Greg Beaton Column

[duke211]

I think this is a perfect view of a fans perspective.


linky (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news;_ylt=AhTvAH_TTE74jwpGGyTkbtEj07YF?slug=uwire-commentaryfanscancriticize&prov=uwire&type=lgns")

[Edouble]

Pretty good. I'd give it a "B".

Not sure about this:

"Part of what makes this process so fun is the opportunity to second-guess coaching decisions and criticize players for things that we know deep down we couldn’t do any better ourselves. For example, how many times this season did a fellow Duke fan turn to you and claim they could make more free throws than DeMarcus Nelson or ask why Coach K wasn’t playing Taylor King in the second half?"

It's "fun" to second-guess the coaching? It's "fun" to makes claims that we could do things better than the players, even if we know we can't? That's not why I watch sports, but we all have our different quirks. I do have friends that could definitely shoot free-throws better than Nelson, even in a big game situation (I've seen it). Of course they don't have all of the other abilities that Nelson has to get into the game in the first place. Still, the claim that one could shoot free throws better than Nelson seems like a poor example of excessively bold fan-speak.

[yancem]

Great well written article that makes a strong argument. The problem is that there is a difference between criticizing and tearing someone a new one. I was out of town when Duke lost and had limited access to a computer so I didn't see what was posted that led to the moderators pulling the boards down but I have seen some of the venom that gets spued from time to time and it ain't pretty.

Although I am pretty sure that it was only a handful of posters that were crossing the line, I can understand if the moderators either can't or don't want to spend their Easter weekend reading and retracting angry/hateful posts when they too just felt the heartbreak of their team's season ending. These guys are volunteers, they don't get paid to clean up our mess.

Anyway, my take.

[Channing]

The article 100&#37; misses the point. First off, why is it in poor taste to use an exclamation point for the Aminu incident. It isnt like it was a somber moment. My first reaction when I saw the story was "Holy Cow are you serious?!?!" Plus, if exclamation is so important to Beaton, he should have realized that every "<insert name> update" has an exclamation point, as well as many many other stories, even if they are not all that exciting.

Second, as has been beaten to death, the boards were not shut down because of criticism. They were shut down because people were flying over the handlebars. Beaton is right when he says "being a "good, passionate fan" ... is the ability to step back and be critical when we are disappointed." However, the key is stepping back, and being rationally critical. Not stringing together a bunch of expletives and sticking the word Duke, or the name of a player or coach at the end.

Finally - it wasnt the mods that shut down the board - it was the owners.

[Bluedawg]

I think this is a perfect view of a fans perspective.


http://http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news;_ylt=AhTvAH_TTE74jwpGGyTkbtEj07YF?slug=uwire-commentaryfanscancriticize&prov=uwire&type=lgns (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news;_ylt=AhTvAH_TTE74jwpGGyTkbtEj07YF?slug=uwire-commentaryfanscancriticize&prov=uwire&type=lgns)

This is more of a critique of DBR instead of an analysis of the season. Haven't we had enough of that?

[greybeard]

Wonder if Greg's Mom is some kind of expert about ball, the type Greg thinks need a voice. Heck, even he didn't listen to her.

Too much time with the USA squad? Really? Where did the new offense come from? Anybody not enjoy that until Henderson lost his mid-range game at least and people stopped having to guard him for a pull up at the foul line?

And, where did "Orange" come from, a trip to Florida? Did Orange not win them several games. When was the last time Duke played a zone like that one?

New assistants? Aren't these the ones that produced the latter stages of the glory years? How many games this year did they come out and rip people a part, deploying differently than in the first half. Must have been magic.

Anybody think that Duke played anywhere near its A game against West Va? That's what I thought. Anyone think UNC wouldn't have gone out just as early if Hansbrough had Henderson's wrist injury?

I'm all for free speech. In Greg's case, you get what you pay for.

[Exiled_Devil]

This kid knows little of what he speaks of in regard to DBR.

His little jab where he says "I would talk about their hypocrisies, but don't have the space" is a way to say "I think they're hypocritical and I don't feel the need to substantiate fully." It's a passive aggressive way of writing, and really not good journalism.

He didn't get why the boards were shut down, he just knew he couldn't express himself on them - or read them, who knows if he is a contributor. His point about criticizing and second guessing is a legitimate one (I too disagree with the idea that second guessing is part of the fun) and could have been addressed without the jab at DBR. They are separate issues, although related.

Three interesting trends from the board shutdown I have noticed:
1. People see DBR as some sort of official Duke institution - it has been around for over 10 years, so for many people it is part of how they know Duke Basketball. They forget that it is a private, unofficial, unaffiliated site.
2. It seems that many Gen-Y'ers feel that the internet is a place where unfettered self-expression is a right. This assessment is based upon the articles coming form the Chronicle and an assumption that some of the posters who had issue with the shut down were current students.
3. Hypocrisy is a regular accusation now-a-days, and I think it is a foolish one when you look at a body of work that has existed for decades and expect people to be unwavering in their points. It also seems to be the highest of critiques in the post-modern, crit-theory world. However, much of it stems upon something like "They used an exclamation point here!". The accusation of hypocrisy can often be superficial, and in this case definitely is.

[freedevil]

Anyone think UNC wouldn't have gone out just as early if Hansbrough had Henderson's wrist injury?

