I Hate CougCenter!
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 10:26 AM PST
Email
PrintWe seem to be catching a fair amount of flak from some people for how we manage our community, even being compared more than once to the worst fascist regime in modern history. I think that's a bit extreme, but hey -- people are entitled to their opinions, right?
In that light, I thought it might be productive to give everyone a chance to have a voice in what we do by creating a post/thread where you can record your thoughts and concerns about us and how we do things -- unfiltered, without fear of banning. Sort of an airing of grievances, if you will.
We're open to criticism. We really are interested in making this place better, and I hope this gives us a chance to address specific concerns in a way that leads to mutual understandings. Who knows -- you might even bring something to our attention that we hadn't considered in our little myopic world. You might even lead to real change around here.
So fire away.
P.S.: I would appreciate if this could get rec'd a few times so it will sit at the top of the page for all to see. Thanks.
This FanPost does not necessarily reflect the views of the site's writers or editors, who may not have verified its accuracy. It does, however, reflect the views of this particular fan, which is just as important as the views of our writers or editors.
291 comments
|
17 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Where is the optional DJ for this site?
We need an option so we can play songs oriented for our site.
by well you win some and lose others on Feb 11, 2011 10:39 AM PST reply actions
Did you say banned?
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
Okay....uhhh if I have to explain it isn't such a good joke than.....
You know how when you here something of interest to you it makes you perk up, pay more attention?
Just like how the Meerkat is standing up looking around?
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
i thought it was a meerkat taking a pee
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 3:29 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
OK....so......
…..I’m a little scared to say this…….
Sometimes I feel like when it comes to coaching the banhammer is on a hair trigger. Personally, I’m a little scared to say anything about a coach unless a) there is a similar previous comment or b)one of the authors brought it up in the post. The one time I was banned (I realize I was dancing on thin ice) I thought I was making a structured criticism of Paul Wulff (maybe it wasn’t, it was a few months ago) and instead just got banned.
But whatever, no hard feeling Nuss. Well, besides the fact that you banned me and forgot about me where I had to send you an email like a week later to get unbanned.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
Don't be scared. This is exactly what I'm looking for.
Give me a few moments to think about how to respond.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 11:29 AM PST up reply actions
As someone who has not yet been banned,
it does seem like there are a couple taboo topics which get people banned pretty quickly. It reminds me of the ‘chilling effect’ the Supreme Court talked about regarding imposing regulations on the first amendment. Of course that is different from banning someone from a blog, but I do wonder if maybe some people are afraid to post something which may actually be constructive for fear of being banned.
However, there are definitely instances which call for the banhammer, and I’m glad I’m not the one who has to make the call…
by displacedcoug on Feb 11, 2011 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
In my mind,
there’s a difference between “Paul Wulff needs to be fired” and “Paul Wulff needs to be fired, and here’s why”, followed by some actual, concrete reasons, i.e. " He is 3-43657 and has shown no marked improvement over the last three years".
^^^I’m not actually saying that, I’m just making up an example
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
OK, here goes.
You hit it almost right on the head. Saying “Coach X needs to be fired” is clearly out of bounds because it’s just mindless venting. Saying “Coach X needs to be fired, and here’s why” followed by concrete reasons can become a gray area, though. Here’s why.
What do you think we should consider concrete reasons? Reply to this comment, and let’s come up with some things we can work off of.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not just talking about myself.
I guess I’m saying that it seems to me someone coming in here and trying to promote thoughtful conversation on a coach should be something that is accepted. Now someone that all they talk about is coaching is a different story. As displacedcoug said, its one of those things that I think consistent commenters on this site see as way off limits.
And I understand why you guys want to keep out of this stuff, since it seems lots of times to degenerate to emotionally charged arguing. But in my mind, questioning a coach is part of being a fan and thoughtful discussion of it should be welcomed. If that makes sense.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 12:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
As for coaching
During the football season when we struggled, there always seemed to be an influx of “Wulff needs to be fired.” There wasn’t any new evidence being presented other than another loss. It also seemed to just criticize Wulff for not being passionate enough (not quantifiable) or not wearing a headset (is it that important?). For me, it got tiring because we knew that Moos was not going to make a change mid-season, but evaluate at the end and I believe there were a couple ‘official’ posts on the subject throughout the season. It started to annoy me when it popped up in every gamethread/game recap.
