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

[Jhoff]

When someone says to me  'you sure look good for your age'. They think their giving me a compliment.  But all I hear is  'your old'.

 If a moderater thinks something is in the gray area then it could very easily be construed to be offensive to the  person that the statement is being referred  to.

So I say if the moderator initially thinks it's in a gray area then go ahead and nuke it with any of the polite responses mentioned earlier. Don't dwell on it just do it and move on.

Oh and by the way I am damn good looking.

[Gizmoduck]

Stay the course Charles. Heavy is the head and all that. Better to be a little overprotective and offend a few sensitivities, than "loosen" up and allowing a cascade of trouble down the road. I know it, you know it, we all know it. Given an inch, most of us (myself definitely included) will take a mile and run with it. Then claim bias if called on it, and leave this forum in a huff. You do good work nipping it in the bud. I may not like it, but I know it's necessary to keep this haven as free, and pristine as it is.

[The Kamikaze Kid]

I think a thing that makes moderation difficult is when player/ coach/ team repetition goes from a one off performance and becomes a character trait. One boneheaded play or game can be critiqued without getting personal but repetition of the same issues allows observers to make critiques of the players/ coaches/ team themselves not just the particular play or game.

 

I think this is where things can take an ugly turn and can become piling on. For example, seeing Mario do the same frustrating things over and over, fans start giving personal critiques because the patterns become personal to him and not about a particular play or game. The same can be said about reoccurring themes by players and teams.

 

I don't know what the answer is to riding the fine line between decorum and pointing out frustrating repetitive miscues. I do think this thread is a great first step in the right direction. I think it would help moderators a little if posters could take a moment to contemplate if their post is constructive criticism/ observation or just angry venting.

[duckcz]

First of all, let me just say thank you for curating this forum as much as you do. I come here daily for the well-written, thoughtful and insightful articles, comments and discussions, not for trash talking and bad-mouthing of players, coaches or other commenters. 
 

I don’t envy your job though. Sports can drive people crazy. To keep things simple, you could remind people to keep it classy, constructive and clean. 
 

Classy=having high standards. In other words, it adds something of value to the discussion. 

 

Constructive=promoting improvement or development. In other words, criticism that cites specific examples not just blanket statements. 

 

Clean=free from the use of obscenity. In other words, no swearing or name calling or trash talking. 

 

In many cases, it is going to ultimately be your judgement call as to what you deem unworthy, but in my opinion, none of your examples would pass my 3C’s test. 

[DanLduck]

I believe it's best to err on the side of caution then risk lowering the bar of acceptable prose.

 

Personally, I don't like name calling ever. And even though some make money, they are still college students.

We are supposed to be fans first, more then critics, so we should act like it.

 

Send an email, delete the questionable post. 

You da man Charles Fishduck!

[Desert Duck]

On 10/11/2022 at 7:28 AM, Haywarduck said:

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.'

That's a great line. I wish I'd thought of that one a few years back. 

[Desert Duck]

Charles - I hesitate commenting because I am afraid at times I ride too close to the line. And as you know, on occasion have crossed over a bit to the dark side -- albeit, unintentionally.

 

I'm just grateful for the forum that you have created. It is your sandbox and how you manage it, is 100% your call. Clearly, you are doing something very well here as evidenced by the many great comments that people that post.

 

Thanks for all the work, money, and dedication you put into this Duck labor-of-love. 

[WiseKwacker]

Sorry to weigh in a bit late on this one. Haven't spent much time here the past few days as I've been scurrying around outside my house, trying to finish a number of projects before the weather turns.

 

My two cents:  You've got THE BEST website covering all things Ducks I can imagine. The reason it's so fabulous is directly related to all the work you've done to 1) establish rules of civility, 2) communicate those rules to everyone who uses the site, and 3) enforce those rules--through clear communication to the rule breakers--when there are violations.  Bravo, Charles.

 

So, as a former teacher, here's how my thinking evolved vis-a-vis establishing "classroom rules."  (Not saying you haven't done this already, just restating things in my words.) I started out trying to list all the violations that would be breaking the rules. Every time I thought I'd built the definitive list of violations, some kid came up with a new variation. I finally realized there were an infinite number of potential violations of the rules.