I don't mean to take away from the rest of the goods point you made, greybeard, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this point. Just my opinion, as no one would know the answer until such a thing actually happened.

[Bluedog]

Ok, first of all, in general, I disagree with most of Beaton's argument in regards to DBR. However, I must say that I, too, was struck when DBR used the exclamation point when Wake recruit Aminu was arrested. DBR typically uses exclamation points to highlight positive developments and things we are glad about. Yes, player updates, for example, since it's good to see players are doing well - or just fun to see what they're doing. To me, it made it seem like DBR was happy that a Wake recruit was arrested, and I'm not sure why they'd be happy. Are we really that competitive that we think it's a good thing when an 18-year-old shoots somebody with a BB gun so that he might not be able to play? I'd personally rather have the situation not occur and NCAA athletes keep out of trouble. I guess it's hard to tell emotions and intent from one punctuation mark, but when Redick was arrested for a DUI, was the headline "Redick arrested for DUI!" or "Redick charged with DUI" ? I'd expect the second, more somber approach....Maybe I'm misinterpreting the use of the exclamation point in this instance, but that was just my natural instinct. To me, it didn't seem like a "holy cow! what a shock!" exclamation point, but rather a "yippee!" exclamation point. I don't think we should take pleasure in other schools' recruits/players being arrested, except for maybe UNC and UCon(victs), and only for non-violent arrests ;)

[BCGroup]

This kid knows little of what he speaks of in regard to DBR.

His little jab where he says "I would talk about their hypocrisies, but don't have the space" is a way to say "I think they're hypocritical and I don't feel the need to substantiate fully." It's a passive aggressive way of writing, and really not good journalism.

He didn't get why the boards were shut down, he just knew he couldn't express himself on them - or read them, who knows if he is a contributor. His point about criticizing and second guessing is a legitimate one (I too disagree with the idea that second guessing is part of the fun) and could have been addressed without the jab at DBR. They are separate issues, although related.

Three interesting trends from the board shutdown I have noticed:
1. People see DBR as some sort of official Duke institution - it has been around for over 10 years, so for many people it is part of how they know Duke Basketball. They forget that it is a private, unofficial, unaffiliated site.
2. It seems that many Gen-Y'ers feel that the internet is a place where unfettered self-expression is a right. This assessment is based upon the articles coming form the Chronicle and an assumption that some of the posters who had issue with the shut down were current students.
3. Hypocrisy is a regular accusation now-a-days, and I think it is a foolish one when you look at a body of work that has existed for decades and expect people to be unwavering in their points. It also seems to be the highest of critiques in the post-modern, crit-theory world. However, much of it stems upon something like "They used an exclamation point here!". The accusation of hypocrisy can often be superficial, and in this case definitely is.

Very solid points. I particularly agree with one and two. It's amazing that people assume any site that is positive must be affiliated with the institution. Second, where did people get the idea that you could say anything you want to ...no matter what. Hmm. I feel old. I remember when the outlet for expression was a written (maybe typed on a typewriter) letter to the editor of the local paper. You mailed it in.

[allenmurray]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

[Cavlaw]

I think it's flattering to everyone who posts here that what the DBR does is considered newsworthy. :)

[freedevil]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

I saw nothing in his article to suggest that DBR does not have the right to do whatever it wants with its own website. I understood him, rightly or wrongly, to be questioning the wisdom of some of its decisions.

[Bluedawg]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

Great analogy.

Mr. Beaton called that article a "perfect view of a fans perspective" where i saw it as a rant against DBR [which shows the power of this forum]

I come on DBR to discuss topics of interest, not to read profanity and attacks against players and coaches, many of which are unwarranted.

[Duvall]

I saw nothing in his article to suggest that DBR does not have the right to do whatever it wants with its own website. I understood him, rightly or wrongly, to be questioning the wisdom of some of its decisions.

Except that he never made that argument. He argued that venting was a natural and legitimate result of fandom, and he criticized DBR for failing to provide an immediate outlet for such venting, but he never bothered to explain why he thought DBR should have providing such an outlet.

[freedevil]

Except that he never made that argument. He argued that venting was a natural and legitimate result of fandom, and he criticized DBR for failing to provide an immediate outlet for such venting, but he never bothered to explain why he thought DBR should have providing such an outlet.

Considering that he's a "lurker" I don't think his argument was that DBR failed to provide him a forum to vent. I understood his argument to be this passage:


"This isn’t about my distaste for the DBR moderators... It is about the notion they expressed, which is that the Duke fans who caused the message board shutdown by being too critical are "fickle and spoiled" and "ignorant and foolish," as they wrote in a column posted on their website the next day."

Now, I got an infraction the night of the Belmont game for calling some coaching decisions - "God awful" - in retrospect, that infraction is deserved. Completely. If DBR's lines about foolish and ignorant were directed at somewhat exaggerated claims like mine, though, than I support Greg's article. HOWEVER, I trust that much, much, much worse things were said, and that people were really saying blatantly ignorant and foolish things.

But if I'm right that this is his bone with DBR, where does he need to explain why DBR has to provide him a forum to vent? (Which it doesn't)

[greybeard]

I don't mean to take away from the rest of the goods point you made, greybeard, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this point. Just my opinion, as no one would know the answer until such a thing actually happened.