It seems the lack of original/fresh criticism or evidence why he should be fired lead to it being a gray topic.
Hey I am offended by your comment...I am kidding, not offended, but will clarify.
I did ask why Wulff didn’t wear a headset. I never said he should be fired for not wearing one, that is ridiculous and I never called for his head. I said he is the only head coach I can think of that doesn’t wear one and was wondering why, because I thought coaches wanted to hear the plays over the head set. It was up for discussion, not his his job status. Brain Floyd clarified it for me. That wasn’t silly to me because it is interesting to me how a football staff operates on the sideline. O ya, by the Wulff did start to wear the head set at the end of the season when we were play well. So don’t lump me in with the rest!!! By the way take this tone in a joking manner. I do agree with you on the rest of your comment. Nailed it!
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
I don't think you were the problem
I didn’t have a problem when you asked it, I was wondering the same myself when I saw him. Like you, I rarely saw an HC without one on. So when it was clarified, I thought that was the end of it.
however, I remember that it was then taken further than it was necessary or reasonably plausible, like he didn’t care or it was so he could avoid blame because he wasn’t involved in the play calling.
There were a number of people who used the lack of headset as a point of criticism.
Which I think we rightly deemed as absurd.
But were people banned for the comments?
I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh
Gotcha.
Ya that was absurd. I can’t completely recall all the comments or all of what I said. I might have wondered how involved he was in certain parts of the game because of not having a headset, but I didn’t call for his firing, that is stupid. Some coaches like to hear (& some don’t) what is coming from the booth upstairs. I was just discussing, others may have been blaming. Craziness.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
"It seems the lack of original/fresh criticism or evidence why he should be fired lead to it being a gray topic."
That’s pretty much it. And I think this is where the disconnect comes from:
Those of us who are here everyday, reading every comment on every post, have been over and over and over and over and over all of this stuff. It’s easy for us to “get it.” But a person who only comments occasionally wouldn’t know how often we deal with some of this stuff, and not understand why we react so — for lack of a better term — violently to it.
I don’t really know how to reconcile that disconnect.
Perhaps by being gentler
II appreciate the difficulties of balancing control with freedom of expression, as well as how painful it is to see the same topics come up over and over again. I urge you, though, to use discretion while determining which commenters are writing truly idiotic things versus those who are writing something that, while perhaps old hat to you, represents a legitimate attempt to have a meaningful discussion.
The “tired meme” part is the most questionable part, I believe, of CC’s community guidelines. To me, being required to read every post and every comment before being allowed to comment is unreasonable and is inconsistent with your goal of bringing CougCenter to a broader community and allowing that community to participate in the dialogue. Moreover, only rarely will a topic that at one time was worthy of genuine debate have been disposed of in some kind of authoritative fashion, thereby rendering it compleetely immune to any contrary opinion (and if it has, I think the question should then be whether some severe groupthink is occurring).
Overreacting at a well-meaning person choosing to discuss something that may be a “tired meme” runs a significant risk of only permitting a small, dedicated, favored group of commenters to participate openly while discouraging others from participating. Consider whether as an alternative to banning someone, or even as an alternative to a curt reply like “You’re warned,” it would be better to say something like “Thanks, but we can’t know for sure why the team appears to be flat, and don’t want our comment threads devolve into unfounded speculation,” or “Thanks, but we already discussed this in a recent post – please don’t re-open that here” and, if required, following up by saying “Sorry, but we try to keep these threads clean, and this is the last warning before we’ll have to ban you – please check out the CC Community Guidelines here.” I’ve seen you guys trying to do similar things in recent threads. I think that’s great. More generally, please understand that I don’t like trolls, and I think the community guidelines are great. I don’t want or need to have Cougfan-style blather here. I think the control is a bit heavy here, though.
More generally, the site is awesome, as are all of the authors. CC is the first and last website I check out each day, and it’s almost always open in a tab on my browser. You guys have my sincere appreciation.
Hey, I was just thinking about this!