 

Instead, then, I wrote the rules according to what kids SHOULD be doing.  For example, one rule was that all students should be "safe" in their behaviors. So, when any of the myriad of "unsafe" behaviors occurred, the kid was reminded by me that he/she was violating the classroom rules.  Other rules related to kids being kind and respectful. 

 

Thus, when I had to look at a problem situation, I only needed to ask the kid, "Was your behavior respectful?" Upon a few seconds--maybe minutes--of reflection, most would admit that their behavior wasn't. 

 

Clearly, you're dealing with adults here. And, you're dealing with adults who are often writing comments in a moment of passion. As a result, I guess it's understandable that many would be offended when you challenge them. Seems to me, your standards are clear and fair.

 

When you've challenged a comment I've made in the past, my reaction was one of embarrassment. I felt I needed to apologize to you for having to waste your time contacting me about it. So, if someone gets so bent that they quit this site over a flagged comment, good riddance. 

 

Just one more thought, Charles. You have put in so much effort to make this site as outstanding as it is, you MAY suffer a bit with being too close to things to have the perspective that some of us outsiders do. To your credit, I think that's why you posted this in the first place. With that preamble, I'm trying to delicately suggest that you may be trying to look for specific reasons the three examples above either are or are not in violation of the rules. Sometimes, I think you need to throw out the "science" part of the process and just go with what your gut tells you.  I trust your gut, Charles. 

[Drake]

Metaphors, analogies, and similes about players, or coaches are either complimentary, or they are not. 

 

I think people know when they are being derogatory, and using bad comedy with a complaint doesn’t change the fact that a derogatory comment has been made. 
 

Fortunately, you decided to not put up with personal attacks on current players/coaches/other OBD members.  
 

Unfortunately, that means whomever enforces the rules will often get attacked as well. There will always be people who thrive on exploiting the “grey areas”. 
 

My two cents says coach who is coachable to help them become a better OBD member, and let the hot heads move on to another team. 

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/12/2022 at 9:27 AM, WiseKwacker said:

You MAY suffer a bit with being too close to things to have the perspective that some of us outsiders do.

That is very true.  Dealing with 15 violations a month, over 700 in five years...changes you.  On one hand, I want to make it easier on me, but that requires I be pretty cold with the process and you can lose good people that way.

 

Yet at times--trying to cushion it or reason with some people has been a futile exercise in frustration.

 

Something that this thread has confirmed is the wide range of judgments on this, as some said that none of the three examples bothered them, and others said that all three did.  I had hoped there would be more consensus, and this muddies the water that much more.

 

In the end... "there is no silver bullet for this, Charles."  I came to everyone about this because it is hard, and it remains that way.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/12/2022 at 12:12 PM, Drake said:

There will always be people who thrive on exploiting the “grey areas”. 

Boy, is that the sad truth I've learned.  No matter how clear I make it--there is always grey area.  And then people will point to how it is grey, and how what they wrote is pretty benign.  But yet reading it doesn't feel good...

 

And often when I make a decision about a post--I know that a percentage of the time, I will lose the OBD member.  Some people are quite sensitive and cannot even handle the thought of being called out, and that hangs over me as I wrestle with how I am going to approach this post.

 

I should be paid big-bucks for the anguish I go through at times, but instead....I PAY big-bucks to have this forum!  Ludicrous I know, but I do love this community of nice people.

[Washington Waddler]

     Internet forums resemble a sharing at an immense family table with the one exception that everyone is hidden from view. There are times I’ve wondered whether or not the creators of this mode had issues with looking others in the eye. Both those who are thoughtfully responsible towards others and those who are not are allowed equal access. Forums can be either a grand and challenging experiment in social behavior, or a dumpster fire. It all comes down to the rules that inform them, and being made to stick to them - gray area or not.

 

     Thanks Charles for making sure we all look you in the eye.

 

     
 

     

[Vandownbytheriverduck]

On 10/10/2022 at 12:01 PM, Charles Fischer said:

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!

I try to resist Value judgements, criticism of specific actions is acceptable. 
 

One cannot criticize or demean the character of another but may freely criticize a specific behavior or statement of another. 
 

