The People v 84Husker

[Saunders]

My mentality has always been that coaches and players are fair game for criticism, i.e. analytical judgement based on stats, overall performances and value in a game. Coaches are open to harsher criticisms because they get paid.

But, I've always drawn the line at name-calling and general foolhardiness, and I think most of our posters are in line with this ideology, as well.

And I'm pretty sure we've kept things in line with that. Does stuff slip through? Sure, we're human. That's why we rely on the report system. But when people go after players, it gets taken care of really fast, see: AFHusker.

It's one thing to say "xx coach sucks at his job" vs "xx player is a mental midget."

 

[knapplc]

My mentality has always been that coaches and players are fair game for criticism, i.e. analytical judgement based on stats, overall performances and value in a game. Coaches are open to harsher criticisms because they get paid.

But, I've always drawn the line at name-calling and general foolhardiness, and I think most of our posters are in line with this ideology, as well.

And I'm pretty sure we've kept things in line with that. Does stuff slip through? Sure, we're human. That's why we rely on the report system. But when people go after players, it gets taken care of really fast, see: AFHusker.

We could go back through just this past season's game commentary threads and find worse examples.

 

[Saunders]

My mentality has always been that coaches and players are fair game for criticism, i.e. analytical judgement based on stats, overall performances and value in a game. Coaches are open to harsher criticisms because they get paid.

But, I've always drawn the line at name-calling and general foolhardiness, and I think most of our posters are in line with this ideology, as well.

And I'm pretty sure we've kept things in line with that. Does stuff slip through? Sure, we're human. That's why we rely on the report system. But when people go after players, it gets taken care of really fast, see: AFHusker.

We could go back through just this past season's game commentary threads and find worse examples.

I don't usually go into game threads because it's impossible to follow a 30 page thread over the course of 3+ hours. I prefer twitter or a chat system. Regardless, if we don't see it, and it doesn't get reported, stuff slips through.

Like I said, we're human.

 

[Redux]

The game threads are always a dumpster fire. Knapp, you have to sympathize with that as a former Mod.

 

[GSG]

Like I said, we're human.

 

[Saunders]

Like I said, we're human.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Clearly "bashing" is open to interpretation. If you think that's proof that you can say what you want on that forum, I invite you to create an account and try.

Like I said, that was one example I found from the first thread that I opened on their site. "Bashing" is an insult, right? What is more insulting to a professional than saying that they are so inept at their job that they are a detriment to the team they are on, are holding them back from success, and should be fired due to such ineptitude? Further, that comment indirectly raises accusations about the leadership of the HC who hired, employs, and is advised by the coach in question. Whether that option is factual or not, it is still bashing the coaching staff.

My question is where is your line? Are you asking for a moratorium on professional attacks on the coaching staff in totality or just by verbiage? Is it okay to say "the coach is inept at his job and should be fired" but not okay if someone says "the coach is terrible and should be fired"?

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

My mentality has always been that coaches and players are fair game for criticism, i.e. analytical judgement based on stats, overall performances and value in a game. Coaches are open to harsher criticisms because they get paid.

But, I've always drawn the line at name-calling and general foolhardiness, and I think most of our posters are in line with this ideology, as well.

This summarizes how I, and I don't want to speak out of turn but I believe most others, moderate the board. If I understand knapplc's sentiments, he is saying the same thing. However, there must be something in interpretation of enforcement that is cause the lack of consensus. Part of the issue, as other's have noted repeatedly, is that Ohio St fan site may not be the equivalent measuring stick for a Husker fan site given the clear-cut discrepancy of success between the two teams and the differences in sentiment that that will create amongst the respected fanbases in terms of the direction of the programs.

 

[Saunders]

My mentality has always been that coaches and players are fair game for criticism, i.e. analytical judgement based on stats, overall performances and value in a game. Coaches are open to harsher criticisms because they get paid.

But, I've always drawn the line at name-calling and general foolhardiness, and I think most of our posters are in line with this ideology, as well.

This summarizes how I, and I don't want to speak out of turn but I believe most others, moderate the board. If I understand knapplc's sentiments, he is saying the same thing. However, there must be something in interpretation of enforcement that is cause the lack of consensus. Part of the issue, as other's have noted repeatedly, is that Ohio St fan site may not be the equivalent measuring stick for a Husker fan site given the clear-cut discrepancy of success between the two teams and the differences in sentiment that that will create amongst the respected fanbases in terms of the direction of the programs.