Specifically in regards to the game thread last night, if I hadn’t read Jeff’s bubble post I probably would have made a comment similar to those which got shouted down. While it’s not reasonable for a CC author to respond with “we already talked about this, here’s the link” to every one of those comments, it can be hurtful to get verbally scorned or banned from a misunderstanding. I’m sure there is some middle ground… maybe…
"I mean I was like, okay, there you go, you wanna hit me? There you go, one pitch for you. You don't get it? You have no chance." ~ Felix Hernandez
by johnnycougar on Feb 11, 2011 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
No you're right.
That happened to me when I was a newbie over at LL and I still don’t really feel comfortable posting over there. That was almost 2 years ago. So I will make it my mission to not exclude anyone, because I know firsthand how much it sucks.
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 11, 2011 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Lookout Landing
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
Lookout Landing does have a bit of an exclusive feel
There seems to be a few posters there who are allowed to do and write things that others cannot. I have rarely, if ever gotten that sense here.
but I digress.
I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh
That happened to me also
I still am afraid of posting over there
by spokanecougar on Feb 11, 2011 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
Me three
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
I just make occasional smartass comments
Because I’m not versed nearly as well in sabermetrics as a lot of those guys. Also because they have a lot of mini-rules, like specifics on image size and No “+1”-type stuff.
Writer: CougCenter Twitterer: @GradyClapp
by Grady Clapp on Feb 11, 2011 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
Thank you for the thoughtful comment
I think you’re right about being gentler. We need to do a better job.
I think this is pretty much right on
Moreover, only rarely will a topic that at one time was worthy of genuine debate have been disposed of in some kind of authoritative fashion, thereby rendering it compleetely immune to any contrary opinion (and if it has, I think the question should then be whether some severe groupthink is occurring).
I’m a law student, so I can talk about an analogous situation. There is a doctrine known as issue preclusion (or “collateral estoppel,” for those incurably addicted to the pointless flogging of Law French…) which permits an issue which has been fully hashed out from being re-litigated over and over again.
Here’s the thing, though— you’re only allowed to argue that person X cannot re-litigate an issue if PERSON X litigated it previously and lost. It’s actually an unconstitutional denial of due process to prevent Person X from raising an argument because Person Y lost that argument.
Let’s draw an analogy. If someone here says “Klay Thompson isn’t that good” once, then I think the onus is on the community to treat that as a valid argument and shoot it down. If the same person then continues to assert it willy-nilly, at that point, you can break out the estoppel ban-hammer. What is not fair is preventing someone from raising an issue just because someone else made a hash of it previously.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
The difference here, though, is that this is precedential law
For the purposes of law, I understand it. But for our purposes … let’s just say I’m fairly certain you really have no idea how tiring it gets to hear the same tired canards dozens of times, and then have to take the time to rebut them with the same evidence dozens of times. It’s time consuming and frustrating.
It’s why I was hoping for the preemptive strike with the “Tired Memes.” But it appears that may not be going over so well.
Maybe I just need to have a document with all my tired meme rebuttals and cut and paste them like canned text message responses. Or maybe we can get SB Nation to program a bot for auto responses …
Think most judges and lawyers don't get sick of hearing the same tired canards dozens of times?
A lot of them do resort to basically exactly what you alluded to (copying and pasting tired argument rebuttals into their briefs/opinions). But you’ve got to be careful about that, because if someone has really raised some new issue and you blow it off, you’re potentially setting yourself up to lose the case (or, if a judge, to get overruled on appeal).
Also, as someone who has had what seems like eight thousand versions of the same argument about Trevor Cahill and FIP versus ERA at Athletics nation, I think I do have a pretty good idea of how tiring it gets to hear the same tired canards dozens of times.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
There's a clear difference here.
Lawyers are getting paid to make these arguments. It’s their job. We, however, are not, paid to listen to them. This isn’t a full-time job for most — it mostly is for me, but not at CougCenter. It’s a hobby or a part-time thing.
If I was being paid lawyer money, then maybe I would put up with it more. But I’m not. And I don’t have to.
This isn’t law, it’s a blog. It’s a blog we take pride in and our safe haven. But when we have to deal with the same stuff over and over, our risk of burnout goes through the roof, and it doesn’t make it fun.
CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug
Night Editor - SBNation.com
by Brian Floyd on Feb 12, 2011 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, but as I pointed out once already
This is not a courtroom. It’s an Internet community.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
You can be dismissive if you want to, I suppose
I mean, you asked for my opinion and I’ve given it. If you start banning people for the sins of others, they are going to get seriously pissed off about it (I can tell you, in advance, that I will if it ever happens to me) and probably leave permanently. I think that’s a bad idea.
