Jumbo makes the Big Time

[Bluedawg]

From Gregory Beaton's last column. "Parting is such sweet sorrow"


Do you have anything to say to your critics?

I could have spent my last column attacking the people who have made a point of demeaning my efforts as a journalist-a list that would span the spectrum from a message board poster named "Jumbo" to a coach named Mike Krzyzewski. But all I can say to them is this: if you were reading, I know I was doing something right.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/04/22/Column/Parting.Is.Such.Sweet.Sorrow-3340823.shtml

Anytime you get mentioned in the same sentence as Coach K you know you’ve arrived.

[Bluedog]

Well, Beaton does say "span the spectrum" so he tries to put them on totally different levels even though mentioning them in the same sentence ;) I don't really understand the point of that column. I imagine it was supposed to be funny, but it wasn't, in my opinion.

[Clipsfan]

I had to check twice to make sure it wasn't the same poster both times...

[juise]

I had to check twice to make sure it wasn't the same poster both times...

Yeah, I was going to say that I didn't feel comfortable posting in this thread because my user has nothing to do with blue or dogs.

[Cameron]

Haha, Jumbo, you are now big time:) I must say, being compared with Coach Legend in the same sentence? I'm jealous;).

Did the article say anything about Greg p*ssing down the side of his leg when the "mere internet poster" named Jumbo called him out?

[calltheobvious]

Well, Beaton does say "span the spectrum" so he tries to put them on totally different levels even though mentioning them in the same sentence ;) I don't really understand the point of that column. I imagine it was supposed to be funny, but it wasn't, in my opinion.

I found myself strangely wrapped up in the column by the end. You (rightly) point out that it seemed like an attempt at humor that fell really flat. Not coincidentally, I think, the attempts at humor seemed mostly to subside shortly after the halfway mark. It's like he couldn't decide going in how he wanted to write the thing, but somewhere along the way he just quit worrying about it and wrote. I really enjoyed his thoughts on how sportswriting can be disillusioning.

My suspicion is that despite his stated 99.9% certainty, he's really torn about giving it up. I think he loves the gig, and on some level he's pretty hurt by some of the criticism. His mindset seemed to be, "This is sportswriting, after all, which I'm about to tell my readers is not that big a deal, so this last column is going to be reflect that I'm not that serious about this not-that-great enterprise." But I think the truth outted when he quit trying to make jokes. It seemed like he cared too much about sportswriting and/or the Chronicle to be non-chalant for the entire column.

Greg seems to truly care about this, and my guess is that he is genuinely bothered by the criticism, his jokes notwithstanding. He was clearly going after a jovial tone when he let us know about his award, but I still think he was trying to stick it to his critics a little bit with this "See, I am too a good writer" paragraph. And then the late fly-by swipe at his critics that ends with a really weak quasi-rationalization: "if they were reading, I know I was doing something right." That was just weird because he has to realize how weak the reasoning is there.

Oh, well. My brother was the editor of his student newspaper, and I know how tough it can be to write that last column and say good-bye to everybody. I truly wish Greg the best.

And Greg, if you truly enjoy this and want to try it professionally, even for just a bit, then do it, man. If it's not for you, you seem to be a talented guy and you'll be able to do plenty of other things. But it would be a shame to look back later and regret not having given it a go when you had the opportunity.

[blublood]

Um... yeeeeeah... I'm sure Coach K really "made a point of demeaning [his] efforts as a journalist." I'm sure he started each day by saying, "The heck with coaching the Olympic team! The heck with developing some of the best young talent in America! The heck with teaching at Fuqua! What, oh what, did Greg Beaton write about me in the Chronicle??"

Good luck in the real world, Greg! People just love Duke grads who are full of themselves.

[SupaDave]

Maybe it's just the word "blue" that must be in your name for this thread. As far as Beaton goes - he's young - and if he really knew how the world worked he would realize that his career has gotten off to an EXCELLENT start.

[Greg Beaton]

Thanks for reading, everyone. As for "p*issing" down my leg, if you recall I told Jumbo I'd be happy to debate him if he would acknowledge his real identity.

[Jumbo]

Thanks for reading, everyone. As for "p*issing" down my leg, if you recall I told Jumbo I'd be happy to debate him if he would acknowledge his real identity.

I also barely criticized you and told you my identity was irrelevant. My name could've been Shaquille McSpears, my job could have been to wear Mike Nifong's socks on my ears while singing the UNC alma mater and it shouldn't have made a difference. I simply wanted to go point for point with you. You were the one making an ultimatum for no reason. Good luck after graduation.

[BlueintheFace]

Jumbo and Greg,
You both made good points in different forums.
Both of you had your excuses.

Greg- If you one day continue your writing, DO NOT engage your critics.
Jumbo- Your identity does matter. There is a reason why most newspapers require that columns and letters not be anonymous...

I score this one- A TIE!!!

Everybody move on, and may both of you find other opponents in the future...

[BlueintheFace]

Um... yeeeeeah... I'm sure Coach K really "made a point of demeaning [his] efforts as a journalist." I'm sure he started each day by saying, "The heck with coaching the Olympic team! The heck with developing some of the best young talent in America! The heck with teaching at Fuqua! What, oh what, did Greg Beaton write about me in the Chronicle??"

Good luck in the real world, Greg! People just love Duke grads who are full of themselves.

I read the article and I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about... I think you are referencing one line at the end in which Greg called coach K a critic, but I really can't be sure...

[Jumbo]

Jumbo- Your identity does matter. There is a reason why most newspapers require that columns and letters not be anonymous...

This is most definitely not a newspaper. The vast majority of posters here are anonymous. Words matter here, not names.

[colchar]

This is most definitely not a newspaper. The vast majority of posters here are anonymous. Words matter here, not names.

But his is out there while you have the benefit of hiding behind a post-name.

[BlueintheFace]

This is most definitely not a newspaper. The vast majority of posters here are anonymous. Words matter here, not names.

This is true. I will not argue with you there. My only point is that Greg put his name behind his opinion and simply asked for you to do the same if you were going to criticize him.

I think it was a fair request, especially since he was going to debate you at DBR (home field advantage?). I also think it was reasonable for you to decline. With these things said... A TIE!!

[Jumbo]

But his is out there while you have the benefit of hiding behind a post-name.

Yes, he is a columnist for a college newspaper. That is a choice. He also chose to write what he did. I have made a choice not to post my name on this forum, for reasons that you and others have respected for more than a decade. That has never stopped any of you from diminishing the value of my words before. Greg's fingerprints were already all over the story. If he wanted to stand by what he wrote, the names of those disagreeing with him should not matter. That's my point.

[watzone]

This is most definitely not a newspaper. The vast majority of posters here are anonymous. Words matter here, not names.

In all honesty, I would have a hard time debating anyone, anywhere in a serious fashion if they remained anonymous. This goes for sharing information on a more personal basis too. I could never trust a faceless, nameless person but so much.

But that is a but of a contradictive statement in that I have debated some folks to a certain degree here. The reason I say to a certain degree is that it sometimes gets to a point where some just refuse to budge and argue for the sake of being a Devils Advocate or an arse It's so easy to fling insults and say things in a manner of anonymity and act in a way you would not using a real name.

I can tell you from experience that people sure as heck attack you more often when they know who you are and they can hide behind an alias. It is hard for me to take people but so serious if they are a faceless, nameless person floating in cyber space or don't identify themselves in an e-mail or PM.

I suppose there are some valid reasons if you are a celbrity and want to participate in discussion. Still, IMO, remaining anonymous limits just how far you can partcipate in some realms, good reasons or not. Those who choose to remain nameless might have to accept this for you are not on equal ground in many ways with the Mark's of the world;)

[Channing]

I disagree with some of the above statements. When one is identified, it creates a level of accountability. Whether you agree with him or not, I think it is safe to say that Jumbo has established some level of accountability by contributing to the forum for so long and acting as a moderator for the site. When dealing with online forums, I don't think credibility necessarily comes from being revealed. It comes from being a frequent presence and contributor.

Is it possible that Jumbo would have refused to go pt/counter point, and instead would have reverted to stubborn stances and name calling? Perhaps. However, I would put the odds of that pretty low. There was no indication that J merely wanted to call Beaton a bad Duke fan etc.

