I Need Feedback From FishDuck Friends...How to Approach This?

[Charles Fischer]

I hope that many members will take the five minutes to read this, ponder it and give me feedback.  Our rules have evolved nicely, but there is a grey area that I am having trouble with and will continue to over time.  It has to do with criticizing current players and coaches, as we allow it and encourage it when it is pertaining to player performance and coaching decisions.

 

We do not allow anyone to get personal in their posts toward players and coaches.  (This only pertains to current coaches and players; everyone else in the world is fair-game)  The thinking is that since we are a "high-brow" site, and parents do read stuff here about their sons as players....a line should be drawn, and I agree with that sentiment.

 

Obvious Examples:

 

"Lupoi is a Bonehead."

 

"Something has always really bothered me about Moorhead. This guy has documented serious health problems and is obese. And he looks like he's 70 years old. Well, he just turned 48!"

 

“Our basketball players have embarrassing low intelligence.”

 

“Dan Lanning needs to get a good tailor.  He looks sloppy during press conferences and games. Not anything like a leader of young men should look.  Lanning looks like he should be selling insurance or maybe used cars.”

 

“So Dillingham brought in a Dodo to lead a flock of Ducks, who are trying to be Eagles. Sounds about right. I wonder who is the bigger Dodo...the Dodo that brought in a Dodo, thinking he had an Eagle or the actual Dodo? Dillingham worked with Nix at Auburn."
 

Above are actual examples of obvious violations where the OBD member got personal in his/her criticism, and we deleted the posts.  (And the OBD members received a notification/reminder email from me)

 

 

What is the Problem?

 

It is the grey areas....as to how far members can go before we cross the line as personal?

 

"I don't want to see Turnover-Thompson playing anymore."  (I did not like having a label like that pinned on a player...but is it that bad?)

 

"Please, please, please...Never play Ty Thompson again...Horrible."   (This one is referring to player performance, but still makes me uncomfortable)

 

"TT is like someone who has an UZI but doesn’t know when to pull the trigger and where to put the bullets."  (This one is also referring to player performance, but doesn't it imply intelligence?)

 

See what I mean? The three above are much tougher, as I get responses from OBD members who tell me that, "Charles, I can't write anything without being in violation!  Can't I express my thoughts about a player doing poorly?"

 

Look, I don't want to be blowing my time on trying to establish where the line is...and no matter what I do, someone gets bent-out-of-shape when they get an email from me.
 

Leave the Benign Ones?

Most would say that many of my violation emails sent are for benign offenses, and that is true.  But I’ve learned the hard way that the analogy provided by NJDuck is true; you must pull a weed, (remove the violating post) even if it is small and benign.

 

If you leave it, others on the forum will now see the “new low-bar” and begin doing the same behavior, thus I have more weeds to deal with. And the original one left alone feels emboldened and does the violation again, and thus I have a bigger weed to deal with.

 

Pull them all, even if benign?  If they break the rules, then it is a violation no matter how high or low the level?  FishDuck Feedback please!

 

How do you want this forum moderated as both someone who is posting and dealing with me, and as someone reading it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Rules:

No. 26: Do not get personal in judgments of  the current Players or Coaches: We allow commenting about the current players and coaches as that is what message boards and forums are all about. Second-guessing coaches and judging player performance is what everyone does, but we must not get personal or nasty toward them. Questioning a play-call or whether a tackle should have been made (Performance-related) is fine, and give your thoughts as to why in one direction or the other.

 

Whether a coach should be retained or a player replaced is also fair-game because they know they are in the public sphere and that goes with the territory. Let's discuss, but Ad Hominem attacks on them are forbidden.

(Former Oregon players and coaches do not have Rule 26 protections once they leave Eugene, as they sometimes do objectionable things that deserve to be called out.)

 

No such rules with current or former coaches at other teams, their players, their fans, journalists or anyone other than current Oregon coaches and players. So go for it and have fun!

[Phunteratc]

Let me start out by saying, I love this forum. I would never have the patience that you have to monitor or police the way you do, especially with the amount of content that you are personally adding. I know you don’t want to hear this, but it is your forum and any way you choose to run it, is the way it should be run. If people don’t like it, they can go somewhere else.

 

In your 3 benign examples, the only one that I had a problem with was the first one. It is not too much to ask that we express our displeasure with a player without attaching a derogitory lable. I think the 2nd one is a fair statement. The third one is a reach for me, but it doesn’t seem to give me any discomfort. Also I would say that there are positions that require more intellect then others. One of those being QB. I don’t think it is unfair to call into question the ability of a player to meet the required level of “Football intelligence”. Not really calling a player unintelligent, just noting that they don’t seem to have the higher skill set required for that position. 