We do know how they did with Lawson out. If Hansbrough's offensive proficiency was affected as much as Henderson's, there is no number 1 seed; shots from behind his ear, shots from an extended (sideways) right arm, shots from the foul line on out, fall from the 70-50 percent range to who knows what. Come on freedevil, "whole-heartedly?" Can't mean that.

[Troublemaker]

Considering that he's a "lurker" I don't think his argument was that DBR failed to provide him a forum to vent. I understood his argument to be this passage:

Now, I got an infraction the night of the Belmont game for calling some coaching decisions - "God awful" - in retrospect, that infraction is deserved. Completely. If DBR's lines about foolish and ignorant were directed at somewhat exaggerated claims like mine, though, than I support Greg's article. HOWEVER, I trust that much, much, much worse things were said, and that people were really saying blatantly ignorant and foolish things.

But if I'm right that this is his bone with DBR, where does he need to explain why DBR has to provide him a forum to vent? (Which it doesn't)

Beaton was saying that fans who criticize aren't fickle or ignorant. However, he was attacking a strawman, as criticism is allowed here. He either (a) doesn't understand that criticism is allowed here or (b) is saying that ALL types of criticism, including venting, should be allowed here. If (b), then yes, he DOES need to provide some explanation for why he believes venting should be allowed here.

[Classof06]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

Bingo. I didn't agree with DBR shutting down the boards after the game; I know I personally wasn't making any comments that crossed the line so why should I be punished? I actually agreed with a lot of points made in the article. I do happen to feel that Duke fans (especially on this board) who aren't afraid to criticize the program do get painted as fickle and/or ignorant and that is not right. Being a Duke fan isn't like being part of a socialist state. We can have ideas and boards are here to share those ideas, negative or positive.

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.

[freedevil]

We do know how they did with Lawson out. If Hansbrough's offensive proficiency was affected as much as Henderson's, there is no number 1 seed; shots from behind his ear, shots from an extended (sideways) right arm, shots from the foul line on out, fall from the 70-50 percent range to who knows what. Come on freedevil, "whole-heartedly?" Can't mean that.

Yeah, we do know how UNC did when Lawson was not on the floor. There's a huge difference between Gerald's game and Hansbrough's game, and you didn't say "offensive efficiency" declining, you said a wrist injury. I wholeheartedly (yes, I mean that) disagree that a wrist injury to a post-player who does most of his damage in the paint and gets tons of rebounds (albeit one who also has a great mid-range game) would mean no #1 seed for UNC. You can't mean to be comparing a wrist-injury to a wing as you can to a someone who, as we all know, "wills" his way to baskets.

[freedevil]

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.

People who are focused on this point have not read Greg's article closely enough. Again, his article is NOT about DBR's right to shut down its own boards. It's about having a problem with DBR disliking some forms of fan criticism. I personally think DBR did the right thing in shutting down the Boards, but I also think the column posted later went a bit too far.

[bluebear]

Bingo. I didn't agree with DBR shutting down the boards after the game; I know I personally wasn't making any comments that crossed the line so why should I be punished? I actually agreed with a lot of points made in the article. I do happen to feel that Duke fans (especially on this board) who aren't afraid to criticize the program do get painted as fickle and/or ignorant and that is not right. Being a Duke fan isn't like being part of a socialist state. We can have ideas and boards are here to share those ideas, negative or positive.

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.

While your second comment is right on...I think the first one misses the point. People are allowed to criticize the program on this site. There are also, however, rules and a level of decorum that was established here a long time ago. Clearly, those rules and decorum were being violated that night. This site used to require email verification in order to post which helped to maintain those rules. The open system (though necessary) makes it much harder to control. I'm sure you can envision that scenerio and why shutting down the boards would be necssary to maintain those standards...

[Stray Gator]

The desire to vent and criticize and commiserate with fellow fans after a disappointing loss is perfectly understandable; it is a normal manifestation of the passion we feel for our team. But the desire to express those sentiments in a public forum--particularly one where we know they will be seen by members of the staff, by players and their families, and by prospective recruits--is, IMO, something else; it is, I believe, motivated by a sense that those who caused the disappointment ought to "pay" or "bear the blame" or "feel my pain."

Venting and sharing thoughts about "what went wrong and how should the problems be rectified" can be therapeutic. I do it after almost every Duke loss. But I do it privately among friends, and I try to get it out of my system before I come to post anything on the DBR. Venting and criticizing (in a non-constructive manner) in a public forum may be therapeutic, too; but unlike private communications, posting those thoughts for public consumption can also be hurtful to the people and damaging to the program we love.

No one here other than the owners and the moderators saw the content of the posts that prompted the owners to shut down the boards temporarily after the West Virginia loss. Duke fans should be thankful for that, not condemning it. A significant point that Greg apparently overlooks in his criticism of the DBR merits emphasis in this regard: Not all of the people who came here to express themselves after that game were Duke fans; and of those who are, the opinions they wanted to post would not have qualified as "constructive" by any standard. The DBR doesn't "owe" anyone a place to post messages. And it certainly doesn't owe such privileges to those whose messages, on balance, could do harm. I'd like to think that those who love Duke basketball would be grateful for the efforts of the DBR's owners to prevent such damage while continuing to make available the opportunity for anyone to offer constructive criticism.

[Cavlaw]

Bingo. I didn't agree with DBR shutting down the boards after the game; I know I personally wasn't making any comments that crossed the line so why should I be punished? I actually agreed with a lot of points made in the article. I do happen to feel that Duke fans (especially on this board) who aren't afraid to criticize the program do get painted as fickle and/or ignorant and that is not right. Being a Duke fan isn't like being part of a socialist state. We can have ideas and boards are here to share those ideas, negative or positive.