And at the end of the day, if they engaged in a debate, and Jumbo acted like a child, the only result is that (a) everyone might have lost about 10 minutes of their time and (b) Jumbo's credibility here would be damaged.

The positive,otoh, that might have resulted would have been something I would have liked to see/read.

[roywhite]

Thanks for reading, everyone. As for "p*issing" down my leg, if you recall I told Jumbo I'd be happy to debate him if he would acknowledge his real identity.

Perfectly reasonable request, IMO. The identification leads to a certain amount of accountability, and in this case, evens the playing field, or court, if you will.

[watzone]

I disagree with some of the above statements. When one is identified, it creates a level of accountability. Whether you agree with him or not, I think it is safe to say that Jumbo has established some level of accountability by contributing to the forum for so long and acting as a moderator for the site. When dealing with online forums, I don't think credibility necessarily comes from being revealed. It comes from being a frequent presence and contributor.

Is it possible that Jumbo would have refused to go pt/counter point, and instead would have reverted to stubborn stances and name calling? Perhaps. However, I would put the odds of that pretty low. There was no indication that J merely wanted to call Beaton a bad Duke fan etc.

And at the end of the day, if they engaged in a debate, and Jumbo acted like a child, the only result is that (a) everyone might have lost about 10 minutes of their time and (b) Jumbo's credibility here would be damaged.

The positive,otoh, that might have resulted would have been something I would have liked to see/read.

No, no. I've not explained or conveyed myself properly. The mere fact that Jumbo is a mod here says he has some cred in that I trust DBR's judgement that they'd choose good mod's. The reason for the trust is that I know the owners and they are stand up guys in every way. The keyword is "know," which eliminates any question I might otherwise have.

I in no way meant that Jumbo would engage in insults or stubborn stances, but that many posters would or could (especially alias types). While I suppose he could engage in the aforementioned activity should he choose to do so, name calling is certainly out of character for him or her:) Okay, that was a joke.

As for the dabate, I am game and would certainly watch or read the results and fwiw, I am certain I would take jumbos side. But I do have strong feelings towards anonymity and I personally would not choose to debate him under similar circumstances.

Again, my words were not directed towards Jumbo other than the alias issue which I would have difficulty with in said circumstances.

Now, could somebody please explain why the red thoums down is at the top of this thread, for I didn't put it there and cannot remove it.

[JasonEvans]

Perfectly reasonable request, IMO. The identification leads to a certain amount of accountability, and in this case, evens the playing field, or court, if you will.

Ok, Jumbo's real name is Jack Mehoff. Can we have a debate now?

I really do not understand this obsession with "real name." 99.9% of the folks on this board are essentially anonymous even if you know their real name. Desite that fact, very few of us use our real names. Is there some silly implication that a debate with Throatybeard, Lavabe, Ozzy4Duke, SilkyJ, or EarlJam is dishonest but a debate with me or Bob Green is kosher? Does that really make sense to any of you?

There is a small percentage of posters here who have identities in real life that make it somewhat difficult for them to use their real names on this bulletin board. Why do people have a problem with this? The option would seem to be, "stay anonymous or do not post." Are you folks really advocating that Jumbo cease posting?

Lets say Jumbo was really Jay Bilas or Johnny Dawkins or Herb Sendek or Bill Simmons or Seth Davis. He wants to talk candidly and be debated and not just play off his name to win any argument. Is there something wrong with that?

Lets say Jumbo works at a job that prohibits him from surfing the net and he is worried that if his real name and his job and hometown were known, someone might be able to track him down and get him fired.

There are many other scenarios that would make it important for someone to remain anonymous. As others have said, it is his history and reputation that matters here-- not his real name.

I think this was just a convenient device to avoid a debate with Jumbo.

--Jason "frankly, that column was so pompous and poorly done, I am not surprised the writer was afraid to debate a clever wordsmith like Jumbo" Evans

[Virginian]

Thanks for reading, everyone. As for "p*issing" down my leg, if you recall I told Jumbo I'd be happy to debate him if he would acknowledge his real identity.

Absolutely no disrespect to either Greg or Jumbo, but I don't see how revealing Jumbo's "real identity" should be a factor in this decision.

As far as all of us on this website are concerned you both are just two names that may or may not be real. We don't know either one of you personally and don't care if we do or not. All we know is you're both people who present opinions on web pages we visit. If that's the "business" you're in, why not keep doing it?

Acknowledging Jumbo's real identity would not in any way be germane to this debate, and neither would knowing Greg's identity.

Again, no disrespect, Greg -- you're free and welcome to decline the debate challenge. But begging off over a supposed identity issue just comes off as a lousy excuse.

Just my opinion. And no, I don't feel I have to reveal my real identity to state it. If you feel you can't respond to my note unless I reveal my real identity, that's your choice. See the point I'm trying to make? In this environment, real identities shouldn't be a pre-requisite for participation.

[kramerbr]

Perfectly reasonable request, IMO. The identification leads to a certain amount of accountability, and in this case, evens the playing field, or court, if you will.

I would say that Jumbo's credibilty and his reputation on this site alone hold him plenty accountable regardless of his identity.

[SupaDave]

OR let's say Jumbo is someone who Beaton doesn't stand a chance in Hades against. I admire Beaton's moxy but I've been a college student and well it's amazing just how much I thought I knew when I had no clue.

From an outside perspective Jumbo displays the kind of patience and poise that I would expect in a mature debate and it is something that Beaton will have to acquire more of over time. We do have to pay our dues in this world and as previously mentioned, what good would it do to debate Jumbo?

If anything, I'd be a smart writer and even if I disagreed I'd approach Jumbo and anyone else that would listen for that matter on how I could become a better writer. The tools are most definitely there and I'm sure Jumbo would give that knowledge freely - no debate necessary.

[Mike Corey]

As others have said, it is his history and reputation that matters here-- not his real name.

I'd even take it beyond that.

The merit of the arguments, and the logic thereof, is all that should matter.

A lack of anonymity does not make an argument any stronger or any weaker, nor does it make it any more or less credible, respectable, etc., etc.

Of course, the disclosure of identity might indicate any biases or influences that shape an opinion or opinionmaker...but in this instance, enough information is clearly had: Jumbo is, if nothing else, a prolific and highly-regarded poster at one of the premier Duke athletics websites around; Greg Beaton is (er, was), if nothing else, a sports columnist at the Duke student newspaper.

I don't remember what the disagreement was about...but just as Greg Beaton's age is irrelevant to the merits of his argument, so too is Jumbo's identity.

[-jk]

Perfectly reasonable request, IMO. The identification leads to a certain amount of accountability, and in this case, evens the playing field, or court, if you will.

For the record, I was prepared to make sure it was a fair debate.

And for that matter, should they ever decide to resurrect it, I'll be happy to referee again.

I don't know who Jumbo is. As far as I know, Julio doesn't know who Jumbo is. He exists here on the merits of ten years of consistent and thoughtful (if not always completely patient or utterly tactful) posting alone.

Reasoned arguments don't need a legally recognized name. This country was founded, in part, on anonymous arguments (cf Common Sense).

-jk

[watzone]

I agree that Beaton may well have been using it as an excuse to avoid debate.

I fully understand what you are saying in that Jumbo may be Seth Davis or a celebrity who wants to post. I understand that he may have a valid reason for protecting his ID. Still, one has to see the other side. That being if you are a celebrity or use an alias, that there may well come a time when you have to accept limitations from the circumstances. Nobody is exempt exclusively that I know of, but perhaps they should be. Is this what you are saying?

You quite simply can't always have it your way no matter who you are. Is that unreasonable? Isn't it enough to have what you do in Jumbos case? Is there some rule that says people must get over celebrity or whatever status and adhere to a person using an alias? You used the supposed analogy that your job might not want you to surf the net and in this case we are supposing that person does. What does this say? Is it that my personal needs of an outlet will make me go agaisnt my employers wishes or that my employer has unrealistic expectations? I mean it's not so simple, is it?

Suppose a person PM'd you often asking about information, maybe even offering some too even though nobody asked. If you didn't know their identity and they were asking sensitive questions, would you trust them?

