reveals a large part of the problem. People, every single one of you needs to read the guidelines before posting here. It's hard enough to enforce rules around here anyway; when the posters don't even know what the rules are, it's that much harder. Read them. Please.

I agree with this, and I think most people who voted in this poll and/or commented did educate themselves on the wording of the guidelines. I went back and-re-read the definitions, especially of "destructively negative" before commenting.

But, as I stated in my original post in this thread, I don't find that definition very helpful. Defining something as what it's not doesn't really help. In the context of a basketball team, "destructively negative" being not "constructive criticism" is even more difficult because the sum of the parts is a team. Someone therefore can be constructive of the team while being not constructive to an individual player.

Example:
1. "Duke would likely perform better if they would improve their free throw shooting. It's becoming a a serious problem at the end of games".

2 "Duke would likely perform better if player X, who's a liability from the line, would see less playing time. He's becoming a serious problem at the end of games"

Both of these are constructive to the team, but the second could (and, my take from this thread, would) be seen as "destructively negative".

Is it possible for the mods to provide a more workable definition that is based on their interpretation of the vague guidelines as applied in making decisions on potential punishment?

Duke4Ever32
03-25-2008, 09:57 AM
I understand the site owners' preferences, and of course that controls here. That being said, personally I don't see why we can't handle discussion of the type that would be generated by the post under discussion here. I happen to agree with most of the sentiments expressed in the post - though I would never post something like that here myself. The world isn't all rainbows and sunshine - let's not pretend it is.

bjornolf
03-25-2008, 10:03 AM
...but I'm not really comfortable with the idea of everyone just voting on and discussing this like it was any old thread on the board, especially since the subject of said thread is currently banned (especially with accusations of racism flying around). If someone wanted to make up similar comments and hold a discussion about a fictitious or anonymous poster, that would be one thing. This just feels to much like a trial without the accused even being present, let alone represented.

It seems to me that this entire thread breaks the guidelines of the board, even though the moderator is the one who brought it up: "Infractions imposed by moderators are final and not subject to debate on the public boards." The "letter of the law" is pretty clear on that. I'm sure that Jumbo's motives were pure, and I think a debate and discussion about the rules as an exercise to further understanding is a great idea, but again, I think it should be done in the hypothetical with made-up comments and a non-existent poster. Laying it bare like this seems to bring up other issues, including the OP not being present to defend him/herself. It feels to much like a trial in the court of public opinion, so to speak.

Also, I have a general question about moderators. How many are there? Is there a list of them somewhere with their qualifications? What are their exact powers and responsibilities? How are they chosen? Do they have rules and overseers, or are they autonomous?

I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with moderators being able to single-handedly hand down suspensions or bans. I think that should either be brought to our illustrious leaders, or multiple moderators need to agree to impose a ban or assign enough points to result in a ban. I'm sure that the moderators are good people who take their job seriously, but it seems like a lot of responsibility and a possible source of temptation to abuse power.

Just my $0.01. Just give me a moment to get on my flame retardant suit and zip it up... there we go. Flame away. ;)

EarlJam
03-25-2008, 10:19 AM
If you want to talk about destructively negative comments, I would say accusing a person posting on the site of racism based on comments such as those in the Boston Dukie post in question itself crosses the line and warrants reprimand.

One does not toss around serious accusations such as racism simply to impugn a poster with an opposite opinion in the court of public opinion. Just because you are on a bulletin board posting anonymously (sort of) against another person who is also posting anonymously does not mean its ok to make such accusations. If we were all debating this post about Wojo/ Zoubek/ Paulus/ etc in open air on campus nobody would say something like this because we all know its not true, not fair, not right.

Enough


I rather agree with this post.

Boston Dukie's comments may have been a bit out of line, but they were certainly not racist. That is a seriously damning accusation to make towards someone.

That said, I would probably change my vote to "points," (if the moderators could make that change I would be grateful).

