Patrick Yates

[BD80]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Uncle Drew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mudge]

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

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

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

[Jumbo]

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

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

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

[sandinmyshoes]

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

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

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

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

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

[Carlos]

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

You don't need photo shop for that.

[gw67]

I was going to hit the little triangle on post 86 but, heck, Carlos is one of the mods.

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

gw67

[Jumbo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RPS]

He couldn't guard me.

Nobody could guard you, Jumbo.

[Lulu]

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

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

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

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

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Indoor66]

Has this horse died yet? Seems like it was buried about 3 pages ago.

[ugadevil]

Has this horse died yet? Seems like it was buried about 3 pages ago.

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

[BD80]

Has this horse died yet? Seems like it was buried about 3 pages ago.

Merely pining for the fields

[Jumbo]

Nobody could guard you, Jumbo.

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

[RPS]

True, true. I'm money off the dribble.

I'll bet you can spot-up too.

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

Thank you. He's going to Cal and is really glad that the recruiting process is essentially over (and officially over next week). His mom and I are very pleased with his decision. Thanks for asking.

[cspan37421]

Merely pining for the fields

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

[JasonEvans]

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

(snip)

Differing opinions are good to have around.

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

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

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

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

[BD80]

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

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

[BD80]

If you have not gotten many infractions in the past, and 99.9% of you have not, then you have nothing to worry about.

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

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

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