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.
You weren't being punished; your inability to access the board was a side effect of the tidal wave of posts that failed to meet DBR posting standards. It was a logistical problem, such that the mods were not able to contain the numbers of unacceptable posts and maintain the DBR bulletin board environment demanded by its ownership.

It was not a situation where the damage had been contained and everyone was being "punished" to make a point or smoke out the culprit.

[Onlyduke]

As far as I'm concerned, this article "hit the nail on the head" for me. That's exactly how I feel after a Duke loss .... always looking for a reason .... and the need to talk to fellow Duke fans.

[Scorp4me]

No offense to Mr Beaton but his article sounds strangely like something one of the kids in my girlfriend's 1st grade class would write. Obviously much more elaborate, bigger wordes, more coherent thoughts...but same sentiment.

I am personally glad the boards were shut down. After Duke loss I was disappointed and got online to see what was being said. After reading the boards I was furious. In fact anyone who has read my post as of late can tell I was very disappointed in the fans reactions. Luckliy I was on my girlfriends computer, when I went to post and tear the fans a new one(Mr Beaton would have been included in this group) and I would have had to sign in. Not wanting to do that on her laptop I shut it down and didn't read again til the next day on my computer. By then the boards had been shut down and I was glad to see so. As is the case in many things, it wasn't DBR who failed by shutting the boards down, it was the fans who failed by posting the crap they were posting.

[monkey]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

Just to take a slightly contrarian viewpoint - since I know the above has been the mantra for years- using your example, what if you invite me over, and I come over a lot, and after a while you ask me to help out with the mortgage/rent/cable bill?

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the "they can do whatever they want with the website" argument seem a bit different than it was prior to the once or twice a year donation drives? PBS is ultimately accountable to its viewers that support it. The website is, of course, privately owned, but a similar donation structure is employed.

Not saying it's not your house ... just wondering if those who help pay the bills start to get any rights associated with doing so.

[Stray Gator]

Just to take a slightly contrarian viewpoint - since I know the above has been the mantra for years- using your example, what if you invite me over, and I come over a lot, and after a while you ask me to help out with the mortgage/rent/cable bill?

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the "they can do whatever they want with the website" argument seem a bit different than it was prior to the once or twice a year donation drives? PBS is ultimately accountable to its viewers that support it. The website is, of course, privately owned, but a similar donation structure is employed.

Not saying it's not your house ... just wondering if those who help pay the bills start to get any rights associated with doing so.

In the first place, I think a more apt analogy would be if allenmurray invites you over regularly to watch games and at some point asks you to chip in for the cost of the beer and pizza--not to pay the utilities. Under those circumstances, you would certainly be entitled to have a vote in deciding what kind of beer to buy and what ingredients to order on the pizza. But I hardly think you would have any right to insist on smoking, or rearranging the furniture, or even "breaking out the good dishes and glassware."

Second, if I may answer your question with a question: Do other non-profit entities and organizations to which you make voluntary donations afford you any rights to dictate or even participate in policy decisions about how they operate? To their credit, the owners of this site have always invited and been willing to consider reader input, even before they asked for donations. But there are certain fundamental baseline standards on which the owners have never wavered, and people who have visited or used this site for a while are familiar with those policies. Presumably, the users who donate money to support the DBR are satisfied with, or at least accepting of, those standards and policies, because otherwise they wouldn't care about whether the DBR survives, but would simply move on to other websites that offer an atmosphere more to their liking.

Now, I can't speak for the owners, and I don't profess to do so. But FWIW, speaking only as someone who has been a contributing sponsor of the DBR dating back to the years before the DBR solicited donations, I've never presumed that my financial support entitled me to any "rights" whatsoever with respect to the policies or operations of the DBR. Like any other voluntary support I provide, I understand that I have the right to "vote with my pocketbook" if at any time I find the benefits I deem worthy of support are outweighed by the actions or policies I do not approve.

[dw0827]

Just to take a slightly contrarian viewpoint - since I know the above has been the mantra for years- using your example, what if you invite me over, and I come over a lot, and after a while you ask me to help out with the mortgage/rent/cable bill?

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the "they can do whatever they want with the website" argument seem a bit different than it was prior to the once or twice a year donation drives? PBS is ultimately accountable to its viewers that support it. The website is, of course, privately owned, but a similar donation structure is employed.

Not saying it's not your house ... just wondering if those who help pay the bills start to get any rights associated with doing so.

In a word, No.

At least I hope not.

I'm tired of how money buys influence in this society. It has ruined our political system. I give you money so now I expect, no I demand, consideration. Give me a break.

You contribute to DBR . . . so now you have some say in how the site is run . . . or what gets posted? I sincerely hope not.

[monkey]

In the first place, I think a more apt analogy would be if allenmurray invites you over regularly to watch games and at some point asks you to chip in for the cost of the beer and pizza--not to pay the utilities. Under those circumstances, you would certainly be entitled to have a vote in deciding what kind of beer to buy and what ingredients to order on the pizza. But I hardly think you would have any right to insist on smoking, or rearranging the furniture, or even "breaking out the good dishes and glassware."