But I don't believe he/she said anything worthy of a permanent ban at all.

-EarlJam

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 10:38 AM
Also, I have a general question about moderators. How many are there? Is there a list of them somewhere with their qualifications? What are their exact powers and responsibilities? How are they chosen? Do they have rules and overseers, or are they autonomous?



The moderators are listed on the bottom right corner of the board. We all answer to Boswell and Julio and any serious infraction is discussed at length (which is pretty amazing, considering we are all super-busy people with real jobs, real lives and limited time).

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 10:39 AM
I rather agree with this post.

Boston Dukie's comments may have been a bit out of line, but they were certainly not racist. That is a seriously damning accusation to make towards someone.

That said, I would probably change my vote to "points," (if the moderators could make that change I would be grateful).

But I don't believe he/she said anything worthy of a permanent ban at all.

-EarlJam

I can change the vote total, but you'll still be listed under "no infraction" or whatever the last category was called.

colchar
03-25-2008, 10:51 AM
(which is pretty amazing, considering we are all super-busy people with real jobs, real lives and limited time).

I call BS on this as I think several of us have proven, time and time again, that we can't possibly have real lives. Not with the amount of time we spend posting here. Simply can't happen - we'd have to clone ourselves.

SilkyJ
03-25-2008, 11:01 AM
I am amazed at the parsing going on.
The poster was out of control,impolite and abusive as well as racist.
He should be banned,and for a very long time.

Rick speaks and the world listens.

At least we are providing rationales for our opinions. You shouldn't go making definitive statements like that. While I'm at it...


I rather agree with this post.

Boston Dukie's comments may have been a bit out of line, but they were certainly not racist. That is a seriously damning accusation to make towards someone.

-EarlJam

I agree with the JamMan. Calling someone a racist is attacking another poster and I saw no racism in Beantown Dukie's comments. Labeling him a racist is destructively negative, imo.

Lavabe
03-25-2008, 11:02 AM
The moderators are listed on the bottom right corner of the board. We all answer to Boswell and Julio and any serious infraction is discussed at length (which is pretty amazing, considering we are all super-busy people with real jobs, real lives and limited time).

Am I correct in assuming that multiple instances of infractions in the same post yield infraction points for EACH instance? In other words, if you find three instances of destructively negative, does the poster get 3 times the destructively negative points, or does it count as only one occurrence, as it is from the same post. I couldn't tell from the original sticky.

Thanks,
Lavabe

77devil
03-25-2008, 11:15 AM
I read the the post twice before commenting. In the context of the tone of the overall post, which was fine imo, I think the statements Jumbo cited did not represent ad hominen attacks and were borderline acceptable. They might not even warrant points the first time, but a PM warning and guidance instead.

I appreciate Jumbo putting it out for comment and calibration given the recent circumstances.

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 11:30 AM
First, thanks to everyone who posted in this thread. It was a useful exercise, to say the least.

I have to admit that I had dual purposes in starting the thread. I wanted to engage the community in a discussion and get people to start thinking. But it was also somewhat of a test.

See, Boston Dukie's comments about Paulus, and especially about Zoubek, were the textbook definition of "Destructively Negative." In the Guidelines, an example of "Destructively Negative" is given as "Player X is abysmal, a complete liability, and couldn’t rebound if he was the only player on the court." The comments about Zoubek are essentially the same thing, written a little differently. Every moderator who looked at the post agreed immediately. This isn't even debateable -- it is EXACTLY the kind of comment Julio and Boswell do not want on their bulletin board.

What a lot of people have missed is that the rest of the post doesn't matter. Boston Dukie could've written a Shakespearean sonnet that broke down the intricacies of every aspect of Duke basketball better than K himself. As soon as he says "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD." it becomes Destructively Negative. Period.