What if they boasted about their information? What if they wanted to talk on a personal level but couldn't find the trust to at least tell you their identity?

I am sorry, but there are limitations and maybe I missed it, but I have seen nobody ask Jumbo not to post. All of the above is simply my opinion. Funny though, I know you and all but one of the posters you listed by their real names. And if I wasn't taunted in a PM after a misunderstood first post, I'd have been more gentle. "I have good information and I am annonymous," doesn't mean much when the track record is far from perfect and the questions are oh-so frequent. To the guy who sent it - get over yourself and your ego and please quit bragging behind no name.



Ok, Jumbo's real name is Jack Mehoff. Can we have a debate now?

I really do not understand this obsession with "real name." 99.9% of the folks on this board are essentially anonymous even if you know their real name. Desite that fact, very few of us use our real names. Is there some silly implication that a debate with Throatybeard, Lavabe, Ozzy4Duke, SilkyJ, or EarlJam is dishonest but a debate with me or Bob Green is kosher? Does that really make sense to any of you?

There is a small percentage of posters here who have identities in real life that make it somewhat difficult for them to use their real names on this bulletin board. Why do people have a problem with this? The option would seem to be, "stay anonymous or do not post." Are you folks really advocating that Jumbo cease posting?


Lets say Jumbo was really Jay Bilas or Johnny Dawkins or Herb Sendek or Bill Simmons or Seth Davis. He wants to talk candidly and be debated and not just play off his name to win any argument. Is there something wrong with that?

Lets say Jumbo works at a job that prohibits him from surfing the net and he is worried that if his real name and his job and hometown were known, someone might be able to track him down and get him fired.

There are many other scenarios that would make it important for someone to remain anonymous. As others have said, it is his history and reputation that matters here-- not his real name.

I think this was just a convenient device to avoid a debate with Jumbo.

--Jason "frankly, that column was so pompous and poorly done, I am not surprised the writer was afraid to debate a clever wordsmith like Jumbo" Evans

[SupaDave]

You quite simply can't always have it your way no matter who you are.

That's not what Burger King says!!

[Troublemaker]

I'd even take it beyond that.

The merit of the arguments, and the logic thereof, is all that should matter.

A lack of anonymity does not make an argument any stronger or any weaker, nor does it make it any more or less credible, respectable, etc., etc.

Of course, the disclosure of identity might indicate any biases or influences that shape an opinion or opinionmaker...but in this instance, enough information is clearly had: Jumbo is, if nothing else, a prolific and highly-regarded poster at one of the premier Duke athletics websites around; Greg Beaton is (er, was), if nothing else, a sports columnist at the Duke student newspaper.

I don't remember what the disagreement was about...but just as Greg Beaton's age is irrelevant to the merits of his argument, so too is Jumbo's identity.

Nods. If anything, anonymity can help a debate because it pretty much guarantees that individuals won't be attacked, only their arguments.

As for Beaton's stipulation that Jumbo reveal his identity, a cynical person might suggest that it's a convenient way to avoid the debate. I'll fight you, Muhammad Ali, but uh, only if you renounce Islam. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Not that the debate would've held much value and was something we should yearn for. As I mentioned at the time, Beaton's only a kid, and I would assume that he will mature and one day look back upon his column and recognize its weak points. Maybe he'll even blush.

[Jumbo]

I fully understand what you are saying in that Jumbo may be Seth Davis or a celebrity who wants to post.

Why would anyone think I'm a "celebrity?" Sheesh.

[BlueintheFace]

Beaton is Gone

They Didn't Debate

Beaton was (by most accounts on campus and in the Duke Community outside of this board) a decent writer

Jumbo is a well respected contributor to this board

Can we please just agree that it was a reasonable request to know the name of somebody who wants to verbally rip you limb for limb on a message board since they know yours AND it was equally reasonable for Jumbo to decline to protect his career, reputation, etc...?

Lets just be done with this topic... anybody with me or am I all alone?

[Duvall]

Beaton was (by most accounts on campus and in the Duke Community outside of this board) a decent writer


I'm confused - I thought he wrote for the Chronicle.

[Greg Beaton]

Hilarious, Duvall.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get this debate (about a debate) going again. I was just taking issue with the comment that I was "p*ssing" down my leg in fear.

[Wander]

I would say that Jumbo's credibilty and his reputation on this site alone hold him plenty accountable regardless of his identity.

That's complete BS and shows how DBR generally thinks of itself as way more important than it actually is. When it comes down to it, it's a website - it's a good website, but just a website. Credibility under some internet name is nothing in comparison to having your real name attached to something.

For the record, I think The Chronicle's sports columns have been crap this year. However, Greg was completely reasonable in asking for Jumbo to identify himself (given that Greg's identity was already out there). Jumbo was also completely reasonable in denying the request and choosing not to enter the debate.

[Greg Beaton]

Also, this was never really about the issue of anonymity on the internet in general, although I agree with most of what watzone has had to say. I called Jumbo out to reveal himself only after he called me a "coward," to which I replied that it's not cowardly to be willing to stand by your opinions by having your name attached to them.

[brevity]

Lets just be done with this topic... anybody with me or am I all alone?

Seemingly, you're all alone. It's hard to shut down a thread in which the moderators are the most active posters.

[jma4life]

Not to get back to this, and I don't remember the details but I think Jason_Evans thinks similarly to Jumbo regarding the initial Beaton article so is there anyway that those two debate? I know this is really between Jumbo and Beaton but I feel like Jason shares Jumbo's views on this subject and his identity is out there so all should be down for it as long as you guys have the time? I may be wrong in assuming that Jason shares the same view as Jumbo regarding the article and obviously, he might not want to take part in the debate but its a possibility.

[Mike Corey]

Credibility under some internet name is nothing in comparison to having your real name attached to something.

I respectfully disagree with this statement in the context of this discussion.

If the person in question were a reporter, or a source of information, that would be one thing. He's just an analytical poster, however, sharing opinions and assessments of the game and of the men's basketball team. Beaton essentially held the same position, albeit in a different forum, and published his interpretations on a regular basis.

But to concede the point for a moment, "new media" still permits people to earn the trust of readers (or listeners, via podcasts) just as much as "old media" permits readers to earn the trust of readers (or listeners, via radio and/or television). Anonymity or being a known identity has nothing to do with earning that trust...or losing it. Actions louder than words, and all...even when the actions are defined by words.

And there are plenty of words with which to assess Jumbo's "credibility" as an analyst of Duke basketball. He's someone with strong opinions and a proven knowledge of basketball. That's a refutable point, I suppose...but not on the grounds of anonymity, but on the merits--or lack thereof--in his analyses of Duke basketball.

Having his true name--John Doe--attached to the opinions and analyses he's penned over the years would not magnify his credibility in my personal opinion, even if he had professional ties to the game or to the reportage of it. He long ago proved his worth.

~

And now to defend The Chronicle: While not all writers for The Chronicle are good ones, plenty are quite good. And the paper is still an educational tool--an invaluable one--that is imperfect, sure, but more than worthwhile. I am biased on this point, obviously, but the blanket denigrations of the newspaper have never sat well with me, nor the blanket denigrations of the student-journalists that make the paper run...just as blanket denigrations of student-athletes disturb me. In the end, they're all their to learn, and they do so--in part--by performing a public role for the school community. We pay more attention to some more than others...but in the end they're all representatives and members of the Duke community. We rightfully hold each other accountable for our actions (and words)...but I digress.

[SupaDave]

I respectfully disagree with this statement in the context of this discussion.

If the person in question were a reporter, or a source of information, that would be one thing. He's just an analytical poster, however, sharing opinions and assessments of the game and of the men's basketball team. Beaton essentially held the same position, albeit in a different forum, and published his interpretations on a regular basis.

But to concede the point for a moment, "new media" still permits people to earn the trust of readers (or listeners, via podcasts) just as much as "old media" permits readers to earn the trust of readers (or listeners, via radio and/or television). Anonymity or being a known identity has nothing to do with earning that trust...or losing it. Actions louder than words, and all...even when the actions are defined by words.