 

I don’t consider myself unintelligent or dumb, yet I know I could not process the reads at the speed that these players have to. They obviously wouldn’t be playing at this level if they weren’t competent. Some may just not be competent enough at this level.

 

Hopefully this is valuable feedback. Take it for what it is worth. Since it is your forum, really you need to just “do you.”

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 12:38 PM, Phunteratc said:

In your 3 benign examples, the only one that I had a problem with was the first one.

That is interesting Phunteratc, as the first one is the only one I dealt with and left the other two...but did not feel good about them.  In fact things went so badly with the person who wrote the first one--that this person left the forum for good.

 

On 10/10/2022 at 12:38 PM, Phunteratc said:

I would never have the patience that you have to monitor or police the way you do,

I know I can't please them all, and don't really try to.  But at times I don't think people cut me any slack for the difficult spot I am in trying to keep things civil.  Thanks for your feedback!

[DUCati855]

On 10/10/2022 at 12:38 PM, Phunteratc said:

In your 3 benign examples, the only one that I had a problem with was the first one. It is not too much to ask that we express our displeasure with a player without attaching a derogitory lable.

I agree with this. Once a label is added it gets reused over and over until it sticks. I would not want a derogatory label stuck on any of our players or coaches. 

 

We're all adults (like it or not) for the most part. We have been around long enough that we should know how to make our point without resorting to name calling.

[Steven A]

I thought is the first two benign comments were over the line:  1, for the reason you stated; 2, "horrible" too harsh based upon the conditions that he is working with non-starters and he isn't calling the plays and probably isn't allowed or doesn't feel like he can call an audible.

 

I can see where the third one could be seen as dealing with the ability to read the field.

[nw777b]

I don't feel good about any of the examples and I'm sure I've posted similar comments, especially on game day. 

 

I try to filter my thoughts and write according to the policies and guidelines.

 

If I cross the line or if someone is not sure, I encourage everyone to use the three dots in the upper right of my post and report it for review.

 

I will not be offended if a post is deleted for any reason because I trust how it is managed.

 

I'll put me helmet back on and mouth guard in and wait for another opportunity to do better.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 1:08 PM, Steven A said:

I thought is the first two benign comments were over the line:  1, for the reason you stated; 2, "horrible" too harsh based upon the conditions that he is working with non-starters and he isn't calling the plays and probably isn't allowed or doesn't feel like he can call an audible.

 

I can see where the third one could be seen as dealing with the ability to read the field.

Send all three the violation/notification/reminder emails?  How would you do it?

[NJDuck]

In referring to the three benign ones.  I might be extreme,  but I am not comfortable with any of them, even number two.  People will always try to push the envelope as far as they can.  Give them an inch, they will take a mile.

 

Number two for example, instead of "Please, please, please...Never play Ty Thompson again...Horrible."  A more reasonable response would be "my observation from Ty Thompson's last performance, I can see he still needs time for development along with game time experience in the fourth quarter.  He will improve in due time"

 

The other two is throwing shade against said player or coach.

[Steven A]

On 10/10/2022 at 1:12 PM, Charles Fischer said:

How would you do it?

Yes, send an email that they had crossed the line.  I know that you include the rule violated.  And, maybe let them know that although their violation wasn't egregious, it still crossed the line and you don't want to have posts that are too close to the line. 

[NJDuck]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:19 PM, Steven A said:

Yes, send an email that they had crossed the line.  I know that you include the rule violated.  And, maybe let them know that although their violation wasn't egregious, it still crossed the line and you don't want to have posts that are too close to the line.

Yes, agree with this.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 1:16 PM, NJDuck said:

In referring to the three benign ones.  I might be extreme,  but I am not comfortable with any of them, even number two.  People will always try to push the envelope as far as they can.  Give them an inch, they will take a mile.

 

Number two for example, instead of "Please, please, please...Never play Ty Thompson again...Horrible."  A more reasonable response would be "my observation from Ty Thompson's last performance, I can see he still needs time for development along with game time experience in the fourth quarter, time warranted."

 

The other two is throwing shade against said player or coach.

Boy are you right about pushing the envelope.  Sometimes I get people pushing back in a major way, and then I point out that...."the problem isn't your opinion, it is the way you presented your opinion.  It could have been written to express your thoughts without going personal on the player."

 

In fact every violation last year...all 185 of them could have been avoided.  I want everyone's opinion, but they have to be presented in a civilized manner.  Some people can't do that, or (in my case before) we get heated in the moment and make a mistake.  