The fact that some of you found his other points to be interesting, thought-provoking or correct only strengthens what we are saying: You need to be able to make your points in a reasonable manner. There were 500 different ways Boston Dukie could have expressed his opinions about Zoubek and Paulus. I'll give you an example for each that would have been acceptable: For Zoubek: "I am concerned about Zoubek's development at this point, given the trouble he has had staying healthy, his tendency to travel and his struggle to finish around the hoop. I don't think we can take improvement for granted, and without improvement, I would rather go in a smaller, more athletic direction."

For Paulus: "My concern about Greg Paulus is that his weaknesses are tough to improve (lateral defensive quickness especially) with just one year left. I'm interested in upside, and would rather give Nolan Smith a shot and let Greg bring his shooting off the bench."

Both are reasonable, conveying constructive criticism. They make all the important points without destroying anyone. You have to be able to understand the difference, as it is one of the key aspects of this board. The Wojo situation is more complicated, and I regret including it. Let's try to ignore it for the time being.

The other incredibly disturbing thing I discovered in this thread is how many posters clearly have never read the posting guidelines. In fact, originally, I didn't have the guidelines linked, and only linked the post in question without copying and pasting the troublesome parts. People responded WAY too quickly to have read the guidelines. Later in the discussion, various posters responded in ways that clearly indicated an ignorance of the guidelines. That is unacceptable, and it reveals a lot. If you can't take the time to read the explanation of what the site owners expect of this community, how can you even pretend to be part of said community? Guys and gals, you have to read the guidelines before posting. You have to.

Apparently, we also have to be a bit more clear in some of our explanations. I'm actually considering using the Zoubek comment as the new example for destructively negative (with his name removed). We'll work on that. But if you answered "no reprimand" in this poll, you need to take a major step back, read the rules, and decide whether you want to be part of this community. The rules are what they are, and I can assure you that Julio and Boswell are not going to change them -- particularly in regard to destructively negative comments. It's up to you to adjust.

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 11:35 AM
Am I correct in assuming that multiple instances of infractions in the same post yield infraction points for EACH instance? In other words, if you find three instances of destructively negative, does the poster get 3 times the destructively negative points, or does it count as only one occurrence, as it is from the same post. I couldn't tell from the original sticky.

Thanks,
Lavabe

No. Infractions are generally handed out on a per-post basis. (I say generally in that I suppose a post could receive infractions for, say, both "lack of civility" and "destructively negative." But in this case, Boston Dukie received three points for "destructively negative," despite multiple comments to that effect.

BlueDevilJay
03-25-2008, 12:34 PM
My personal opinion is that it would be ridiculous to permanently ban this poster for the remarks that were pointed out. Would it have been any better had he said it constructively like:

"Paulus would be a great leader in something, just not the Duke men's basketball team"

"Zoubek will be good at something someday, just not as center for the Duke men's basketball team"

"Wojo will be a great coach at some position someday, just not as the big men coach for the Duke men's basketball team"

I find it pretty ridiculous that the guy might even get a temporary ban, muchless a permanent one. I realize guidelines are guidelines and are to be followed, but they are also to be interpreted by each mod I would assume. Just my .02 worth, but I voted for No Reprimand.

(Edit: I didn't realize the issue had already been laid to rest when I posted, but anyways....)

The Gordog
03-25-2008, 12:43 PM
Please read this (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=124784&postcount=79)post. In particular, scroll down to the parts about Zoubek, Paulus, McClure and Wojo. Feel free to read the subsequent back and forth. People have raised some issues about moderation. So, based on the forum guidelines (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3350), how would you handle the situation?

Should Boston Dukie be banned permanently, be given a citation worth points that would enable him to keep posting or not be reprimanded at all? Please vote in the poll, and then please explain your answer.

Edit: These are the comments I'd like you to read:

1) "To solve, they need to give up on Paulus. He is going to be a senior and he is never going to take the team anywhere."

2) "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD."