Second, if I may answer your question with a question: Do other non-profit entities and organizations to which you make voluntary donations afford you any rights to dictate or even participate in policy decisions about how they operate? To their credit, the owners of this site have always invited and been willing to consider reader input, even before they asked for donations. But there are certain fundamental baseline standards on which the owners have never wavered, and people who have visited or used this site for a while are familiar with those policies. Presumably, the users who donate money to support the DBR are satisfied with, or at least accepting of, those standards and policies, because otherwise they wouldn't care about whether the DBR survives, but would simply move on to other websites that offer an atmosphere more to their liking.

Now, I can't speak for the owners, and I don't profess to do so. But FWIW, speaking only as someone who has been a contributing sponsor of the DBR dating back to the years before the DBR solicited donations, I've never presumed that my financial support entitled me to any "rights" whatsoever with respect to the policies or operations of the DBR. Like any other voluntary support I provide, I understand that I have the right to "vote with my pocketbook" if at any time I find the benefits I deem worthy of support are outweighed by the actions or policies I do not approve.

Thanks for the reply Stray, it was measured and well written. Having said that, I'm not sure that your analogy is better. J & B have been pretty open that over the years, presumably both as readership has gone up as well as the services they have provided have gone up, that the costs, for example, of the server (and other basic costs of running the website) have gone up as well. It was my understanding that money donated goes directly to such uses and helps, for example, provide money to pay certain writers on the site. This seems to me to go the very heart of what DBR ultimately is and is much less like pizza and chips.

Getting to your second point, I think it's a good question. I assume that your question is not necessarily addressed to me in the specific but is really a general "you" since this is probably more useful than anything specific to me. Generally speaking, I would suspect that "return" on donations to tnon-profit entities and organizations depends on the organization and the level of commitment. For example, when Melinda Gates was named to Duke's board, I suspect she had a non-insignificant amount of influence on the direction of the University. Regardless of the level of policy influence accorded to any specific individual or even individuals as a whole with respect to such organizations, I'm not sure I've generally heard similar sentiments with respect to other non-profits that "the owners can do whatever they want". Ultimately, you may be correct that the ultimate right that a reader has is to "vote with their pocketboook" - I just feel it's slightly disingenuous to treat DBR as the private property of J & B as it was in the early days when they were paying wholly out of pocket when the DBR, given that in its current form depends on people donating to the website in order to survive. Now, maybe that means that other folks should help get some say in policies and maybe it doesn't - I'm not necessarily arguing that it does. At the same time I'm not sure that it's wholly "their's" anymore - I think that's a corrollary for asking for donations. In any case, I think it seems to me at least an issue that hasn't been really discussed much in the past and it seemed like as good a place any to be a bit contrarian and raise the question.

[Stray Gator]

Thanks for the reply Stray, it was measured and well written. Having said that, I'm not sure that your analogy is better. J & B have been pretty open that over the years, presumably both as readership has gone up as well as the services they have provided have gone up, that the costs, for example, of the server (and other basic costs of running the website) have gone up as well. It was my understanding that money donated goes directly to such uses and helps, for example, provide money to pay certain writers on the site. This seems to me to go the very heart of what DBR ultimately is and is much less like pizza and chips.

Getting to your second point, I think it's a good question. I assume that your question is not necessarily addressed to me in the specific but is really a general "you" since this is probably more useful than anything specific to me. Generally speaking, I would suspect that "return" on donations to tnon-profit entities and organizations depends on the organization and the level of commitment. For example, when Melinda Gates was named to Duke's board, I suspect she had a non-insignificant amount of influence on the direction of the University. Regardless of the level of policy influence accorded to any specific individual or even individuals as a whole with respect to such organizations, I'm not sure I've generally heard similar sentiments with respect to other non-profits that "the owners can do whatever they want". Ultimately, you may be correct that the ultimate right that a reader has is to "vote with their pocketboook" - I just feel it's slightly disingenuous to treat DBR as the private property of J & B as it was in the early days when they were paying wholly out of pocket when the DBR, given that in its current form depends on people donating to the website in order to survive. Now, maybe that means that other folks should help get some say in policies and maybe it doesn't - I'm not necessarily arguing that it does. At the same time I'm not sure that it's wholly "their's" anymore - I think that's a corrollary for asking for donations. In any case, I think it seems to me at least an issue that hasn't been really discussed much in the past and it seemed like as good a place any to be a bit contrarian and raise the question.

I don't know how much of the reader-donated funds, as distinguished from the income from ads and other sponsors, goes into paying for the server, or for bandwidth charges, or for other expenses that might be characterized as "utilities." IMO, however, paying for the columnists like Al Featherston is analogous to the pizza and beer [no offense intended, Al ;) ], because their columns are essentially a luxury item. Just as you and allenmurray could sit in his living room and watch the games without pizza and beer, the DBR could function and provide information--as it did for many years--without the "guest columnists." Of course, having the pizza and beer, and having those guest columns, certainly enhances our enjoyment of the experience, and we gladly contribute because the return is well worth the cost.

I'm also wary of your Melinda Gates analogy, since I'm not aware of any DBR reader who makes contributions remotely approaching the same relative magnitude as the Gates' contributions to Duke; and of course there is no DBR "Board of Trustees" that is formally charged with policy-making authority. Even accepting that comparison, though, I doubt that Melinda Gates wields sufficient influence to effect fundamental policy changes at Duke University. She has sufficient stature to ensure that her views are heard and seriously considered. But I assure you the opinions of DBR readers, and especially those who participate in these discussions, are heard and heeded by the site owners--without regard to whether they donate to the fundraisers. Anyone who has followed the DBR for a while can attest to the fact that J & B frequently invite reader input, and have endeavored to make the DBR both responsive and friendly to users.