 

Occasional mistakes by the good people here get mulligans.  Multiple violation offenders (three times or more) who take up too much of my time get banned.

[ICamel]

I wish there were a magic wand to determine which posts are over the line.

 

Moderators are looking at each post and refer to Charles those that are questionable.

 

Some members are leaving when they have been moderated and there in lies the rub. I sometimes wonder if it would be better to just delete the gray area posts and not send a warning email.

 

Similarly, those that quote an offending post could just have the quote portion removed.

 

I really don't like to see criticism of current players or coaches that cannot be specific in nature.

 

[Mic]

A lot of 'grey' areas so I don't envy you Charles.  As one who has been given a short time-out a time or two I'll only mention one person here that I think might have been a victim of this sort of derogatory (or is it inflammatory?) remarks, albeit mostly mild and critical of his performance:

 

                                                                                               Mario Cristobal

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 2:14 PM, Mic said:

A lot of 'grey' areas so I don't envy you Charles.  As one who has been given a short time-out a time or two I'll only mention one person here that I think might have been a victim of this sort of derogatory (or is it inflammatory?) remarks, albeit mostly mild and critical of his performance:

 

                                                                                               Mario Cristobal

 

 

Please read the rule as written and referred to twice in the first post.  All of this is concerning CURRENT coaches and players.  Former coaches and players and the WORLD are fair-game.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 2:10 PM, ICamel said:

I sometimes wonder if it would be better to just delete the gray area posts and not send a warning email.

I did that in the beginning and it spawned two new problems: 1) the offender repeated it without being told otherwise, and 2) he became accustomed to having an "Editing Maid" fix his posts for him, and I will not do that.

[Mic]

On 10/10/2022 at 2:19 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Please read the rule as written and referred to twice in the first post.  All of this is concerning CURRENT coaches and players.  Former coaches and players and the WORLD are fair-game.

When you say 'current' you mean 'current at the O' ? Got ya, Charles.  

 

'Cause MC's currently still coaching and that's why I thought it might apply to him as well.  He's not a 'fam fav' in our household but he's taken a good amount of hits on the blog here, that's for sure.  

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 2:26 PM, Mic said:

When you say 'current' you mean 'current at the O' ? Got ya, Charles.  

 

'Cause MC's currently still coaching and that's why I thought it might apply to him as well.  He's not a 'fam fav' in our household but he's taken a good amount of hits on the blog here, that's for sure.  

Again Mic, you need to read carefully.  This is why I clash with some people, as they will not take ten seconds to read something after I've taken a ton of my time to create all this.  And then they get mad at me...

 

What is below is from the actual rule, and is listed in the first post of this thread.

 

(Former Oregon players and coaches do not have Rule 26 protections once they leave Eugene, as they sometimes do objectionable things that deserve to be called out.)

 

No such rules with current or former coaches at other teams, their players, their fans, journalists or anyone other than current Oregon coaches and players. So go for it and have fun!

[noDucknewby]

IMHO (you did ask for feedback) the coaches and staff are paid professionals, so more latitude for criticism should be given provided it doesn't get personal.  Criticize the action, not the person.  I agree calling a coach a bonehead is disrespectful, but calling him out on a boneheaded play call is not.  Semantics matters.

 

Criticism of players is a little more nuanced since they are still young men sometimes prone to bad judgment.  In addition an ugly post may turn a potential recruit off to the fan base as whole.  That said, saying a player made a selfish play is different than calling him out as a selfish player.  Again semantics, but there needs to be a mechanism for legitimate criticism rather than completely sanitizing the forum into a big puff piece.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 3:47 PM, noDucknewby said:

but there needs to be a mechanism for legitimate criticism rather than completely sanitizing the forum into a big puff piece.

Precisely my problem.  What is that mechanism?

[Flyin Vee]

Charles, like an example I won’t use- you’ll know it when you see it.

 

[CountryProf]

Not certain if this will be helpful, but what about (1) drawing the line at clear ad hominem insults (as you already do), and (2) in cases where it's ambiguous as to whether it's ad hominem or not (like the "horrible" or Uzi comments you cited), removing the post, telling the poster their wording could be reasonably seen as insulting the player/coach rather than critiquing their performance, and inviting them to re-post with language that is clearly not ad hominem. If they don't get it right the second time, they likely aren't going to learn and the second post should be deleted without notification.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:16 PM, Flyin Vee said:

Charles, like an example I won’t use- you’ll know it when you see it.

 

I'd rather see "that" than some of the emails I receive!  Although when you have dealt with over 700 offenders over five years....you look for something new in the string of insults sent.  Most think they are quite clever without realizing I truly have read what they wrote a hundred times before.

