Examples of "Throwing Group-Shade"
From the Rules:
Rule No. 2: What do you mean by my post “inhibiting” the posting of views by others? There are overt techniques for discouraging others from posting on a topic, such as belittling, insulting or taunting. There are also very subtle or oblique ways to also inhibit others from posting their views on a topic now and in the future such as shaming, sarcasm and the “straw-man” strategy. These methods are trying to discourage others from posting a view different than yours, and we will delete the posts that fall into these categories, as we want all opinions freely expressed.
No. 2a) Usually the tactic I run into the most with subtle violations is “Throwing Group-Shade” which is attempting to inhibit, discourage or suppress the opinions of a group of those who disagree with the OBD member who is throwing “Group-Shade.” Such behavior will make people reluctant to post if they think they will be maligned later, hence why we do not allow it on the OBD forum. This is classic subtle inhibiting behavior that tries to restrict all the possible views on a topic over time, thus we disallow its use.
No. 2b) There are Overt examples within “Throwing Group Shade” such as a poster referring to others who disagree with him as “Cristobal-Haters,” while someone on the other side of the issue will refer to the opposition as “Cristobal Suck-Ups.”
It is not about the topic, but the behavior of “Throwing Group-Shade” on either side is flat-out wrong on FishDuck Community Sports sites. Whether overt of subtle, “Throwing Group-Shade” diminishes our discussion and is forbidden.
Some of these examples below are mild, but if we allow seven or eight of them over two months—the culture is changed as members become ruder to each other. Thus we do not allow any; if in doubt, ask yourself…“is it polite and respectful?”
1. “Snowflakes. We call them Snowflakes now.”
Poster is using a pejorative to blanket insult (Throwing Group-Shade) those who disagree, in addition to pulling a political reference into it of which is also forbidden.
2. “Amen! Post-game couch coaching is undefeated.”
Apparently enough people made a post-game observation that this poster disagreed with, and thus then was slamming the entire group. Not allowed!
3. “Don’t get your panties in a bunch,” or “Don’t get your skirt blown up.”
The people writing these would assert that they are pretty benign among derisive statements, but when I talked to the two who wrote these…they admitted that it was meant as an insult to those who disagreed with them. The Group-Shade is telling them that they are a girl who is not in control of her emotions. Even if seemingly benign, sexist statements and any other attempt at maligning someone via Group-Shade is not allowed.
4. “Step away from the ledge….it’s going to be alright.”
This “Group-Shade” above implies that if you do not agree…you must be crazy, suicidal, and not in control of your emotions.
5. “Yeah, it is crazy, people who I thought would know better are wanting Chip. Yikes.”
Classic example of “Throwing Group-Shade,” and thus those who read it and disagree are inclined not to post an opposing viewpoint, as they do not want to be labeled as dumb by this poster. Hence a violation by inhibiting future posting.
6. “Silly thread.”
Insulting, throwing Group-Shade at everyone in the thread.
7. “Here’s another interesting take on Mario’s tenure, for those Spoiled Duck fans.”
So, anyone who has those views are spoiled? This comes up often, and NOBODY likes to be called, labeled, or classified as “Spoiled,” and that is “Throwing Group-Shade.”
8. “What are you guys smoking?”
This group-shade above implies that the side that disagrees with the poster could not be that stupid to miss his point, and thus they must be smoking something? The fellow that originally wrote it tried to sell me on how “it was a joke” and after a while admitted that yes, it was meant as in insult to those who disagreed with him!
9. “Get a Grip”
This is “Throwing Group-Shade” at those who disagree with this fellow, and he insults them implying that they do not understand due to lack of control. This is mild, but it still inhibits people from posting a different view, thus a violation.
10. A. “My least favorite thing about football has always been the Monday morning quarterbacks, and it seems a lot of them come here to pontificate how they’d have done things differently.”
10. B. “Fascinating how some Oregon fans are more obsessed with the Buckeyes passing yards than the players and coaches are on both teams?!?”
10 C. “But there are lots of fans who don’t care about winning…they just want the team to play THEIR way.”
All three above are blanket condemnations (Throwing Group-Shade) of anyone who disagrees with him, and again it is discouraging others from posting their views. (No. 2) We don’t allow it!
11. “Come on People!” or “Please…People!”