Example;

Mario is horrible. -No

Mario's coaching was horrible -ok. 
 

It’s subtle but valuable technique as the value judgement is irrevocable and a statement of character and action or word specific criticism is more limited 
And directed. 

[DimpleDucks]

If you want to change behavior, I don't think you can ask people to speak benevolently towards current players and coaches, censoring them if they don't, and yet be fine with name calling and value judgments on previous coaches, players or other teams coaches and players. You're asking for non-emotional reactions to an emotional game, which is fine, but is it realistic? Might it be better to ask for no name calling at all and be 'high brow', as you put it, regarding all others as well? 

 

As to the examples, the first one is obvious, as many have mentioned.

 

The second one is fine as far as I'm concerned. These aren't grade schoolers and maybe he was horrible. Maybe the post could be explained that he/she is talking about the play, but to me, this is unnecessary micro-management. I think posters here know the reference was to game play, and I doubt a parent would be offended over it.

 

The third one--you ask if it refers to intelligence and I'd say no, it doesn't. For me, it means violent. A better metaphor could be found, but is that necessary and does it require censoring and the work that goes with it? 

 

If management wants to censor, my opinion is that you should just do it, no emailing and explanations necessary. The forum rules are posted and clear.

 

Thanks for the forum, Charles!

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/14/2022 at 2:35 PM, DimpleDucks said:

If you want to change behavior, I don't think you can ask people to speak benevolently towards current players and coaches, censoring them if they don't, and yet be fine with name calling and value judgments on previous coaches, players or other teams coaches and players.

I have learned gradually over the last five years of having rules of civility, that there can be a big difference between what sounds good as a way of implementing a rule, versus what actually works when it comes up.  You would not believe how many good people have left this forum on their own accord...(and some recently)...because they liked the rules until they were applied to them. 

 

And their violation was mild, and I stated as such, but it had to be removed and the email sent.  The real application of what you wrote above is where I started when doing this, but people felt they could not say anything about a former coach or player.  This is ends up being my problem when Taggart, Cristobal or Pittman leave; people want to express their opinion about how they left, and end up angrier at me than the player or coaches.

 

Thus why my rules only pertain to current players and coaches.  This is much harder in application than it looks.  Much harder than it would seem...  Much harder than it should be, and thus why no one else does it.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/14/2022 at 2:35 PM, DimpleDucks said:

this is unnecessary micro-management.

Agreed, and I really do not have the time to do that, nor do the moderators want to go that far.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/14/2022 at 2:35 PM, DimpleDucks said:

If management wants to censor, my opinion is that you should just do it, no emailing and explanations necessary.

Above is another great example of what sounds good until you apply it, and run into another component of human behavior.  I did what you suggested for a while and then people started to tell me, "go ahead and edit my posts as you like."

 

This means they would now write whatever they wanted and would "let Charles clean up the mess for me."  Who made me their editing maid?

 

Forget that crap.

 

I am not anyone's editing maid; write the damn thing right the first time, or you will get a violation notification email from me.  If I have to do that very many times--the relationship ends as a means of reducing my workload.

 

Again...this is harder than it looks.  And you don't know what doesn't work until you do it, and then you find out what clever means people figure out to evade it.  I just want a civil site.  Should that be so hard?

 

The answer is....yes.

 

[DimpleDucks]

On 10/14/2022 at 4:31 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Above is another great example of what sounds good until you apply it, and run into another component of human behavior.  I did what you suggested for a while and then people started to tell me, "go ahead and edit my posts as you like."

 

This means they would now write whatever they wanted and would "let Charles clean up the mess for me."  Who made me their editing maid?

 

Forget that crap.

 

I am not anyone's editing maid; write the damn thing right the first time, or you will get a violation notification email from me.  If I have to do that very many times--the relationship ends as a means of reducing my workload.

 

Again...this is harder than it looks.  And you don't know out what doesn't work until you do it, and then you find out what clever means people figure out to evade it.  I just want a civil site.  Should that be so hard?

 

The answer is....yes.

Wow! Yes, it is a lot of work! And about posters liking the rules until they are applied to them...just like teenagers, LOL! I can see your frustration. 