And there are plenty of words with which to assess Jumbo's "credibility" as an analyst of Duke basketball. He's someone with strong opinions and a proven knowledge of basketball. That's a refutable point, I suppose...but not on the grounds of anonymity, but on the merits--or lack thereof--in his analyses of Duke basketball.

Having his true name--John Doe--attached to the opinions and analyses he's penned over the years would not magnify his credibility in my personal opinion, even if he had professional ties to the game or to the reportage of it. He long ago proved his worth.

~

And now to defend The Chronicle: While not all writers for The Chronicle are good ones, plenty are quite good. And the paper is still an educational tool--an invaluable one--that is imperfect, sure, but more than worthwhile. I am biased on this point, obviously, but the blanket denigrations of the newspaper have never sat well with me, nor the blanket denigrations of the student-journalists that make the paper run...just as blanket denigrations of student-athletes disturb me. In the end, they're all their to learn, and they do so--in part--by performing a public role for the school community. We pay more attention to some more than others...but in the end they're all representatives and members of the Duke community. We rightfully hold each other accountable for our actions (and words)...but I digress.

How many GREAT books have been written by ghostwriters? Identity is not important if you truly have something to say.

[Edouble]

I think Jumbo is Greg Beaton.

[SupaDave]

I think Jumbo is Greg Beaton.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist..."

[Jumbo]

And now to defend The Chronicle: While not all writers for The Chronicle are good ones, plenty are quite good. And the paper is still an educational tool--an invaluable one--that is imperfect, sure, but more than worthwhile. I am biased on this point, obviously, but the blanket denigrations of the newspaper have never sat well with me, nor the blanket denigrations of the student-journalists that make the paper run...just as blanket denigrations of student-athletes disturb me. In the end, they're all their to learn, and they do so--in part--by performing a public role for the school community. We pay more attention to some more than others...but in the end they're all representatives and members of the Duke community. We rightfully hold each other accountable for our actions (and words)...but I digress.

Great points, Mike. Another role I've often adopted on the DBR has been "Chronicle defender," knowing the challenges faced by college newspapers. That's why I've been continually disappointed in Greg Beaton's writing, as he doesn't seem to understand his role or the power of his words, lacks perspective and seems to have trouble with reading comprehension. For instance, I said it would be cowardly of Beaton not to address the site he ripped. At that point, he had never posted on DBR. Someone got in touch with him and, to his credit, he signed up then. But in his recounting of events in this thread, that sequence suddenly disappeared. I hope his other reporting hasn't been similarly flawed.

[MChambers]

Not to get back to this, and I don't remember the details but I think Jason_Evans thinks similarly to Jumbo regarding the initial Beaton article so is there anyway that those two debate? I know this is really between Jumbo and Beaton but I feel like Jason shares Jumbo's views on this subject and his identity is out there so all should be down for it as long as you guys have the time? I may be wrong in assuming that Jason shares the same view as Jumbo regarding the article and obviously, he might not want to take part in the debate but its a possibility.

Has anyone ever seen Jason and Jumbo together? Maybe they are one and the same. (Think what that would do to Jason's posting stats.)

[Jumbo]

Has anyone ever seen Jason and Jumbo together? Maybe they are one and the same. (Think what that would do to Jason's posting stats.)

Actually, I'm Watzone.

[RepoMan]

Why would anyone think I'm a "celebrity?" Sheesh.

I can't wait for the big "reveal" when Jumbo retires.

Imagine the discussions:


"Wow, who knew Madonna knew so much about hoops!"

"In retrospect, I can see why Barack Obama didn't want to let everyone know he was a Duke fan -- you know, the whole anti-Duke bandwagon thing."

Etc.

[shadowfax336]

Has anyone ever seen Jumbo and Coach K in the same place at the same time?

what about Jay Bilas (on a very slightly more realistic note)

[MChambers]

"Jumbo" probably is really Shaquille O'Neal. Biggest guy I've ever see, except for George Muresan.

[watzone]

As always Mike, you share your view in an eloquent manner. I have a few areas I where I'd like to respectfully question. Before I start, I think it's fair to say that this has become about more than Jumbo. The reason I say this is that we have seemingly brought anonymous writers, authors and or well known posters to the forefront.

That said, I ask that others and yourself satisfy my curiosity and point me to sports figures, writers, and such which are respected, accepted and anonymous. I am sure there are some, but "accepted by all" might be worth examining.

In Jumbo's case, everyone that has been around the DBR is familiar with his postings, strong opinions and or arguments. Obviously, he wouldn't be here if he were not a fan and has proven to be one time and time again. Still, there are some who seemingly haven't fully accepted or respected his anonymity from reading these boards in the past.

Here is the culprit IMO. Jumbo is a self proclaimed journalist and there is no reason to think this isn't true. Still, he is sometimes quick to critique the work of others, yet we cannot read his. We can however read his postings but opinions are certainly not something we critique, but disagree with and therefore debate should we choose to do so.

Perhaps offering up that "I a professional journalist" should have been left out long ago. When you are making a case for yourself and drop certain things along the way, it can come off like boasting if not bullying to some. I can tell you that it sometimes doesn't bode to well with me. That being, someone who is aggressive in retort and mentions things they cannot talk about, yet they sorta do:)

It all comes down to fairness for me. Is it fair to take issue with certain comment or article considering that they are in a position to avoid the same? I suppose so on a message board, but perhaps the reach of their criticism should be limited. Nah! Still, it's all subjective or is it;)

I shouldn't have to say that I disagree with Beaton's column because I have shown my beliefs clearly and in a consistent manner with concerns to the men's basketball program. Despite that, I have been invited more times than not for debate in the past on this and the board as it's former self. Like Beaton may feel, I lost interest in the fact that the person which challenged me was more times than not unnamed with nothing more than their anonymity's reputation at stake.

No offense to young Beaton, but there is little doubt that Jumbo would make hamburger out of him and feed him to the wolves. Not only because he is standing on wobbly ground with his opinion but because I am certain Jumbo has the knowledge and certainly the spunk and desire to devour him. I mean acting like one of the 300 will not always get you in the history books to be remembered as well ...

Okay, back to your statements Mike. You said if a person was a reporter or source of, etc. Well, how do you know who he is or what he does? How do we know who any anonymous poster is? It is obvious that Jason knows Jumbo personally and he is faithful to no end with his cohort or friend. But tha comes from accountability to a certain degree, doesn't it?

I can certainly respect Jason backing him. I most definitely respect Jason. Let me make it clear that I respect Jumbo as a poster and a knowledgeable fan of Duke Basketball. But there is some ground where your anonymity does come into play and will be questioned.

All I know of Jumbo is what he tells me or asks me to believe. But for me strong opinions, rumors, supposed facts and the desire of full trust and respect is a lot to swallow with anonymity in play.

I can talk to Jumbo all day here, but on a personal level ... well, how could it ever be a personal level with the lack of trust or a persona name? This is also a big reason in why I have a problem with anonymity in general. (yes I do understand there are rare cases of need)

As for Jumbos worth. I agree wholeheartedly that this board would not be the same without him and his comments. He adds true value just as you do. I would also agree that he has defended Duke to a fault and seems to understand the inner workings of what makes the program tick.

But in the end, his opinions would mean that much more to me on a personal level and likely soar in validity if a name were attached to them. Especially when he ventures into certain arenas where few dare to tread. Inside or good information means little to me from a shadow figure. This carries over into some opinion as well in that there is no balanced ground in which to make a fair judgement.

So, the only problem I have is my personal take on anonymity. Jumbo posting here and moderating is fine by me.


I respectfully disagree with this statement in the context of this discussion.

If the person in question were a reporter, or a source of information, that would be one thing. He's just an analytical poster, however, sharing opinions and assessments of the game and of the men's basketball team. Beaton essentially held the same position, albeit in a different forum, and published his interpretations on a regular basis.

But to concede the point for a moment, "new media" still permits people to earn the trust of readers (or listeners, via podcasts) just as much as "old media" permits readers to earn the trust of readers (or listeners, via radio and/or television). Anonymity or being a known identity has nothing to do with earning that trust...or losing it. Actions louder than words, and all...even when the actions are defined by words.

And there are plenty of words with which to assess Jumbo's "credibility" as an analyst of Duke basketball. He's someone with strong opinions and a proven knowledge of basketball. That's a refutable point, I suppose...but not on the grounds of anonymity, but on the merits--or lack thereof--in his analyses of Duke basketball.