 

But I did enjoy one recently when he wrote..."in the end Charles, you are just a petty little tyrant!"

 

I could not resist responding with..."I am NOT....little!"

 

I never said I was noble.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:21 PM, CountryProf said:

Not certain if this will be helpful, but what about (1) drawing the line at clear ad hominem insults (as you already do), and (2) in cases where it's ambiguous as to whether it's ad hominem or not (like the "horrible" or Uzi comments you cited), removing the post, telling the poster their wording could be reasonably seen as insulting the player/coach rather than critiquing their performance, and inviting them to re-post with language that is clearly not ad hominem. If they don't get it right the second time, they likely aren't going to learn and the second post should be deleted without notification.

Our process is...when a moderator sees a violating post, he/she can hide it from public view with just two quick clicks.  (That is why you rarely see a violating post, as our wonderful moderators catch them right away) Then they text me and I get to it when I can.

 

I am often not around/available during the weekday, so I cannot get to violation emails until that evening, and it is too late for them to revise their post.  And they cannot after one hour...

[DrJacksPlaidPants]

I think a good way to look at this is ask yourself “Is this a gripe or is this a critique”? I don’t think gripes about players are a good idea. Critiques are fine and they help to increase everybody’s knowledge. For example, instead of saying something like “Bridges stinks. He can’t cover anybody”, just say why he can’t cover anybody. Maybe he gets caught peeking into the backfield or has problems locating the ball.

 

The first two of the three benign comments are gripes. The third one could be phrased better, but it sounds like a critique of TT’s throwing and decision making. Second-guessing coaching decisions is as old as the game itself. I think it’s fine as long as there is no name calling. However, I would give any A&M fan a free pass after Jimbo’s final play call against Bama on Saturday. 

[CVDuck]

Charles… this might be a time consuming process… but there must be at least 3 people who you trust that could act like a “panel” to remove the pointed attacks… to express and suggest a more appropriate comment to the offender… with you as the final “Supreme Court”..

 

example “Lopui is a flaming idiot” where you would forward this to the duty review board (these individuals are on a rotating basis)… their sole job is to propose to the originator, an alternative draft to be submitted to you and the originator to discuss… and agree.

 

therefore if I was the review board… I would read the input… ask the originator for clarification of their comments… could be a simple case of picking the wrong word choice… further ask originator if a proposed draft could be…. “Lopui can be an idiot remember the time…. “. The new draft would defuse the pointed comment. Use humor to encourage improvement..

 

as for personal comment on a player… that still is forbidden… encouragement only. Never comment on physical talents.

 

this empowers the readers to police themselves… 

 

recommend a group of 12 total with 4 groups of 3 to be the “review” boards… that means their on duty 1 week on with 3 weeks off… or called upon when it gets real busy…

 

Thoughts?

 

very respectfully

mark

[noDucknewby]

On 10/10/2022 at 3:56 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Precisely my problem.  What is that mechanism?

IMHO criticism should be constructive, objective and respectful without any kind personal attack.  A fine line I know and personal malice is a little hard to define, but to paraphrase a senator who's name I have forgotten, "I know it when I see it".

[spiritnext]

Thanks Charles.

 

I guess I am old school.  I would delete all three of the benign.  If I don't have something good to say, then I don't say anything at all.

Read one of Dan Lanning's favorite books: "The Success Bus."

[Smith72]

#1"I don't want to see Turnover-Thompson playing anymore."  (I did not like having a label like that pinned on a player...but is it that bad?)

 

#2"Please, please, please...Never play Ty Thompson again...Horrible."   (This one is referring to player performance, but still makes me uncomfortable)

 

#3"TT is like someone who has an UZI but doesn’t know when to pull the trigger and where to put the bullets."  (This one is also referring to player performance, but doesn't it imply intelligence?)

 

I am uncomfortable with all 3 benign examples.

 

#1 is name calling-a derogatory put down of a current Oregon player.

 

#2 is a put down that doesn't talk about a specific football skill in his performance.  Such as he threw that pass when the receiver was covered by multiple defenders.  His vision of the field needs to improve.

 

#3 uses an analogy without talking about the performance of football in the game.  Sole purpose of the analogy is to put down the Oregon player.

 

I would hide all 3 and send an email.

[Log Haulin]

I don't allow personal attacks on current Ducks or OBDF members. Anything that will discourage other from participating gets hide and figured out later. 

 

I can't always accurately define what is unacceptable in my view. But I know it when I see it.