3) "Well, why is Wojo (a 5-9, white, suburban, PG) our big man coach? If you were Patterson, Monroe or any other good big man, would you come play for Wojo? Be honest with yourself. Could't they get anyone else to take the job?"

And this is the section from the DBR Posting Guidelines:

"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."



Also, as a bonus question, what does such a post add to the community here? Let's hear what you have to say.
I have no problem with the post. it did not insult anyone and went out of the way to commend Paulus for his efforts. It was a little harsh on Zoubek, and I don't agree with his conclusions, but so what?

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 01:15 PM
I have no problem with the post. it did not insult anyone and went out of the way to commend Paulus for his efforts. It was a little harsh on Zoubek, and I don't agree with his conclusions, but so what?
READ. THE. GUIDELINES!
If you were talking to Brian Zoubek, would you say, "You will never be good. Period." No. You wouldn't. The example given time and again here is that if something is too harsh to say to a player's/coach's/family member's face, it does't belong here. It is the very definition of destructively negative as outlined by Boswell and Julio. Maybe you don't have a problem with those types of posts, but they do. That needs to become crystal clear for anyone who wants to post on this board.

glutton
03-25-2008, 01:24 PM
READ. THE. GUIDELINES!
The example given time and again here is that if something is too harsh to say to a player's/coach's/family member's face, it does't belong here.

Well, to be fair, that's not a helpful guideline for some of us. Faced with a Duke basketball player, I'm unlikely to say anything harsher than "oh my god, I'm like, totally your biggest fan" and possibly ask for a picture. I get the point of the analogy, but a lot of us would never, ever, tell Demarcus to his face that he should work on his free throw shooting, for example.

dw0827
03-25-2008, 01:24 PM
I don't think there is much more to be said here.

Jumbo, you have done a fine service to the community by demonstrating what the owners of the site are, and aren't, willing to tolerate. I applaud your effort.

Some people, however, don't agree. That's fine. That is certainly their right. But they've been warned.

So no more talk. Mods, do your thing. Its a thankless job and I sure as heck wouldn't want to do it.

The horse is dead.

ForeverBlowingBubbles
03-25-2008, 01:48 PM
There will always be a generation gap on this board as well as an intelligence gap. Interpretation of the rules is an important discussion that happens every day in our own judicial system about things that actually matter. Some of us read the guidelines and don't really take the time to memorize them.

Maybe you should do what Ebay does and develop a quiz for people that commit infractions?

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Well, to be fair, that's not a helpful guideline for some of us. Faced with a Duke basketball player, I'm unlikely to say anything harsher than "oh my god, I'm like, totally your biggest fan" and possibly ask for a picture. I get the point of the analogy, but a lot of us would never, ever, tell Demarcus to his face that he should work on his free throw shooting, for example.

Well, that's a good point. Some of us have either known players well enough or been around them enough to say, "what's up with your jumper? Are your legs tired?" Or, "Hey, I hope you get quicker and improve your D this summer -- it would be great to see you play more next season."

But no one would ever say "You will never be good. Period."

That's really the larger point. As J&B also like to say (and Stray Gator often adds), just assume that if you're posting about Brian Zoubek, one of the following people is reading:
1) Brian Zoubek
2) Brian Zoubek's relative
3) Brian Zoubek's high school coach
4) A recruit who could be in Zoubek's shoes

Then adjust your criticism accordingly. Again, there is nothing wrong with critical analysis. It just needs to be respectful, constructive and within the guidelines. Always err on the side of being nice -- it took me a while to learn that, too,

EarlJam
03-25-2008, 01:57 PM
Well, to be fair, that's not a helpful guideline for some of us. Faced with a Duke basketball player, I'm unlikely to say anything harsher than "oh my god, I'm like, totally your biggest fan" and possibly ask for a picture. I get the point of the analogy, but a lot of us would never, ever, tell Demarcus to his face that he should work on his free throw shooting, for example.
This is what I suspect would happen if I kindly told Zoubek that he could play stronger and needs to really develop a mean streak:

Starring Jim Everett as Brian Zoubek and Jim Rome as EarlJam....