Having his true name--John Doe--attached to the opinions and analyses he's penned over the years would not magnify his credibility in my personal opinion, even if he had professional ties to the game or to the reportage of it. He long ago proved his worth.

~

And now to defend The Chronicle: While not all writers for The Chronicle are good ones, plenty are quite good. And the paper is still an educational tool--an invaluable one--that is imperfect, sure, but more than worthwhile. I am biased on this point, obviously, but the blanket denigrations of the newspaper have never sat well with me, nor the blanket denigrations of the student-journalists that make the paper run...just as blanket denigrations of student-athletes disturb me. In the end, they're all their to learn, and they do so--in part--by performing a public role for the school community. We pay more attention to some more than others...but in the end they're all representatives and members of the Duke community. We rightfully hold each other accountable for our actions (and words)...but I digress.

[BlueintheFace]

what happens when we realize that Jumbo is a jobless freckle-faced thirty year old living in his mom' basement who spends all his time at DBR cause it is the only place he is important?

(No Offense Jumbo, but it is always a small possibility...)

Then again, he could be mickie.

Sidestory- A few years ago Mickie was talking with one of my friends/tentmates after a K speech in Cameron and mentioned that she liked to go on message boards from time to time... intriguing , no?

[watzone]

I am Keyser Soze.

[Truth]

I am Tiger Woods.

I am Witness.

I am what I am -- ala Popeye.

That's all I got...

[Cavlaw]

I guess I'm not sure what the purpose of this whole discussion on real names is.

This is a community that provides for anonymity, in the same way that most other internet forums do. The nature of the beast is plain when a poster begins to participate. What sense is there, then, for someone to enter the community, knowing the rules, and then attempt to elevate himself/herself above the masses by proclaiming he/she will not deign to interact with those who do not behave in a manner arbitrated by the poster?

Frankly, every poster here could tell me their real name and I still wouldn't know them from Adam. No offense to those of you posting under your real names (or for whom your real names are apparently widely known), but I've never met you and I have no idea who you are. Jason Evans works for CNN, Bob Green is a navy man who lives in Japan, Mike Corey I think works for Duke, and Watzone and Jumbo apparently have some loose affiliation with the program. None of that tells me anything, and googling you doesn't offer any further insight. You could use a completely anonymous handle and I'd still have the exact same impression of you, because it's based on what you write here.

That's what it boils down to. What you write is who you are around here. That is our community. If you elect to participate in it, you're electing to interact with people whom you most likely haven't ever met, because you love Duke basketball and you want to talk about it with people who feel the same way. If you don't have time to interact with the people whose real names you don't know, then you don't have time for the DBR.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[ugadevil]

I guess I'm not sure what the purpose of this whole discussion on real names is.

This is a community that provides for anonymity, in the same way that most other internet forums do. The nature of the beast is plain when a poster begins to participate. What sense is there, then, for someone to enter the community, knowing the rules, and then attempt to elevate himself/herself above the masses by proclaiming he/she will not deign to interact with those who do not behave in a manner arbitrated by the poster?

Frankly, every poster here could tell me their real name and I still wouldn't know them from Adam. No offense to those of you posting under your real names (or for whom your real names are apparently widely known), but I've never met you and I have no idea who you are. Jason Evans works for CNN, Bob Green is a navy man who lives in Japan, Mike Corey I think works for Duke, and Watzone and Jumbo apparently have some loose affiliation with the program. None of that tells me anything, and googling you doesn't offer any further insight. You could use a completely anonymous handle and I'd still have the exact same impression of you, because it's based on what you write here.

That's what it boils down to. What you write is who you are around here. That is our community. If you elect to participate in it, you're electing to interact with people whom you most likely haven't ever met, because you love Duke basketball and you want to talk about it with people who feel the same way. If you don't have time to interact with the people whose real names you don't know, then you don't have time for the DBR.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Well said. And I felt the need to change my avatar after reading this thread.

[Bluedawg]

I think this was just a convenient device to avoid a debate with Jumbo.

--Jason "frankly, that column was so pompous and poorly done, I am not surprised the writer was afraid to debate a clever wordsmith like Jumbo" Evans

Agreed

[bfree]

Jumbo is Armando.

[roywhite]

Also, this was never really about the issue of anonymity on the internet in general, although I agree with most of what watzone has had to say. I called Jumbo out to reveal himself only after he called me a "coward," to which I replied that it's not cowardly to be willing to stand by your opinions by having your name attached to them.

Cavlaw,

This was the point as I saw it.

I thought that was a reasonable point and request by Beaton; several others did not think it was reasonable or necessary.

We seem to be about done, unless I'm missing something.

[Cavlaw]

Cavlaw,

This was the point as I saw it.

I thought that was a reasonable point and request by Beaton; several others did not think it was reasonable or necessary.

We seem to be about done, unless I'm missing something.
(Just to be clear, I wasn't aiming anything in my prior post at Mr. Beaton; I hadn't even read any of his posts but for where they were quoted.)

I guess I don't see the relevance of Jumbo's real name to a debate over the merits of an article written by Mr. Beaton. The arguments to be raised would either have merit or not, would either be compelling or not, and the "real identity" of the individual giving voice to those arguments doesn't strike me as important.

Mr. Beaton's real name was out there because he penned the article in question using it and he was being invited to defend that article within this community (where most of us have ficticious names). Had he penned the column under a ficticious name, he would have been invited to debate under that name (I would venture a guess that he has another, anonymous name here, though I haven't and won't check). Jumbo's interest was in debating with the author of the column, not with Mr. Beaton personally.

Within this community, Jumbo has a reputation he has cultivated over a decade of posting. With that kind of history, for purposes of the DBR "Jumbo" is his real name. In his "other life" as a journalist he does put things in print under his own name and presumably stands by it. For all we know, if his assignment are related to basketball, his articles have been critqued on the DBR, for whatever that's worth.

I didn't approve of the manner in which Jumbo called out Mr. Beaton to invite him to debate. I likewise don't approve of his calling Mr. Beaton a "coward" (though I never saw that post). Assuming he did, I think the target of the comment was Mr. Beaton's unwillingness to enter into a debate with someone known to have a superior reservoir of knowledge with respect to college basketball and an ability to convinvingly articulate his position.

The response from Mr. Beaton that Jumbo should reveal himself in order for the debate to occur struck me as a red herring to (i) avoid the debate he didn't want to have, knowing he would likely lose, and (ii) foist both the blame for not having a debate, as well as the spotlight in the community, upon Jumbo. I believe this precisely because I believe that Jumbo's real name doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the merits of the points that would be raised in such a debate, so asking for it wouldn't have any other value than distracting others. The tactic seems to have worked with respect to some posters.

Regarding the "credibility" of anonymous posters, again, on the DBR we are what we write. There are some posters here who think they can seize credibility by claiming resumes we have no way of verifying. They cannot. There are others who think they have established credibility by making their real identities known, directly or indirectly. They have not.

Jumbo has done neither. He has offered up that he is a journalist at times so that we understand the perspective from which he writes, but he has never claimed it as an appeal to authority in an argument. He makes his points in his posts and he makes them well, and therein lies his credibility.

If someone here wants to suggest they have greater credibility with respect to college basketball than Jumbo on the basis of revealing their identity rather than on the basis of the substance of their posts, the only response I can offer is laughter.

[Mike Corey]

Before I start, I think it's fair to say that this has become about more than Jumbo.

Blasphemy!


That said, I ask that others and yourself satisfy my curiosity and point me to sports figures, writers, and such which are respected, accepted and anonymous. I am sure there are some, but "accepted by all" might be worth examining.

Aside from occasional ghostwriting (which has been successfully utilized by a range of modern writers from book-machine Joyce Carol Oates to political pundit Joe Klein), the traditional world of media and publishing has made it difficult to thrive anonymously. As such, "new media"--and this message board absolutely qualifies as "new media"--has created quite a niche for anonymous writing, and respect thereof.

I'm not sure why you asked me to produce the names of anonymous "sports figures," but there are certainly anonymous "writers and such" that are respected across the internet--and on this board.