Finally, characterizing my message as conveying an attitude that "the owners can do whatever they want" is a little hard-edged. But, in fact, I believe it is entirely correct, just as I believe the DBR is wholly "theirs." I simply don't get the notion that people who make voluntary "donations" are entitled to some corresponding rights in return. If someone contributes money with strings attached, then by definition it's not a "donation," is it? If J & B decide for any reason to shut down the DBR, do people who donated money have any right to restrain them, or to demand a partial refund?

I understand and appreciate your raising this issue for discussion. Regardless of the extent to which it represents your personal views, I don't doubt that there are some contributors who may feel that they should rightfully be given a larger voice in the decisions made and policies applied by the DBR owners.

And once again, let me emphasize that I am not speaking for the owners, but merely expressing my personal opinion. I know that the owners, including former owner James Armstrong, have for more than a decade poured a tremendous amount of their own time and energy and personal funds into making the DBR available for the enjoyment and entertainment of Duke fans and college basketball fans generally. I know that many of us who have followed and benefited from and supported this website over the years are very proud of the DBR, largely because the owners have done such a superb job of maintaining "a higher standard" that reflects favorably on Duke fans, much the same way that everyone associated with Duke takes pride in the reputation of our basketball program. That doesn't mean I've always agreed with the owners on their editorial views or policies. But I have never questioned their commitment to do what they believed was the right thing to promote the interests of Duke basketball fans, even when it meant opening themselves up to criticism. And that's all I believe any donor has a right to demand.

[FireOgilvie]

I am a Duke student. Given that, I love Duke Basketball. I love it because it represents my alma mater. However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to criticize aspects that I believe need help. Duke Basketball isn't perfect. Is it wrong to want the best team and best coaches out there to represent my school? I don't think so.

Greg Beaton may not have used the best tone, but I agree with his points. Coach K and his assistants are paid (combined) millions of dollars to represent Duke University. As paid employees, they are certainly not above criticism. Every scholarship player on Duke's roster is paid (to a lesser degree) to represent Duke University. I don't believe that they are above a certain level of criticism either. But, I don't believe that personal attacks or non-basketball criticisms are warranted (unless the player/coach is doing something to tarnish the reputation of the University).

Duke Basketball Report offers the use of its message boards to everyone, including Duke fans and alums, but it is also privately run. I respect the decision to shut down the message boards, but like Beaton, I don't agree with the commentary that described fans as "ignorant and foolish", "fickle and spoiled." If DBR closes boards due to name-calling against Duke players, why criticize the fans that are the lifeblood of the website?

I come to Duke Basketball Report because it is the best source to catch up on news and read discussion about Duke basketball. Because the website is not affiliated with the team, it should be a source for (relatively) unbiased discussion for Duke fans. Over the last month, during the recent team struggles, this has not been the case. The boards have been overly moderated and things that are said that are "too critical" are deleted or berated by a stream of "fanboys."

Given all of this, it is not conducive to discussion when the biggest contributors to the boards (with some of the most passionate viewpoints) also have the power to ban or delete posts of anyone that disagrees with them.

[Jim3k]

The boards have been overly moderated and things that are said that are "too critical" are deleted or berated by a stream of "fanboys."

Given all of this, it is not conducive to discussion when the biggest contributors to the boards (with some of the most passionate viewpoints) also have the power to ban or delete posts of anyone that disagrees with them.


As a former mod, assuming the current mods operate under the same rules, I can say without hesitation that you are misperceiving what happens. Mods do not (though I cannot say 'never have') delete posts that they disagree with. They delete based on whether the posting rules have been broken. Those posting rules are on a sticky at the top for all to read. Some posters try to skate on the edge but invariably go out of bounds, usually to their regret. That's what the point system is for (something we didn't have in my mod days).

And, to crib from something Stray said years ago, the boards are like a neighborhood bar -- say Cheers -- where we are all on friendly terms and we behave civilly. We are neither strident nor abusive. And, above all, we are fans and supporters of the team and the coaches. That does not bar constructive criticism; it does bar personal abuse of coaches, player, recruits and each other.

If this were a neighborhood bar and people engaged in the type of abuse that has been spiked, it would become a very unpleasant place and people would not come any more.

So rules of decorum are and must be enforced. Otherwise the place self-destructs.

[dw0827]

Finally, characterizing my message as conveying an attitude that "the owners can do whatever they want" is a little hard-edged. But, in fact, I believe it is entirely correct, just as I believe the DBR is wholly "theirs." I simply don't get the notion that people who make voluntary "donations" are entitled to some corresponding rights in return. If someone contributes money with strings attached, then by definition it's not a "donation," is it? If J & B decide for any reason to shut down the DBR, do people who donated money have any right to restrain them, or to demand a partial refund?


Having worked in the not-for-profit and governmental world for many years, I can tell you that donations can be either "restricted" or "unrestricted." Unrestricted donations can be used as is deemed appropriate by those in charge (board, trustees, commission, whatever). Unrestricted donations have no strings and are generally given to support the overall mission of the organization.