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8

In short, I'd probably get my arse kicked.

Now, before you say, "That's the whole point," I'd still disagree. There needs to be a forum where one can criticize (in the right way) without fear of being physically harmed or even killed by the target. That's just the way the world works.

Not to say constructive criticism isn't allowed here. It is. I'm just saying that I agree that the particular guideline in question should be reworded a bit to be more realistic.

-EarlJam

SilkyJ
03-25-2008, 02:06 PM
Well, that's a good point. Some of us have either known players well enough or been around them enough to say, "what's up with your jumper? Are your legs tired?" Or, "Hey, I hope you get quicker and improve your D this summer -- it would be great to see you play more next season."


But no one would ever say "You will never be good. Period."


Boateng was running his mouth one night and I said something pretty close to the above. And I was right.

kexman
03-25-2008, 04:29 PM
If they had only written the lines in question as a two line post I think you could give them an infraction. The fact that it was a few lines in a large post makes it unworthy of an infraction.

brevity
03-25-2008, 04:59 PM
...which makes it clear you didn't bother to read the the "(READ ME FIRST) Board Decorum and Guidelines" thread before posting, since that thread explains infractions and points.

It is difficult for me to give any value to your opinion if you don't even bother to read the guidelines that the owners of this site have posted.



If you don't know what a points infraction is, that reveals a large part of the problem. People, every single one of you needs to read the guidelines before posting here. It's hard enough to enforce rules around here anyway; when the posters don't even know what the rules are, it's that much harder. Read them. Please.

To be nice and fair, I've now read the guidelines. They're well-constructed and easy to follow.

But I feel I already had my bases covered by exhibiting the kind of behavior typical of forums: being civil and not plagiarizing the texts of others. That's the general goal, right? Most of the people who post here don't concern themselves with the boundaries of propriety because they write, and live, well within them.

BD80
03-25-2008, 06:48 PM
Please read this (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=124784&postcount=79)post. In particular, scroll down to the parts about Zoubek, Paulus, McClure and Wojo. Feel free to read the subsequent back and forth. People have raised some issues about moderation.
...

1) "To solve, they need to give up on Paulus. He is going to be a senior and he is never going to take the team anywhere."

2) "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD."

3) "Well, why is Wojo (a 5-9, white, suburban, PG) our big man coach? If you were Patterson, Monroe or any other good big man, would you come play for Wojo? Be honest with yourself. Couldn't they get anyone else to take the job?"
...

Also, as a bonus question, what does such a post add to the community here? Let's hear what you have to say.

As one who has suffered a "timeout" (for a greatly misunderstood post - I swear!) and a penalty and a warning, I believe that a ban was/is appropriate.

First rule: we are guests here and our hosts expect/require a certain standard of conduct. If anyone doesn't like it, find another forum to air one's opinions. I think the post was clearly critical of multiple players and destructively so. While I agree with J&B that the board is better without such comments, my opinion doesn't matter. Jumbo asked our opinion as to whether the post violated the published guidelines and I say clearly yes.

The better question in my mind, the one overlooked by so many posters, is WHY? As Jumbo phrased it, what did the post add to the community? I don't see any benefit to the post. I feel lessened by having read it.

Last, and I think most important, is the tone of the post. Why come to a Duke fan bulletin board and say the players aren't any good? Any fan of the team, will have at least one favored player. How would it feel to have your favorite player criticized in that manner? The post seems to be intentionally tweaking fans of some of our players. Why do that to someone else? I truly do not understand the mentality of posting such critical comments.

All that said, I don't think the ban should be a long one unless there is a long history of the poster ignoring the guidelines. This is a Duke community, and we should welcome those who love Duke basketball rather than exclude them. Besides, in my old age, I have grown to oppose capital punishment. ;)

trickshot
03-25-2008, 07:12 PM
I often read the post but for what it's worth, this is like my third post. That being said, here's my 2 cents.

