Patrick Yates

[Uncle Drew]

did anyone else feel like they were reading an obit at the start of this thread?

Patrick Yates Eulogy


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



PY's Tombstone

Here lies Patrick Yates

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

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

[JasonEvans]

I want to be clear about something--

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Duvall]

I want to be clear about something--

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

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

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

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

[paulie dogs]

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

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I imagine there have been studies regarding the psychology of group message boards such as these. I wonder at the psychology of the negativity about the very topic of the group. Why join a group supporting Blue Devil Basketball if you are negative about the team? Why express such negativity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dw0827]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jumbo]

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

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

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

[JBDuke]

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

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

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

There will be no public vote.

[Jumbo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jumbo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JBDuke]

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I must have been unclear (imagine...)

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

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

[Uncle Drew]

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

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


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


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


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

[SeattleIrish]

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

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

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

s.i.

[Clipsfan]

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

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

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

s.i.

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

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

[dw0827]

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

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

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

[Clipsfan]

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

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

[BD80]

For some posters, the purpose of the board is simply to get pumped up about Duke... and bite our tongue about anything less-than-positive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dw0827]

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

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

[Uncle Drew]

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

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