Consider the example of political boards, the best-known and most-oft-vilified of which is probably Daily Kos. Though it is hosted by a named individual, its lifeblood is the swath of respected site members that have developed a surplus of reliability either for delivery of quality analysis or quality information. That site's best-known members are mostly unknown individuals: people like "NYCeve," "Plutonium Page," "Kid Oakland," and so forth. Would these people be able to get anything published in a newspaper under those identities? Probably not. But they're not trying to. They're working in the "new media."

Just like Jumbo.

You're working in the new media, as well. But for reasons you reached, you wanted your name out there. And that's great. But there is a distinction I'd like to humbly identify: In your new media, you report information in addition to offering analysis; In Jumbo's interaction with new media, he does not...he merely offers an individual's opinion. That isn't to say he'd be required to be more transparent if he were offering information, nor is it to say you'd be any less successful at what you're doing if you were anonymous. But sometimes having your name out there is a boon for your purposes, and sometimes having it out there is a bad thing.

In the case of Beaton-Jumbo, I do not see how an awareness of Jumbo's name would make a difference to the argument and its merits--assuming, as Cavlaw so perfectly articulated, that we'd have no idea who Jumbo is, as he has no idea who I am, who Jason Evans is, who you are, etc.


Here is the culprit IMO. Jumbo is a self proclaimed journalist and there is no reason to think this isn't true. Still, he is sometimes quick to critique the work of others, yet we cannot read his.

Respectfully, I do not see how reading his professional work might have any bearing on the quality of his arguments here. We can be just as critical of his work here without being aware of his work elsewhere. What if he were a rocket scientist? Or a janitor? Would being aware of his theorems on space travel be of consequence, or the quality of his cleanliness be damning enough to render his viewpoints more or less meritorious?


We can however read his postings but opinions are certainly not something we critique, but disagree with and therefore debate should we choose to do so.

Bingo! And Beaton chose not to do so. And that's fine! I wouldn't want to debate Jumbo either.


Perhaps offering up that "I a professional journalist" should have been left out long ago. When you are making a case for yourself and drop certain things along the way, it can come off like boasting if not bullying to some. I can tell you that it sometimes doesn't bode to well with me. That being, someone who is aggressive in retort and mentions things they cannot talk about, yet they sorta do:)

I don't think this is relevant to me, so I'll let it go. :)


It all comes down to fairness for me. Is it fair to take issue with certain comment or article considering that they are in a position to avoid the same?

I must disagree with the premise of this statement. Anything and everything relevant to this conversation happens on these boards. Beaton could pick and choose anything he wants to that Jumbo has written here and scrutinize it to death. Jumbo's outside work is irrelevant, just like Beaton's schoolwork is irrelevant. What is of interest is Beaton's sports columns, which are about Duke basketball, and Jumbo's DBR musings, which are about Duke basketball. That is what the "discussion" would have been about; that is what this discussion ought to be about.

Beaton's work at his newspaper is relevant to the conversation. Jumbo's work at whatever media outlet he might work for is not...even if you're assuming he works as a sportswriter or sports commentator somewhere. His sportswriting here is all that matters.


Like Beaton may feel, I lost interest in the fact that the person which challenged me was more times than not unnamed with nothing more than their anonymity's reputation at stake.

This is an interesting point, and your personal take, so I'm in no position to agree or disagree.

As someone whose personal name has been trashed in other forums by named individuals and unnamed individuals alike, I think I can understand what you're saying, though I disagree with the premise: If your name is out there, your reputation is on the line regardless. The reputation of others is not of concern in that context.

When, for example, K.C. Johnson was manipulating my words, my "reputation" was taking a hit. As a consequence, anonymous posters reiterated those missteps in various forums and avenues. So it goes.

The "debate" that I had with Professor Johnson thereafter was not one that was weighed on whether or not I could do equal or greater damage to his reputation, but on the merits of our arguments, on the grounds of which I believe I held my own because of the content of what I was arguing, not because of who was making the argument.


Okay, back to your statements Mike. You said if a person was a reporter or source of, etc. Well, how do you know who he is or what he does? How do we know who any anonymous poster is? It is obvious that Jason knows Jumbo personally and he is faithful to no end with his cohort or friend. But tha comes from accountability to a certain degree, doesn't it?

I believe you misunderstood me. I only meant if that anonymous poster used that alias to share his/her reportage. Jumbo is not a reporter of Duke basketball in this forum. He is an analyst of it, like every poster here, save for people like you, Jim Sumner, yours truly, etc.

The rest of your post, I don't believe, is meant for my rumination.

Hope that answers some of your questions in a satisfactory manner.

[gvtucker]

I think this is all quite funny. Whatever screen name Jumbo uses (and whether or not it has anything to do with his given name) is really irrelevant.

Let's say, for example, that some new poster to the board named BozoTheClown had the Taylor King transfer news a week ahead of everyone else, knew that Alleva was a candidate for the LSU AD job a week ahead of everyone else, and also knew that Echenique would commit to Rutgers a week before he committed.

There would be plenty of people hanging on his next pronouncement, watzone and Greg Beaton and Jumbo included. Why? Because of the content of what he said, not his screen name.

[Stray Gator]

The true identity of a party to a debate should only be important if the arguments depend upon the advocate's personal credibility rather than upon independently verifiable facts. If Jumbo counters the contentions in Beaton's column with statements that say, in effect, "trust me, folks, I know what I'm talking about here," then knowing Jumbo's identity could either enhance or undermine his credibility, so it could help the reader assess how much value to ascribe to Jumbo's statement. For example, I don't think anyone here doubts Jumbo's credibility insofar as he has clearly established his knowledge of the game of basketball. However, if Jumbo argues a point based on his understanding or perception of what Coach K believes is important to the program, or is seeking to achieve with the team, or considers significant to a player's development, we'd be justifiably hesitant to accept his argument without knowing whether he is in a position to be familiar with Coach K's thinking. Conversely, if Jumbo sets out to refute the premises on which Beaton's opinions rest by citing statistics and other confirmable facts--i.e., won-loss records, number of transfers or early departures relative to comparable programs, etc.--then Jumbo's identity ought to be immaterial. Readers can still draw their own conclusions based on what they deduce from the facts, but Jumbo's personal credibility will not affect that process.

Based on my experience in these forums, arguments based on opinions and perceptions may occasionally influence the thinking of others when the person expressing those opinions and perceptions has already established a measure of credibility in the online community. But objectively confirmed facts and figures, even if provided by a stranger, are much more likely to succeed in changing someone else's mind.

[Wander]

If someone here wants to suggest they have greater credibility with respect to college basketball than Jumbo on the basis of revealing their identity rather than on the basis of the substance of their posts, the only response I can offer is laughter.

And I'll offer laughter at most everyone here for completely missing the point. The issue isn't that Jumbo's posts or points become more credible if he reveals his name. They're plenty credible as is, not because of a name but because he's shown he knows what he's talking about.

The only point that matters is that it's really damn easy to criticize from an anonymous position. Really, really easy. If you're made to look like a fool, who cares? DBR isn't a community, it's a website - if your reputation is ruined you can just never type in the URL to your web browser again and it your bad "reputation" will never again have an effect on your life, guaranteed. Or even less punishing, just go and make a new board name. On the other hand, if you're not anonymous, things can follow you around, and I can understand why that would be especially important to a young writer.

[Cavlaw]

And I'll offer laughter at most everyone here for completely missing the point. The issue isn't that Jumbo's posts or points become more credible if he reveals his name. They're plenty credible as is, not because of a name but because he's shown he knows what he's talking about.

The only point that matters is that it's really damn easy to criticize from an anonymous position. Really, really easy. If you're made to look like a fool, who cares? DBR isn't a community, it's a website - if your reputation is ruined you can just never type in the URL to your web browser again and it your bad "reputation" will never again have an effect on your life, guaranteed. Or even less punishing, just go and make a new board name. On the other hand, if you're not anonymous, things can follow you around, and I can understand why that would be especially important to a young writer.
The effect on Beaton is the same whether Jumbo agreed to reveal his name or not.