 

I guess it's also a reflection of our times. There is little respect for others in general. Rules are 'stupid' for many. Civility as a state of mind is lacking. Fans yell phrases because they are either drunk or mind numbed. There is only so much personal accountability, and for a lot of people it doesn't go very far. 

 

Thanks, again, for all your hard work, Charles! 

[TexasDuck]

Is this a case of whose ox is being gored?  I read several posts about “U$C” and “University of Spoiled Children” (the latter of which was funny the 1500 or so times I heard it when I was in Junior High going to games at Autzen).  How about “Fuskies?”  That’s a crude contraction, actually.

 

Do we only insist on decorum in reference to our own?  Just asking.  
 

You don’t have an easy job, Mr. FishDuck.  Keep fighting the good fight.  

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/15/2022 at 10:00 AM, TexasDuck said:

Do we only insist on decorum in reference to our own?  Just asking.

Yes.  We still need to have some fun...  It is in the Rules, No. 26 right here.

[TexasDuck]

There it is, #26.  Thanks for clarifying.  I forgot to mention in my post response that I also remember being overjoyed, at age 12, at hearing the student section version of the OSU fight song lyrics. Just filthy, not to be repeated, and a complete delight at the time.  
 

Thanks again for a most enjoyable and unique fan board.  

[12Duck72]

It's your site Charles, run it how you like. If people don't like it,  oh well. The only issue I have with the 3 examples you gave is calling people names like "Turnover Thompson ". The reason I check out this site is people can post their thoughts and not get insulted. That's why I'm not on Twitter. 

 

I also don't see any problem like some other folks with criticism of current players/coaches as long as it is not personal and is related to football. I know that this is just sports and not a reflection of someone's value as a human being. But as you pointed out where is the line? I think we are all big boys and girls and know an insult when we see it.

 

These are just my opinions and some may disagree which is OK. If everyone agreed on every thing than this world would be boring. I would say don't change a thing. The rules are the rules, if you won't follow them then you don't need to post here. 

[OregonDucks]

This is a really tough question. 
 

I don’t think it’s ever okay to call current players or coaches derogatory names/nicknames or comment about personal beliefs/issues/looks.  My preference would be that this would be extended to former players, coaches and opposing teams because I personally don’t believe that this behavior  represents the University of Oregon well, and as you mentioned player’s and potential recruit’s families and friends read these message boards. I wouldn’t be surprised if players themselves looked from time to time, although I would advise them to avoid all media/social sites. 
 

Criticism of a play or call seems like it should be allowed, as long as it’s professional and not personal. I prefer to leave out a player’s name or number, when possible, because they are young adults trying their best. No one should be more upset about a mistake or bad play, as the player themselves. The coaches should be  reviewing game tape with the players and teaching them from their mistakes. 
 

Just my take. 

[woundedknees]

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

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

The few times I have received a nudge from you Charles, I have found it easy to accept the critique and move forward.

 

In all honesty, I believe that many of us tend to react to the moment and miss the opportunity to give our opinions in a more circumspect manner at times.

 

Charles, you bust your cheeks to keep this forum running as smooth as possible. Thanks for that effort.

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by woundedknees

[OregonDucks]

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

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

 

Could you set up a rule that if x number of posters report the post as inappropriate then the post is hidden until a moderator is able to review the content?

 

I don’t think that you should spend time sending all violators emails. Just re-word or delete the post if it’s minor.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/15/2022 at 1:11 PM, OregonDucks said:

I don’t think that you should spend time sending all violators emails. Just re-word or delete the post if it’s minor.

Please see post No. 67 above, as I explain what happens when we/I do that.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/15/2022 at 1:11 PM, OregonDucks said:

Could you set up a rule that if x number of posters report the post as inappropriate then the post is hidden until a moderator is able to review the content?

The original forum software has that feature, but here is the problem with it...we all observe what others write and see what they get away with.  So if a bad post is up for a while, then everyone sees it and the new "low-bar" of behavior and guess what happens then?

 

I see tons more of the same behavior soon. By the time enough people report it, (and few ever do) the post has been up all day and doing the damage to the delicate civil atmosphere we have.  I have an axiom about that, "whatever you allow? You will see again, soon."