 

Side note: the Dodo comment didn't age well.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:31 PM, DrJacksPlaidPants said:

I think a good way to look at this is ask yourself “Is this a gripe or is this a critique”? I don’t think gripes about players are a good idea. Critiques are fine and they help to increase everybody’s knowledge. For example, instead of saying something like “Bridges stinks. He can’t cover anybody”, just say why he can’t cover anybody. Maybe he gets caught peeking into the backfield or has problems locating the ball.

 

The first two of the three benign comments are gripes. The third one could be phrased better, but it sounds like a critique of TT’s throwing and decision making. Second-guessing coaching decisions is as old as the game itself. I think it’s fine as long as there is no name calling. However, I would give any A&M fan a free pass after Jimbo’s final play call against Bama on Saturday. 

The challenge is...trying to "train" people how to write when they are hyped up about the topic.  A ton of good people would leave because..."I can't write anything about the team, Charles."  Now that is an exaggeration, but I have had a TON of very sensitive people leave the site because I called them on one mild violation.

 

With the 52,400 posts of last year, it is very hard to strike the right balance.  Ideally, I agree with your premise, but executing it in reality is really tough.  Discussing this stuff about players/coaches is what a forum is about, but I am trying to keep it civil without making it too rigid.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:46 PM, spiritnext said:

Thanks Charles.

 

I guess I am old school.  I would delete all three of the benign.  If I don't have something good to say, then I don't say anything at all.

Read one of Dan Lanning's favorite books: "The Success Bus."

That was my own inclination, but yet...I do have to let people let off some steam.

 

Great to see you join the forum and WELCOME!

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:32 PM, CVDuck said:

Charles… this might be a time consuming process… but there must be at least 3 people who you trust that could act like a “panel” to remove the pointed attacks… to express and suggest a more appropriate comment to the offender… with you as the final “Supreme Court”..

 

example “Lopui is a flaming idiot” where you would forward this to the duty review board (these individuals are on a rotating basis)… their sole job is to propose to the originator, an alternative draft to be submitted to you and the originator to discuss… and agree.

 

therefore if I was the review board… I would read the input… ask the originator for clarification of their comments… could be a simple case of picking the wrong word choice… further ask originator if a proposed draft could be…. “Lopui can be an idiot remember the time…. “. The new draft would defuse the pointed comment. Use humor to encourage improvement..

 

as for personal comment on a player… that still is forbidden… encouragement only. Never comment on physical talents.

 

this empowers the readers to police themselves… 

 

recommend a group of 12 total with 4 groups of 3 to be the “review” boards… that means their on duty 1 week on with 3 weeks off… or called upon when it gets real busy…

 

Thoughts?

 

very respectfully

mark

I just discontinued the "FishDuck Feed" at the top of the site because I would have needed 12 to 18 new volunteers to help with it.  I do not have the time or energy for the hours of phone calls to recruit and train that many people, let alone for two new departments.

 

I would need a ton of people available during the day, and unfortunately...many retired people who have the time do not want to help.  The majority of volunteers are already working full-time, and I cannot add to their plate as I am so very grateful for the time they give all of us as it is.

 

In my managing of the site--I've also learned that if I come in with humor--they don't take me seriously, and I will have to deal with the same violation again.  It is a very delicate balance of being tough, yet able to forget about a member's mistake and move on after he/she has acknowledged the error.

 

This is a ton harder than it looks.  (Hence why I asked for feedback, and thanks for taking your time to offer)

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 5:16 PM, Log Haulin said:

Side note: the Dodo comment didn't age well.

Ha!  Isn't that the truth...and that is why when guys come in blustering about how much they know football, and how I don't know diddly...they don't consider how silly some of their stuff will look later.  I've been humbled so many times that I always make sure that I establish that, "it is my opinion is all."

 

And that's what we're doing here, just sharing our opinions on Duck stuff.

[Joe F]

 

Tough duty Charles, for sure.  I know this won't work for all situations, but the first test I would give any of these comments;  Is this a comment or are we name-calling because we can't think of a better way of complaining about someone's actions? 

 

I would jump on the name-calling right off.  I know it might take a cooler head to come up with a way to make a point about someone's play or decision making without calling them names.  

 

Just don't do it.  Or else!  I could certainly back that!

 

Thanks for all you do.  I certainly appreciate it.

[PittDuck]

Charles,

 

First of all, you are neither petty nor little!  What you are, is a HUGE Duck fan who has gone so far above and beyond what any other Duck fan has done, it is incredible and beyond words to describe.

 

You have created and maintained a civil forum (with decorum) where like minded Duck fans can come to peacefully and safely learn more about OBD.  I cannot thank you enough.