If moderators need to ask if a person needs to be banned, then they don't feel comfortable doing so themselves.

If that's the case, then he shouldn't be banned.

EarlJam
03-25-2008, 07:25 PM
I often read the post but for what it's worth, this is like my third post. That being said, here's my 2 cents.

If moderators need to ask if a person needs to be banned, then they don't feel comfortable doing so themselves.

If that's the case, then he shouldn't be banned.

Snap.

That's a pretty dog gone good observation (seriously).

-EarlJam

Karl Beem
03-25-2008, 07:30 PM
Snap.

That's a pretty dog gone good observation (seriously).

-EarlJam

I believe he was already punished. They're asking if we concur.

loran16
03-25-2008, 08:52 PM
What a lot of people have missed is that the rest of the post doesn't matter. Boston Dukie could've written a Shakespearean sonnet that broke down the intricacies of every aspect of Duke basketball better than K himself. As soon as he says "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD." it becomes Destructively Negative. Period.

I must disagree.

The biggest question when modding the board should be the following:

"Can the following post in any way benefit the community, and did the poster make it with the intent to add useful discussion."

In this case, I think it's clear the answer is yes. In fact, many posters here agree that 2 of the 3 most offensive comments aren't truly that bad, and slightly rephrased wouldn't even be noticed.

So what does this tell me? It tells me that the person in question is someone who may be a source of useful discussion in the future, but has either not understood the proper context in which to make some of his statements (or whether to make them at all) or in the heat of the moment has forgotten about them.

So I hope that the poster is at most tempbanned this time around, because imo 3 points is all he should've been given for this post. He clearly makes the attempt to contribute useful discussion, but makes a couple of unfortunate statements.

JBDuke
03-25-2008, 08:56 PM
I believe he was already punished. They're asking if we concur.

Actually, no. We're posting an example of something that was clearly "destructive negative" in our unanimous judgement in order to help educate the posters on this board about the guidelines for what is and is not acceptable post content. Nothing about this thread impacted the citation Boston received, nor will it change the guidelines as laid down by Julio and Boswell.

JBDuke
03-25-2008, 09:05 PM
...
What a lot of people have missed is that the rest of the post doesn't matter. Boston Dukie could've written a Shakespearean sonnet that broke down the intricacies of every aspect of Duke basketball better than K himself. As soon as he says "Give up on Zoubek. HE WILL NEVER BE GOOD. PERIOD." it becomes Destructively Negative. Period.
...


I must disagree.
...
So I hope that the poster is at most tempbanned this time around, because imo 3 points is all he should've been given for this post. He clearly makes the attempt to contribute useful discussion, but makes a couple of unfortunate statements.

Apparently, you need to go back and read the guidelines and Jumbo's post again, because it appears to me that you first DISAGREE with Jumbo that the post is "destructive negative", but then you state that in your opinion, "3 points is all he should've been given for this post", which is EXACTLY the penalty for a citation of "destructively negative". Boston was so cited, incurred the 3-point penalty, which combined with a couple of points he had for an earlier citation to result in a two-day posting ban.

-jk
03-25-2008, 09:26 PM
I must disagree.

The biggest question when modding the board should be the following:

"Can the following post in any way benefit the community, and did the poster make it with the intent to add useful discussion."


It's a nice idea for a board, but that's not Julio's and Boswell's direction to us mods; we follow their posting guidelines. Our question is always, does this post follow those guidelines? The guidelines do give us some leeway: we all know life is fraught with shades of gray (or at least those of us who don't always post on the PP board), and we have to make a call on each and every questionable post.

We get nothing in return except a board we enjoy being associated with and participating on. And the occasional flame. We mostly have thick skin, but it does wear on us sometimes. I'll be frank, this last week has been awful. (And I've missed a lot of it while traveling.)