Above is another snarky, condescending put-down of a group the poster knows disagrees with him. He is imploring them to rise above their natural stupidity to see his view. A violation…
12. “I also like the measured (more realistic?) approach after the initial emotional reactions of which teams can merge with each other, etc.….more reasoned thinking appears to be coming to the forefront.”
The fellow above is taking a shot at a group he disagrees with, and issues a putdown implying that his view is “more reasoned thinking.” Reading this would give those who oppose his view pause before posting as they do not want labeled as “emotional” and “not reasoned” in a response. This is inhibiting or discouraging others from posting. (No. 2 and No. 6)
13. “Which is why I don’t think play calling is that important of an issue to PLAYERS…maybe to fans for their own interest / entertainment / predictions of team success.”
Same fellow is taking a shot at a group he disagrees again, and issues a putdown. Again, this is inhibiting or discouraging others from posting, as someone might refrain from mentioning play-calling again because a member doesn’t want this fellow throwing shade on him. (No. 2 and No. 6)
14. “Yes, narrative repeating is a pox breaking out all over and not just about Chip.”
This poster apparently disagrees with some of the reporting and is now maligning it and those who agree with it. Subtle, but Group-Shade!
15. “As for Chip, I think there is more narrative repeating and memology (made that up, just now) than real analysis. ” It’s not 2012″, “defenses caught up”, “he can’t recruit”, “lightning in a bottle”, “can’t come home”. None of these are reality.”
This poster is acting certain of his opinion, and insulting those in the group that disagree with him.
16. A. “That is straight up Corvallis level thinking.”
B. “This ‘blast from the past,’ ‘get the band back together,’ ‘hire local hero from days or yore’ thinking is real amateur hour.”
Both above insult those who believe a particular direction on a topic, thus “Throwing Group-Shade.”
17. “The ‘No Chip’ club really should sit down and watch this seasons UCLA games.”
The Group-Shade above is insulting the intelligence of those who disagree with the poster. “You would understand if you just watched the games,” is his thinking. And for those who have watched the games and disagree? He insults their intelligence, and we do not allow personal shots via “Throwing Group-Shade.”
18. “You ‘Cristobal-Haters’ will never give him full credit. Or… “You ‘Cristobal Suck-Ups’ always ignore his obvious coaching flaws.”
Above are examples of how both sides would “Throw Group-Shade” at each other.
19. "I am tired of reading about, (See example topics below) and those who keep writing about this topic should stop!
Examples from the OBD forum that are NOT allowed:
"I don't want to read anymore about how Chip Kelly can't coach."
"I am sick of reading how the offense doesn't score enough."
"Stop with talk about high-scoring."
"I don't want to read how prior coaches did terrible with our quarterbacks."
"I've had enough of reading about Mario Cristobal."
"I don't want to see any more negative, by anyone."
"I don't want to see anything else about the Huskies."
"I don't want to see anything about culture...."
On this site we want to see all opinions, and won't be able to when members engage in behaviors such as No. 19 above. That form of "Throwing Group-Shade suppresses people from posting their thoughts concerning this topic in the future, thus we forbid this behavior because we want to see their opinions on all topics.
On the OBD forum we do not tell others how they are supposed to think, and everyone is allowed to express their opinion...even if you or I don't care for it.
If you don't like reading that opinion, then don't! Confused about how to post? Just post your opinion, that's it! Don't post about a group of those who disagree with you as that is "Throwing Group-Shade."
More Examples Below of “Throwing Group-Shade”
20. “Let’s not fall into being blue blood crybabies”
21. “He quit and that’s it, so please, you people on here saying “oh have great career at Auburn” are ridiculous at best and we don’t need your nicety’s here.”
22. “Too much conspiracy theory and Hollywood drama in this conjecture. Give it a rest.”
23. “Seems that some fans have a memory shorter than a Goldfish.”
24. “Before and after the first and the second Utah game, 90% of the posters here wanted MC gone. Now that he’s gone, those same people are upset that he left.”
25. “Turn in your season tickets, someone else will gladly take them. Fair weathered fans shouldn’t be tolerated in Autzen or anywhere on Oregon campus. We don’t need you. Go away.”
26. “When fans turn into CPAs it just gets weird. Don’t want these people doing my taxes.”
27. “Well, according to most fans on this board the Rose Bowl is a waste of time.”
28. “Oh my God. Go watch the tape, check the injury report, and then tell me these athletes lack heart. Don’t question the heart of these athletes from the safety of your couch — come on!”