 

As far as the multitudes out there that think they have to tear someone else down, so they can feel better about themselves?  Delete their comments and don’t lose any sleep over it.
 

People posting poorly don’t need you (or your moderators) to babysit their bad behavior.  When they go back and see their comment is gone, they should understand that the deleted comment fell short of the desired decorum.

 

This is YOUR playground Charles, and YOU let us play in it. Your rules are clear, and the civility and safety they create keeps most of us coming back.

 

Personally, I have deleted many of my would be posts, simply because I read them a final time while thinking of the old adage “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all,” before I click “Submit Reply.”

 

My final comment?  Well done Sir Charles, and THANK YOU!

[Haywarduck]

Player and coaches are like family, sometimes they need some tough love, but you keep it constructive.

 

Players, coaches: The way I look at it is players and coaches are, again, like family. Would you call family, your son for example, Turnover Johnny Junior? 

 

Would you say please never play my son again?

 

Would you use an uzi, bullets and a target when trying to describe your son, well maybe some fans, but it isn't necessary.

 

For ex coaches:  Now if family leaves, divorces your sister, all gloves are off for the buffoon, who you only use to criticize in private. 

 

As far as the McCoys from across the way who keep trying to steal your property, and offend you with everything they do, gloves are always off. We should keep it constructive, but a good laugh at the neighbors expense is all in good fun.

 

Crazy day, just my two cents.

[BigDog]

For me it is pretty simple. Some people don't have a filter and don't see why others have an issue with that.

 

The rules are the rules and they need to be followed by us all. To that I believe if a rule has been violated even if it's on the line, it needs to be removed and an email sent to the author explaining the violation.

 

The whole doesn't conform to the one. If a person can't speak to an issue without being derogatory towards another then they should keep it to themselves. None of us need to be subjected to their ignorance.

 

There is enough hate and blustering around us all. This needs to remain a sanctuary of peace away from the nonsense we are immersed in daily.

 

Good or bad lets enjoy our ducks. Let's talk sports, be respectful, keep it clean and real.

 

Thank you Charles and everyone who spends so much time and resources to keep this sanctuary open to us all.

 

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 8:05 PM, PittDuck said:

When they go back and see their comment is gone, they should understand that the deleted comment fell short of the desired decorum

Thank you Pitt, but in reference to your suggestion above...I've actually had people tell me, "if you don't like a post of mine--go ahead and edit it."

 

Who made ME your damn editing maid?

 

The point is--people are terrible about taking advantage of kindness.  I show compassion, and they see weakness.  If there are no consequences, then they will continue to violate rules and "let Charles clean up my mess."

 

And when I apply consequences to people for their own behaviors?  "In the end Charles, you are just a petty little tyrant."  Whew!

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 8:17 PM, Haywarduck said:

Player and coaches are like family, sometimes they need some tough love, but you keep it constructive.

 

Players, coaches: The way I look at it is players and coaches are, again, like family. Would you call family, your son for example, Turnover Johnny Junior? 

 

Would you say please never play my son again?

 

Would you use an uzi, bullets and a target when trying to describe your son, well maybe some fans, but it isn't necessary.

 

For ex coaches:  Now if family leaves, divorces your sister, all gloves are off for the buffoon, who you only use to criticize in private. 

 

As far as the McCoys from across the way who keep trying to steal your property, and offend you with everything they do, gloves are always off. We should keep it constructive, but a good laugh at the neighbors expense is all in good fun.

 

Crazy day, just my two cents.

That all makes sense.  Now sell it to the masses...

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/10/2022 at 8:49 PM, BigDog said:

For me it is pretty simple. Some people don't have a filter and don't see why others have an issue with that.

 

The rules are the rules and they need to be followed by us all. To that I believe if a rule has been violated even if it's on the line, it needs to be removed and an email sent to the author explaining the violation.

 

The whole doesn't conform to the one. If a person can't speak to an issue without being derogatory towards another then they should keep it to themselves. None of us need to be subjected to their ignorance.

 

There is enough hate and blustering around us all. This needs to remain a sanctuary of peace away from the nonsense we are immersed in daily.

 

Good or bad lets enjoy our ducks. Let's talk sports, be respectful, keep it clean and real.

 

Thank you Charles and everyone who spends so much time and resources to keep this sanctuary open to us all.

 

You wrote my feelings better than I have.  THANK YOU.

[Kurt Rambis]

On one hand, If A is clearly off-limits and B is questionable and you make B off-limits, then C becomes questionable; if you make C off-limits, then D is questionable.  There will always be someone who can take offense - particularly if there's a player's family member on the board.  Even a statement like "I'm not sure what Player A was thinking on that play; a smarter thing to do would have been to run out of bounds" can become "You're calling my baby stupid?!  What do you know about playing football?"