Anyone who hasn't read the guidelines or needs a refresher, please read them before posting again. You'll find them screaming "READ ME FIRST (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3350)" in the stickies.

You've heard it before and you'll hear it again: We're not the only Duke board out there, and if you can't participate within the parameters set by DBR please find a different board more to your liking.

-jk

DukieBoy
03-25-2008, 10:24 PM
i think that this criticism was put in a harsh tone, but it doesn't deserve a ban. It was his opinion, albeit a very criticizing one, and he is entitled to his opinion. Although I didn't agree with all of it, some did make sense. It could also become motivation to some of the kids on the team who might read it.

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 10:42 PM
Snap.

That's a pretty dog gone good observation (seriously).

-EarlJam

Actually, it really had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Jumbo
03-25-2008, 10:44 PM
i think that this criticism was put in a harsh tone, but it doesn't deserve a ban. It was his opinion, albeit a very criticizing one, and he is entitled to his opinion. Although I didn't agree with all of it, some did make sense. It could also become motivation to some of the kids on the team who might read it.

Am I talking to myself here? Did you read the posting guidelines?

EarlJam
03-25-2008, 11:29 PM
Actually, it really had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I stand corrected. But at least I stand for something.

I'm standing in it.

Seriously, okay, I stand corrected.

-EarlStand

drdukeblue33
03-26-2008, 11:13 AM
as a long time reader when the rules were posted originally i remember laughing and thought someone had a great sense of humor. through the years we have all seen examples of people getting over the top. i posted yesteday in another thread my thoughts about the last few days. we are fans and they are coaches and players and this is just athletic competition between young adults. we should not lose our perspective. we all have limitations on our abilities and can only do the best we can. recognize the effort. if critical be constructive and respectful. the recent days should give everyone time to reflect and regroup and enjoy our hobby. one option is to use all of this as a teaching experience, pardon everyone and start over. put yourself in the position as a parent or the individual himself and see when replying how you would feel if your post was applied in that manner. one of the things about duke basketball that has always made me proud is the manner in which our team handles itself on the court and the way they represent our alma mater. let's be at the same level

weezie
03-26-2008, 05:11 PM
I stand corrected. But at least I stand for something.

I'm standing in it.

Seriously, okay, I stand corrected.

-EarlStand

Stand up and be counted.

BlueDevilJay
03-27-2008, 11:47 AM
Well, that's a good point. Some of us have either known players well enough or been around them enough to say, "what's up with your jumper? Are your legs tired?" Or, "Hey, I hope you get quicker and improve your D this summer -- it would be great to see you play more next season."

But no one would ever say "You will never be good. Period."

That's really the larger point. As J&B also like to say (and Stray Gator often adds), just assume that if you're posting about Brian Zoubek, one of the following people is reading:
1) Brian Zoubek
2) Brian Zoubek's relative
3) Brian Zoubek's high school coach
4) A recruit who could be in Zoubek's shoes

Then adjust your criticism accordingly. Again, there is nothing wrong with critical analysis. It just needs to be respectful, constructive and within the guidelines. Always err on the side of being nice -- it took me a while to learn that, too,


That is the absolute best and most informative description of what y'all are looking for here that I have read. I know it means nothing, but I gained a great deal of respect for you just from that post. Now THATS the kind of understanding I expect from the mod's on my board, and am glad I have now seen here.

RockyMtDevil
03-27-2008, 06:14 PM
My only complaint with the mods and with DBR is the holier than thou attitude, and the above the fray, "we're more mature and stable and therefore we don't vent" perception and the mean spirited calling out of those of us who happen to have the courage to say some things that are obviously antithetical to the very nature of this board.

We can't vent on the team, but by god you guys can sure vent on us. What message is that sending. I've been banned once and the two warning messages I received we're written in a meaner spirit than my post, so if you're going to stand on your perch and look down on us proles, at least be consistent.