[Mike Corey]

The only point that matters is that it's really damn easy to criticize from an anonymous position. Really, really easy. If you're made to look like a fool, who cares? DBR isn't a community, it's a website - if your reputation is ruined you can just never type in the URL to your web browser again and it your bad "reputation" will never again have an effect on your life, guaranteed. Or even less punishing, just go and make a new board name. On the other hand, if you're not anonymous, things can follow you around, and I can understand why that would be especially important to a young writer.

But Beaton's already made his bed, so to speak. He's already penned his column under his name.

If his reputation were his concern, wouldn't he have disagreed to a debate with Jumbo regardless of whether or not he abondoned his anonymity?

[wilson]

And I'll offer laughter at most everyone here for completely missing the point. The issue isn't that Jumbo's posts or points become more credible if he reveals his name. They're plenty credible as is, not because of a name but because he's shown he knows what he's talking about.

The only point that matters is that it's really damn easy to criticize from an anonymous position. Really, really easy. If you're made to look like a fool, who cares? DBR isn't a community, it's a website - if your reputation is ruined you can just never type in the URL to your web browser again and it your bad "reputation" will never again have an effect on your life, guaranteed. Or even less punishing, just go and make a new board name. On the other hand, if you're not anonymous, things can follow you around, and I can understand why that would be especially important to a young writer.

Excellently stated. I've been thinking the same thing, but had thus far neglected/failed to articulate it thusly. I agree with you 100%.

[watzone]

"John Hancock signed the American Declaration of Independence using a large bold signature. He did so as a political statement. His signature remains the definitive symbol of placing ones full and public support behind a political statement.

Those who would rise above noise level and be taken seriously in public debate on the Internet will have to learn to do as Hancock did. Only when participants are willing to place their name and reputation on the line will Internet discussions have a lasting impact."

[Mike Corey]

"John Hancock signed the American Declaration of Independence using a large bold signature. He did so as a political statement. His signature remains the definitive symbol of placing ones full and public support behind a political statement.

Those who would rise above noise level and be taken seriously in public debate on the Internet will have to learn to do as Hancock did. Only when participants are willing to place their name and reputation on the line will Internet discussions have a lasting impact."

Really? We're comparing the Declaration of Independence to sports chatter on the internet?

Even as a metaphor, that's a bit much, IMO.

Two completely different mediums, two completely different forums, two completely different requirements.

[watzone]

Really? We're comparing the Declaration of Independence to sports chatter on the internet?

Even as a metaphor, that's a bit much, IMO.

Two completely different mediums, two completely different forums, two completely different requirements.

Indeed. So we are now saying that ones word in any forum has different rules. I suppose there are no true rules on engagement.

One cannot deny that the debate would take place if each person used their real name though, could they?

It would have been a one sided affair IMO.

[BCGroup]

I've been following this discussion, and I have to agree with those who realistically have taken a more moderate position. It's not you have to be anonymous or not. It's that you can choose to be anonymous and state your case based on content rather than personality. As long as you are making valid points, then you earn your way so to speak. On the other hand, we've had those posters who come in and say, "so and so is doing such and such because I know someone who knows him. Trust me." Those folks have no credibility and are usually ignored around here. That isn't Jumbo. He makes his case (albeit sometimes worded more appropriately than others) and that's all he said he would do. I'll trust that he has his reasons for not revealing his name, and I'll respect that since I want the same thing. No matter what else, someone wanting to retain some form of privacy on the internet is something that should still be valued.

[Mike Corey]

Indeed. So we are now saying that ones word in any forum has different rules. I suppose there are no true rules on engagement.

Indeed not.

It has nothing to do with "rules of engagement."

The Declaration of Independence, if signed by "Anonymous," would have been ineffective.

The DBR forums--like any other athletic forum media run by and for fans--do not require "political statements" but merely statements from individuals, known or unknown, to be effective.

That is the difference.

DBR is about engaging one another, not the world around it.

[Duvall]

"John Hancock signed the American Declaration of Independence using a large bold signature. He did so as a political statement. His signature remains the definitive symbol of placing ones full and public support behind a political statement.

Those who would rise above noise level and be taken seriously in public debate on the Internet will have to learn to do as Hancock did. Only when participants are willing to place their name and reputation on the line will Internet discussions have a lasting impact."

Who are you quoting?

[juise]

Who are you quoting?

http://www.acthompson.net/PrivPol.htm

[Johnboy]

How many GREAT books have been written by ghostwriters? Identity is not important if you truly have something to say.

Jumbo, Mark Twain, George Sand, Isak Dinesen, George Eliot, Dr. Suess, and O. Henry all have one thing in common.

[wilson]

Jumbo, Mark Twain, George Sand, Isak Dinesen, George Eliot, Dr. Suess, and O. Henry all have one thing in common.

It's Seuss, not Suess. And dude, you forgot Franklin W. Dixon.

[darthur]

The only point that matters is that it's really damn easy to criticize from an anonymous position. Really, really easy. If you're made to look like a fool, who cares? DBR isn't a community, it's a website - if your reputation is ruined you can just never type in the URL to your web browser again and it your bad "reputation" will never again have an effect on your life, guaranteed. Or even less punishing, just go and make a new board name. On the other hand, if you're not anonymous, things can follow you around, and I can understand why that would be especially important to a young writer.

Huh? Maybe for you, ruining your reputation on DBR, or losing your identity, is a small thing. For Jumbo, who has 2400 posts since it was restructured and God knows how many posts before that, it surely is a big deal. A much bigger deal probably than having his real identity, which means nothing to anyone who will read his posts, associated with his opinions.

As far as anyone here can tell, Jumbo's identity for debating basketball *IS* Jumbo. And it's one he's built up for over a decade. In the Internet world, this is not anonymity.

[Johnboy]

It's Seuss, not Suess. And dude, you forgot Franklin W. Dixon.

I stand corrected . . . and I also forgot Poland (http://www.youforgotpoland.org/mjames/yfp/).

[-jk]

Wait! Wait! Dibs! I brought the Revolution into this debate first.

I was referencing Paine's phamplet, "Common Sense," as effective (and some say it was the most important essay of the Revolution) anonymous writing. Perhaps Hancock wouldn't have had a chance to sign his name boldly if Paine hadn't published first.

Hmm. Were taking this thread more and more towards the PP board.

-jk

[Jumbo]

Huh? Maybe for you, ruining your reputation on DBR, or losing your identity, is a small thing. For Jumbo, who has 2400 posts since it was restructured and God knows how many posts before that, it surely is a big deal. A much bigger deal probably than having his real identity, which means nothing to anyone who will read his posts, associated with his opinions.

As far as anyone here can tell, Jumbo's identity for debating basketball *IS* Jumbo. And it's one he's built up for over a decade. In the Internet world, this is not anonymity.

I'm really finding this thread hilarious. I'm not sure whether to be flattered or disturbed that people actually care about my "real" identity. As I've said, I always try to judge people around here by what they say, not who they claim to be.

[Mike Corey]

Jumbo is on a strange, erotic jersey from Milan to Minsk.

[juise]

Jumbo is on a strange, erotic jersey from Milan to Minsk.

... Rochelle, Rochelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Seinfeld_fictional_films)!

[watzone]

I'm really finding this thread hilarious. I'm not sure whether to be flattered or disturbed that people actually care about my "real" identity. As I've said, I always try to judge people around here by what they say, not who they claim to be.

The only time I really care who you are is when you send me a "sudden" PM with supposed inside information professing your anonymity in a smarmy (what I took to be taunting) way. This of course was in response to my opinion here. Or when you ask a bunch of questions about Duke Basketball and their recruiting in that same forum.

I don't ask you what you are hearing, do I? With all due respect, I think it best to keep our discussions here from this point on mate.

[Jumbo]

... Rochelle, Rochelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Seinfeld_fictional_films)!

I was hoping to be part of "Chunnel" instead...

[Lavabe]

Jumbo is on a strange, erotic jersey from Milan to Minsk.

On a strange, erotic JERSEY??

Which exit is THAT?:D ;)

[ArkieDukie]

Everyone knows that Jumbo is Pat Summitt. Sheesh.

[Mike Corey]

On a strange, erotic JERSEY??

Which exit is THAT?:D ;)

Ha!

I didn't realize I'd written that until just now.