 

On the other hand, there's a reason we all keep coming back to this forum.

 

There's no question a line has to be drawn; the question of WHERE will always be a moving target.  For instance, I don't read the snarky "comedy" articles about each week's opponent because I don't appreciate them.  I'm sure others love them.

 

IMHO, it all comes down to intent.  "Turnover Thompson" isn't making a statement or having a discussion about a player; it's just an insult.  It's like the difference between saying, "Charles, I disagree with you about where the line should be drawn" and "Charles, stop being a big baby."  Both might intend to say the same thing, but one choice is rude and unnecessary and I would flag it.

 

The second example is largely the same, to me.  Saying you think Butterfield should be elevated to #2, that TT doesn't look like a Power 5 QB, etc. are all perfectly reasonable opinions (right or wrong).  Same as saying an OG looked slow or out of shape, a freshman looks lost out there, someone committed a boneheaded penalty, the play calling in the 4th quarter cost us the game, etc.  But saying something like "That fat dude needs to back off the buffet table" or "Dilly's stupidity cost us the game in Q4" turns an opinion into an insult.  Unnecessary.  

 

I had zero problem with #3.  I didn't interpret it as commenting on intelligence, but on game awareness.  I've seen plenty of smart people freeze up in front of an audience or on a test, for instance - doesn't mean they're dumb.  Had it been something like "He's not bright enough..." then that's a different story.  I've seen plenty of athletes with amazing athletic ability who simply can't figure out how to use it - the difference between Harold Minor and Vince Carter.

 

As for how to deal with it, I would suggest a nice, brief, non-confrontational e-mail explaining what was wrong with the post, an alternate way to express the sentiment, and noting that these rules are implemented by popular opinion.  This thread gave people an opportunity to express themselves, and it's pretty clear you're not the only one with concerns about at least some of these statements.  Put the responsibility on the entire board - not just the owner who wants things a certain way.  At this point, it's clear that's where it rests, and maybe that approach will save you some grief and arguments.  It's how WE want things as a community - not just how YOU want things.

[The Constitutionalist]

There's no point in trying to make everyone, including the rule breakers, happy.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of the examples, even if they do break the rules. I get that emotions run high in the heat of the moment, and often, despite how the comment is read by the reader, the writer likely had better intentions. Context matters, but so do the rules. There's certainly an amount of subjectivity that goes into moderation and I trust the team.

 

I've seen a couple suggestions here about sending rule violators a brief, polite email, but I don't think that's effective. You already do that and I'd wager that the majority of the vitriol you receive is in response to emails explaining your reasoning. All it does is give the rulebreaker an avenue to argue and vent because the email, in addition to having a comment deleted/edited, feels like punishment enough. Getting a lecture on top of it hurts the feelings of the less emotionally mature.

 

Delete the rule-breaking comments and send a non-personalized email that simply states: Your comment on <date> was found by the moderation team to break our rules and was removed. Please familiarize with the rules here <link>. 

 

Don't give them the opportunity to plead their case. The rules are the king here. If they're a repeat offender, ban them along with a similarly non-personalized email.

Edited October 11, 2022 by The Constitutionalist

[Haywarduck]

On 10/10/2022 at 9:07 PM, Charles Fischer said:

That all makes sense.  Now sell it to the masses...

You don't sell it, you install it. It is your family and what is acceptable to you is what counts. 

 

Reminds me of what my son said one time, ok maybe a few times, 'when I'm dad I'm going to do things different.' My reply, 'I look forward to seeing that happen.'

 

I also don't mean to minimize the difficulty of what you do. Like a parent, the tough stuff isn't often seen by those affected. You have a huge impact, positive impact on this community. The choices are yours and I will support whatever you come up with, and for the record, I wouldn't do anything different!

[Tandaian]

Context matters.  #1 was a personal attack.  #2 was referring to play.  #3 was referring to decision making, play.  That is my opinion, but obviously it isn't the same as everybody else.

 

All 3 could have been worded differently with clearer meaning.  It isn't an easy task to find the line.  Everybody grew up in their own unique environment.  My son and his friends trash talk to each other all the time and don't think anything of it.  My daughter and her friends the complete opposite.

 

The only fix, is what you have been doing.  Send an E-mail and let them know a better worded statement should be used next time.  That is a lot of added work to put on your plate Charles.  I hope you copy and paste a generic E-mail, so you don't personalize it each time.