Restricted donations often do have strings attached. They are often restricted to a specific purpose. It is, however, true that those in charge may refuse the restricted donation because they find the strings onerous or are unwilling or unable to pursue the purpose for which the donation is intended.

As it relates to this discussion, I believe that the level and intent of donations being solicited have been unrestricted donations in nature that support the overall mission of the organization. No special status is conferred to the donor . . . the donor has no entitlement . . . or influence.

If someone were to offer a donation of significant size to DBR, it would behoove the owners to inquire as to the nature of the donation. Is it restricted in nature? What are the expectations of the donor? And so on.

So while you may be helping DBR to pay the bills by donating, I do not believe that you are given any "rights" by virtue of your having donated. You have made an unrestricted donations and DBR appreciates it.

If your donation is hefty enough, whether it be unrestricted or restricted, you may be able to negotiate certain rights in return . . . but lacking that negotiation/discussion, you merely get the satisfaction of knowing you did a good thing by donating.

[SupaDave]

I am a Duke student. Given that, I love Duke Basketball. I love it because it represents my alma mater. However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to criticize aspects that I believe need help. Duke Basketball isn't perfect. Is it wrong to want the best team and best coaches out there to represent my school? I don't think so.

Greg Beaton may not have used the best tone, but I agree with his points. Coach K and his assistants are paid (combined) millions of dollars to represent Duke University. As paid employees, they are certainly not above criticism. Every scholarship player on Duke's roster is paid (to a lesser degree) to represent Duke University. I don't believe that they are above a certain level of criticism either. But, I don't believe that personal attacks or non-basketball criticisms are warranted (unless the player/coach is doing something to tarnish the reputation of the University).

Duke Basketball Report offers the use of its message boards to everyone, including Duke fans and alums, but it is also privately run. I respect the decision to shut down the message boards, but like Beaton, I don't agree with the commentary that described fans as "ignorant and foolish", "fickle and spoiled." If DBR closes boards due to name-calling against Duke players, why criticize the fans that are the lifeblood of the website?

I come to Duke Basketball Report because it is the best source to catch up on news and read discussion about Duke basketball. Because the website is not affiliated with the team, it should be a source for (relatively) unbiased discussion for Duke fans. Over the last month, during the recent team struggles, this has not been the case. The boards have been overly moderated and things that are said that are "too critical" are deleted or berated by a stream of "fanboys."

Given all of this, it is not conducive to discussion when the biggest contributors to the boards (with some of the most passionate viewpoints) also have the power to ban or delete posts of anyone that disagrees with them.

I believe you make the owner's point right here. The Coaches are PAID to represent Duke University and they do a pretty doggone good job. They are not above criticism but WHY would you criticize? I think most of us would find it very uncomfortable if the team came and watched us work while analyzing every last move (employee X has missed the trash can 3 times in a row!!! He's a freaking bum. Wait for it... excellent paragraph!!).

You can not agree with something without the need to be hostile or inflammatory - which is why the boards were shut down.

[monkey]

Finally, characterizing my message as conveying an attitude that "the owners can do whatever they want" is a little hard-edged. But, in fact, I believe it is entirely correct, just as I believe the DBR is wholly "theirs."


FWIW, I apologize if you thought I was putting words in your mouth Stray - I wasn't actually saying that you said this - but others have, for example, earlier in the thread someone else wrote "That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board."

[Jarhead]

I have read most of the posts in this thread. Too many to read right now (dinner time, you know), but I have reached a conclusion. Whether we are critiquing the players, the DBR, the fans, or the coaching staff, we are beginning to sound just like Carolina fans. No wonder that we need moderators. I hope nobody else is visiting this forum right now.

At the beginning of the season I was guessing that the men's basketball team would end up with about 26 or 27 victories, and be about third or fourth in the ACC standings. How in the he11 can I criticize when they exceeded my expectations. I'm outa heah!

[greybeard]

The problem I have is that this kid, a Duke student no less, writes an article the central premise of which is that K and his minions did not earn at least a period of repose before experts and fans got to take them a part for their supposed shortcomings. Actually, the kid's premise is worser yet--that the feelings of fans like him are more important than the team's. The kid is an idiot and needs to be told it.

[RelativeWays]

I haven't figured out how one can criticize DBR but not post there. Isn't that akin to saying a movie stinks by only looking at the promotional poster? I wish I could divine like that.

[FireOgilvie]

I haven't figured out how one can criticize DBR but not post there. Isn't that akin to saying a movie stinks by only looking at the promotional poster? I wish I could divine like that.

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

[Saratoga2]

You weren't being punished; your inability to access the board was a side effect of the tidal wave of posts that failed to meet DBR posting standards. It was a logistical problem, such that the mods were not able to contain the numbers of unacceptable posts and maintain the DBR bulletin board environment demanded by its ownership.

It was not a situation where the damage had been contained and everyone was being "punished" to make a point or smoke out the culprit.

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

[RelativeWays]

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

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

[_Gary]

Jumbo--

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

--Greg Beaton

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

Gary

[Edouble]

Loyal followers,

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


Jumbo--

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

--Greg Beaton

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

[unexpected]

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

I find this totally fair, but...

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

[NovaScotian]

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

[Jumbo]

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

I find this totally fair, but...

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

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

[pete89]

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



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

[dyedwab]

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

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

Signed,
Publius

[hughgs]

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

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

[Karl Beem]

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

What is childish?