I was reading some info on Cory Booker about the time I wrote that post, so that's probably why I did that. Crap.

I'm just glad Juise got the reference. :)

[duketaylor]

I tried to PM you both recently on some recruiting issues but had trouble doing so. New computer, new service, etc. I'll try to get it rectified asap. Fun reading this thread, though. DBR's certainly changed in the last year or two. Only thing that hasn't changed is that I hate the off-season. GO DUKE!!

[shadowfax336]

this thread is still going?


amazing...

[dukefanSD]

I heard he's really D.B. Cooper.

[K24U]

Everyone has the right to their opinion. I just might not like that opinion. That's what makes messages boards fun. If everyone thought the same it sure would be boring on here.

[Jeffrey]

Sorry, I didn't mean to get this debate (about a debate) going again. I was just taking issue with the comment that I was "p*ssing" down my leg in fear.

Hi Greg,

I think most DBR posters would have taken issue with such a comment being said about them. I didn't think it was in good taste and saw no reason for it.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[rtnorthrup]

I am Publius.

On a serious note, this thread has been excellent. I hope Mike and Watzone will continue to opine on this topic.

Do the ideas contained in the Federalist Papers have more credibility if we know, for instance, that some were written by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison? Does the answer to this question change over time? For instance, when the papers were first published, would the identity of the authors have increased the credibility of the ideas therein? What about as a historical document?

This topic has actually forced me to think about these issues, albeit without any resolution.

Please keep up this discourse, I have enjoyed it.

[Truth]

I am Publius.

On a serious note, this thread has been excellent. I hope Mike and Watzone will continue to opine on this topic.

Do the ideas contained in the Federalist Papers have more credibility if we know, for instance, that some were written by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison? Does the answer to this question change over time? For instance, when the papers were first published, would the identity of the authors have increased the credibility of the ideas therein? What about as a historical document?

This topic has actually forced me to think about these issues, albeit without any resolution.

Please keep up this discourse, I have enjoyed it.

Visit the Pubilc Policy boards for similarly thought-provoking discussion. Might need to start an independent "credibility of anonymous vs. identified sources" thread...

[Nittany Devil]

Maybe we should make a poll to determine Jumbo's true identity. I'd be satisfied with a democratically determined identity. :)

[unexpected]

how about everyone give their best (legit) guess?

[Edouble]

If you rearrange the letters in "Jumbo", you get "OJ Bum". We all know OJ Simpson is a real bum, including OJ himself at this point. OJ is also a very big guy (just try to put regular sized gloves on him). Therefore, my guess is that Jumbo is in fact OJ Simpson.

[unexpected]

hah! clever.

my educated guess is Seth Davis.

[rsvman]

Might need to start an independent "credibility of anonymous vs. identified sources" thread...

While acknowledging StrayGator's point, I think a case could be made that credibility is actually increased by being anonymous, in that your points would have to stand on their own merit rather than being propped up by the reputation of the author.

As an example, look at the Bobby Flay show "Throwdown." (For those not familiar with the show, Bobby finds somebody who is recognized as an great cook of a certain type of food, say, for example, chicken cacciatore. Then he makes his own recipe of chicken cacciatore, and there is a cook-off.) In the end, the judges are always blinded to which dish was cooked by Flay and which by the competitor. Doesn't this make sense? Wouldn't a judge be likely to be biased toward the dish created by a professional chef with a worldwide reputation if he/she knew that Flay had cooked it? The answer to which dish is better is IN THE DISH ITSELF, not in its creator. The same holds true for an argument or a discussion about any topic whatsoever. If you really know more about basketball than somebody else, SHOW it to me, don't TELL it to me.

[Truth]

While acknowledging StrayGator's point, I think a case could be made that credibility is actually increased by being anonymous, in that your points would have to stand on their own merit rather than being propped up by the reputation of the author.

As an example, look at the Bobby Flay show "Throwdown." (For those not familiar with the show, Bobby finds somebody who is recognized as an great cook of a certain type of food, say, for example, chicken cacciatore. Then he makes his own recipe of chicken cacciatore, and there is a cook-off.) In the end, the judges are always blinded to which dish was cooked by Flay and which by the competitor. Doesn't this make sense? Wouldn't a judge be likely to be biased toward the dish created by a professional chef with a worldwide reputation if he/she knew that Flay had cooked it? The answer to which dish is better is IN THE DISH ITSELF, not in its creator. The same holds true for an argument or a discussion about any topic whatsoever. If you really know more about basketball than somebody else, SHOW it to me, don't TELL it to me.

I completely agree. I never understood the relevance of Beaton's request for Jumbo's identity in the first place. Beaton later explained that it was in response to Jumbo calling him a coward, but Jumbo provided further classification on that point. Beaton himself seems to agree that the identity of Jumbo is not really the issue, but I'm not sure whether he agreed with the clarification Jumbo provided on the coward remark. The issue here is whether Beaton actually agrees with Jumbo's clarification of the "coward" comment to the point that he'd reconsider the debate. I, for one, would find it interesting...

[Jumbo]

Could we please let this die? Pretty please?

[Wander]

Could we please let this die? Pretty please?

Whatever you say Wojo.

[weezie]

This thread is really making me laugh! :D There are some very funny posters here at DBR.

[RelativeWays]

People debate on message boards under the guise of aliases all the time, I don't see why Jumbo has to reveal his name for a debate HERE or any other board on the internet. Now if the transcript was going to appear in the chronicle or any other news source, then he should use his real name so he could be accountable for those statements. I thought this was just supposed to be a debate of Greg Beatons point on this years team versus Jumbo's counterpoints, on a message board no less. Its true Greg would be a bit more exposed, ideally he should have signed up for an account, let Jumbo know who he was and then grant him the benefit of posting for a bit to establish his e-persona before this debate began. I guess the internet really is serious business.

[Biscuit King]

I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

[Troublemaker]

Folks --

While the discussion of the merits of identity as it relates to the substance of viewpoints might be interesting, it really belongs at this point on the Public Policy board. Also, we should really untether it from the discussion of the proposed Jumbo vs Beaton debate that never happened. I'm going to lock this thread and invite anyone who would like to continue the aforementioned discussion on the merits of identity/anonymity to do so on the PPB. Thanks.

[JasonEvans]

Not to get back to this, and I don't remember the details but I think Jason_Evans thinks similarly to Jumbo regarding the initial Beaton article so is there anyway that those two debate? I know this is really between Jumbo and Beaton but I feel like Jason shares Jumbo's views on this subject and his identity is out there so all should be down for it as long as you guys have the time? I may be wrong in assuming that Jason shares the same view as Jumbo regarding the article and obviously, he might not want to take part in the debate but its a possibility.

I am flattered by this notion. I would be happy to debate Mr. Beaton and I am sure I would fillet him because I have found his logic and writing style to be rather short-sighted and juvenile... but I would not do nearly as good a job as Jumbo. I am very clear about that! Jumbo's ability to analyze basketball and his skills at written debate are darn near unmatched on the board. As I have said several times, I can understand why Beaton would find any excuse possible to not get into a written jousting match with Jumbo. Debating me or many of the other prominent posters on DBR would be much less daunting.

Frankly, I am not sure what a debate with Greg Beaton would accomplish at this point. He has put his views out there for the public to read and his views are pretty darn foolish (not uncommon for an inexperienced writer). Many of us discussed his columns a while ago and picked them apart as the poorly conceived analysis that they are. I could go through that whole exercise again, but to what end? What would it really accomplish?

Plus, I've got a job and a family. I am not sure I have the time and tolerance for a kid like Beaton, ya know?

As an aside, I too wrote for the Chronicle when I was at Duke. I have, on occasion, looked back upon my writing and marveled at how bad it was. My knowledge of the world and how it works was so limited back then... but still, I wonder how I could have come to some of the opinions I had back then. Yikes!! Perspective and experience are wonderful things!!

That is a lesson Mr. Beaton will learn someday. It won't be from a debate with me or Jumbo or anyone else. It will be from growing up and getting older and just being more mature. I don't blame him for who he is and the opinions he has. It is easy to make mistakes when you are young.

--Jason "yes, this is a very condescending post... suck on it ;) " Evans