[JDuck]

I agree Charles, one of the facebook groups has a lot of parents, and they police it pretty hard.  People are harsh.  Most of the fb groups are really rude and harsh.  I think for current players, a higher standard is appropriate.  There are always players and coaches that won't make the fans happy, it's not like they aren't trying.  People are too critical.  The world's tough enough already.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/11/2022 at 1:39 AM, Kurt Rambis said:

I would suggest a nice, brief, non-confrontational e-mail explaining what was wrong with the post, an alternate way to express the sentiment, and noting that these rules are implemented by popular opinion.  This thread gave people an opportunity to express themselves, and it's pretty clear you're not the only one with concerns about at least some of these statements. 

 

Put the responsibility on the entire board - not just the owner who wants things a certain way.  At this point, it's clear that's where it rests, and maybe that approach will save you some grief and arguments.  It's how WE want things as a community - not just how YOU want things.

I send a different template email for each type of violation, and usually I customize some stuff at the beginning of each email pertaining to what was written by the OBD member.  I thought that explaining how 99.70% of the posts are published as just fine, and how his/hers falls in the low percentage...I figured that would make it obvious that civility is what the community wants.

 

But I think you make a good point about making it more apparent; at first they were MY rules, but since the vast majority like "having the trash taken out," then it has become our rules.

 

Thank you.

[Drex Heikes]

Your policy is welcome and a reason this site is civilized respite from the trolling typical on social media. 

 

My thought: Your gray area will always be gray and that’s just fine. You can’t come up with a standard that everyone agrees upon. So

impose your sensibility and don’t worry about it. It’s your site! 

 

Look, the US Supreme Court has wrestled with a definition of “obscenity” since the early 1960s. All those smart judges can’t agree on a standard and in any event are reluctant to try to codify it. 

 

You aren’t dealing with obscenity in your quest here but your purpose is similar—and like Scotus you will never find agreement about where to draw the line.

 

I would paraphrase what Justice Stewart said in 1964. He admitted that crafting a legal definition of obscenity was all but impossible, then added: I know it when I see it. 

 

You will know what you find offensive when you see it. When it crosses your personal line, you should act and not fret about it. 

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/11/2022 at 4:03 AM, The Constitutionalist said:

I've seen a couple suggestions here about sending rule violators a brief, polite email, but I don't think that's effective. You already do that and I'd wager that the majority of the vitriol you receive is in response to emails explaining your reasoning. All it does is give the rulebreaker an avenue to argue and vent because the email, in addition to having a comment deleted/edited, feels like punishment enough.

My template explains how we operate, and lists the rule broken and has a link to the rules.  You are right; a customized email gives some people the access to argue their case with me.  

 

What I've learned is that 99% of those who break the rules respond with..."my bad, so sorry Charles, won't do it again.  Love what you are doing, and please keep it up."  For people like that?  You want to give them a hug, and them we forget about it and move on.  The good people of this community who make an occasional mistake get a mulligan.  Repeat offenders who create more work for me are the ones who get banned, and that is a very small percentage.

 

But I still have to deal with 15 a month, and 185 violations in the last 12 months.  I don't wish it on anyone.

 

I do use the responses to my template/customized emails to help me gauge the future "trouble-level" I will have with a particular OBD member.  Like the criminal justice system where most of the crimes are committed by repeat offenders....I found the same was true here as well.

 

So if someone pushes back right away to the rules, the probability is high that he/she will continue to, and be an ongoing problem for me.  I now have a template to their catty response that tells them what you suggested..."these are the rules and you decide if you can adjust.  If you continue with multiple violations--you will be banned.  Or you can adjust to our 'no-aggression-needed' atmosphere, or you can leave."

 

I've learned to cut it sooner with certain people to save me time and work later.

 

But it doesn't solve those grey-area posts like you see to begin this thread. 

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/11/2022 at 9:32 AM, Drex Heikes said:

You will know what you find offensive when you see it. When it crosses your personal line, you should act and not fret about it. 

This has been a GREAT thread, and it demonstrates the wide diversity of opinion about whether the posts were in violation, and what to do about it.  I guess more than anything--I've learned so much from all of you on so many topics in the past that I was hoping for a silver-bullet that someone offers to this dilemma.

 

Nope.  It is as difficult for all of you as it is for me.  Had I sent the emails to No. 2 and No. 3 in the examples....they would not have been happy and would have thought that, "Charles, you are going too far."

 

Of course the problem is always with Charles....it couldn't be that they could have written the post in a way that conveys their opinion without running afowl of our rules!

 

I sure appreciate your feedback Drex, and all the good people who responded here.