[Classof06]

While your second comment is right on...I think the first one misses the point. People are allowed to criticize the program on this site. There are also, however, rules and a level of decorum that was established here a long time ago. Clearly, those rules and decorum were being violated that night. This site used to require email verification in order to post which helped to maintain those rules. The open system (though necessary) makes it much harder to control. I'm sure you can envision that scenerio and why shutting down the boards would be necssary to maintain those standards...

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

[pfrduke]

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

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

[-jk]

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

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

-jk

[pfrduke]

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

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

[Edouble]

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

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

[Saratoga2]

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


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

[GopherBlue]

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

I find this totally fair, but...

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

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

I think I've narrowed it down:
Option 1 (http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/ap_cheney_070621_ms.jpg)
Options 2a & 2b (http://www.wizznutzz.com/images/manutebol_mugsy.jpg)
Option 3 (http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2007-06/30546355.jpg)
Option 4 (http://www.wcnc.com/news/clay_aiken/images/0225-clay_front.jpg)
Option 5 (http://www.unc.edu/news/pics/event/commencement/2007/smith_dean.JPG)

[dw0827]

I'm quite confident that Option 4 is correct.

[Jumbo]

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

Ha -- well-played.

[Jumbo]

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

I think I've narrowed it down:
Option 1 (http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/ap_cheney_070621_ms.jpg)
Options 2a & 2b (http://www.wizznutzz.com/images/manutebol_mugsy.jpg)
Option 3 (http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2007-06/30546355.jpg)
Option 4 (http://www.wcnc.com/news/clay_aiken/images/0225-clay_front.jpg)
Option 5 (http://www.unc.edu/news/pics/event/commencement/2007/smith_dean.JPG)

Well, if it were Option 1, you'd probably be dead by now... ;)

[Exiled_Devil]

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

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

Good point about the difference between the right to shut down the site and the right to criticize. However, one thing that has bothered me is the implication and sometimes explication that the criticism should be heard, met and responded to. It is, I guess, a question of entitlement. We aren't entitled to any response from DBR about the board closing. We may want one, and it may behoove J&B or the mods to explain things, but we have no right to it. For me, that is the real issue: the sense that people feel DBR owes them anything. It actually is exacerbated because this is the time of year that fan entitlement gets pointed at Coach K and the players as well. WE have developed a culture here in the US that encourages entitlement, and it irritates mr in all arenas.

[Indoor66]

Good point about the difference between the right to shut down the site and the right to criticize. However, one thing that has bothered me is the implication and sometimes explication that the criticism should be heard, met and responded to. It is, I guess, a question of entitlement. We aren't entitled to any response from DBR about the board closing. We may want one, and it may behoove J&B or the mods to explain things, but we have no right to it. For me, that is the real issue: the sense that people feel DBR owes them anything. It actually is exacerbated because this is the time of year that fan entitlement gets pointed at Coach K and the players as well. WE have developed a culture here in the US that encourages entitlement, and it irritates mr in all arenas.

I agree with your position on entltlement. We are entitled to what we earn or have a right to receive, no more. Anything else is a gift and we have no right to a gift.

[sandinmyshoes]

I thought the article was juvenile. Maybe DBR and the moderators err a little to the conservative style, but I'm just glad there is a place for Duke fans to discuss the team and the game itself with more maturity than any of the boards I've seen on rivals or scout.

[hughgs]

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

I agree, but the censoring of posts by the mods based on the rules and guidelines is very different than the censoring of posts that are found unacceptable by the mods. I find a number of posts unacceptable, but that doesn't mean that they are unacceptable by the mods.

I find the inability of people to discern this difference to be one of the biggest reasons that posters complain about the censoring of the posts.

[ArnieMc]

I thought the article was juvenile. Maybe DBR and the moderators err a little to the conservative style, but I'm just glad there is a place for Duke fans to discuss the team and the game itself with more maturity than any of the boards I've seen on rivals or scout.I thought the article was brilliant. Look at what he accomplished:

1) He created controversy.
2) He provoked discussion.
3) He provided name recognition.
4) He generated hits for his publication and their advertisers.

What more could you want? He would fit in perfectly with the NYT, ESPN, SI, CBSsports, etc. Thoughtful, well reasoned, fair, accurate reporting is SO last century.

[captmojo]

I think the owners are going to experience what happened that fateful day again. The boards have grown and the law of averages should be telling of these types of regretful blurbs. Maybe it should be considered that a shutdown occur after any loss, for a minimal period, to allow cooler heads to prevail and all posters to be able to make rational, constructive thoughts before blasting off to the keyboard.

This doesn't sound like it would meet the site's mission, but it would eliminate such recurrences. Anyway, members should never forget that the power rests with the owners. If this isn't suitable, there are other places to go.

[freedevil]

I think the owners are going to experience what happened that fateful day again. The boards have grown and the law of averages should be telling of these types of regretful blurbs. Maybe it should be considered that a shutdown occur after any loss, for a minimal period, to allow cooler heads to prevail and all posters to be able to make rational, constructive thoughts before blasting off to the keyboard.

While your prediction may be correct, I sort of disagree. I normally get bummed after a Duke loss, but many Duke losses are a bit easier to swallow than the near-loss to Belmont and the losses to VCU and W. Va. were, particularly given how bad Duke looked in those games.