Bingo.

 

[Redux]

We would be better compared to Texas as of recent seasons. Look at their festering board of sh#t where everything flies, it's terrifying over there.

I think we have a happy middle ground here. But nobody seems to be f'ing happy anymore...

 

[knapplc]

I get it. Change is hard. It's especially hard when the perception is that "I" am being told I'm wrong. I've been there, Tom, Saunders, Mav, et al. It's tough to be unbiased.

I know this seems like I'm attacking you Mods. It's hard to convey what I'm trying to convey without it seeming that way, and in this thread I'm not eloquent enough to do that. I'm not zoogs.

I think you guys are doing a bang-up job. If, from time to time, I and others critique the way you run the site, please forgive any unintended appearance of attack. I'll happily be the yin to your yang if it means the result is a balance of what we all want.

 

[zoogs]

Thanks, knapp. (You are the eloquent one, though! Don't be humble, now. I will search for that Tolkien-esque Husker post if I can remember the keywords

)

I think we can all work towards having a reasonable, but fair environment here. I think you're great at getting people acclimated, for example -- and in general, I think the whole of this community does that.

What I'm mindful of is seeing people start to band up against a poster; for example, Matty lately. I'm happy to ask someone to tone it down if needed and I don't want to hit someone over the head if they're struggling to.

I can't stop anyone ultimately from taking a "Screw it, ___ sucks and I'm going to rip them" view. But that's good for nobody, especially the more people are doing that in various directions.

 

[zoogs]

We would be better compared to Texas as of recent seasons. Look at their festering board of sh#t where everything flies, it's terrifying over there.

I think we have a happy middle ground here. But nobody seems to be f'ing happy anymore...

I'm happy!

Maybe I don't wade into enough threads in football or recruiting, but I really like where things are going. And I haven't found a shortage of places to express that joy. These are the best post-2001 years in Husker football I can remember.

 

[Saunders]

I get it. Change is hard. It's especially hard when the perception is that "I" am being told I'm wrong. I've been there, Tom, Saunders, Mav, et al. It's tough to be unbiased.

I know this seems like I'm attacking you Mods. It's hard to convey what I'm trying to convey without it seeming that way, and in this thread I'm not eloquent enough to do that. I'm not zoogs.

I think you guys are doing a bang-up job. If, from time to time, I and others critique the way you run the site, please forgive any unintended appearance of attack. I'll happily be the yin to your yang if it means the result is a balance of what we all want.

 

[TAKODA]

Knapp, what change?

Are we doing something different than the norm?

Seriously, I know you are not talking to me but I have no idea what this change is, you speak of?

As for the mods and the tough job they have, it goes without saying that their temperament needs to stay on an even keel when making their decisions, but to be fair Zoogs, the examples (bannings/warnings/ mod and admin demeanors) set forth, needs to be followed implicitly or the message gets lost. The other day, I got out of sorts with LLOMS and I should have recognized he was just pulling my chain, and at first, I thought that was in fact what he was doing.

I then re-read the post, then seen others (even mods) question what the heck, regarding his post. This agitated me and I responded with a not so kind response. You at that point Zoogs, conferred with me about why I responded the way I did and I believe you stated you did the same with LLOMS. Yes, it was sorted out. I then felt like an a$$ hat that I responded as I did to LLOMS, because I have always enjoyed and respected his views (Don't always agree), but he obvioulsy puts some thought into what he post.

As for posters saying screw it, that should not be an unexpected revelation either. People come and go, and as the years go by, some stick, some grow old and some grow tired. Those of you who have been here since the board was brought on line (or a long time), could probably diagnose and predict in the first week of a new posters appearance, if they are the type who are going to get banned or be a valued member of the board. As for a few of the people mentioned within the thread prior to my post here, I am unaware of what violations 84 has done, that would cause him to be banned. I do not have him on ignor, although I do not read his postings either. TLDR. As for Count, if he wanted to be banned per what Knapp stated, then so be it. Do I think his banning was warranted, not a permaban but if that is what Count wanted, so be it.

The point I am trying to make is, sometimes what or how we read things, does not represent what the intent behind the wording in the post is, and for Mods to to have 'The Devine Interpretation', is ludicrous to expect.

I know, I know, ^ TLDR ~ 84ish hua?