Make of that what you will.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Nuss, you are an English teacher right?
How long does it take for new kids to catch up in your class? You also know the kids in your class. So think of the names and tags you see constantly as the kids in your class your class room. And than you get the new kid/new poster.
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
That's the way I'd stay slightly sane...
That or just banning random people because its fun to see their reactions…. >:)
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
I know that I need to work a little on my patience with people
Maybe it’s because I have to be so patient all day long. I dunno. For whatever reason, this frustrates me more than other things. I need to grow from this.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 10:04 PM PST up reply actions
I understand where you are coming from.
But if you think you have no patients, you clearly have not met me.
The Land of Neil: Where Patients is a MYTH
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 10:07 PM PST up reply actions
I've called for a coach to be relieved of his duties.
But I did so in a lengthy post explaining why. I spent a lot of time working through things in my head and figuring out exactly why this particular coach wasn’t getting it done. I don’t expect that much detail in a comments section, clearly, but I do expect reasoning behind it.
What I’ve found is that reactionary posts, right after a heated loss or a tough game, tend to get us nowhere. It creates a comment section that becomes unreadable and less than productive.
Finally, I know many of these coaches and have spoken to them at length. It doesn’t mean I’m in their back pocket or won’t criticize them — I will. However, I also know that coaches and athletes are people, too, just like us. They have families, lead a real life and are doing a job — albeit more public than any of us. So before firing off a “Coach X sucks” or “Player X sucks” please realize these are just faces or names. They’re people under an immense amount of stress.
You may think that firing off a message on a blog has no affect. It does. Players, families, people close to the team and others read what you write. And those messages can be incredibly hurtful. So before firing off that post, I’d urge everyone to think about it. Would they like someone saying the same things about them. Would you like if I said, “Joe from accounting sucks and should be fired.” Is there a more productive way to say it? Can there be constructive criticism?
CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug
Night Editor - SBNation.com
by Brian Floyd on Feb 11, 2011 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Understood
And yes reactionary posts are bad no question. As far as the second part goes, I agree but I also think that’s what you subject yourself to when you take a high profile job.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 12:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Understand that, and agree.
Coaches, and those in high profile jobs, are subjected to criticism. And they should be, as well.
At the same time, there’s a difference between constructive criticism that sparks productive conversation and incendiary speech that cause the comments section to devolve into an unreadable mess.
This is the problem with basketball, and something I’ve struggled with. It’s easy in football. Coach X calls play Y resulting in Z. It begins with the coach and we can tell what are execution-based flaws and what are deeper. In basketball, however, everything is more dynamic.
A coach can call a perfect play and we may never know because it’s dynamic and because it’s up to the players to follow-through on the coaches orders. In basketball, it’s less in the coaches hands and more in the players. Bone could tell the players DeAngelo Casto much touch the ball every possession. However, what if he’s being doubled before the entry and isn’t the best option? What if feeding the post means a sure turnover? What if the players simply decide they’d rather not?
To me, basketball is more on the players than the coach in many instances. Then again, that’s just me, And this is an unrelated tangent.
CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug
Night Editor - SBNation.com
Haha...Tood.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Feb 11, 2011 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
Saying "Coach X needs to be fired" is not "mindless venting",
it’s expressing a policy preference for what the organization should do in the future. If that option is not even allowed to be on the table, your discussion is, ipso facto, incomplete and flawed.
If someone says “Paul Wulff should be fired” and then flatly refuses to give any reasons why when pressed, then their opinion will be obviously worthless. It’s not necessary to ban them to discredit the position.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
When you get the same thing dozens of times? When it starts to fill up our comment threads?
It’s not just a matter of being “obviously worthless.”
Like I said, there's a difference between a plausible, if outlandish, argument
and repetitive, warrantless criticism. The latter starts to look like trolling, and I have no problem at all with banning trolls.
The thing is, I see banning trolls as basically protecting the process of discussion— and a list of subjects one is Not Allowed To Talk About is not protecting the process, it’s cutting off the substance.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I tend to agree...
I know hbelvoir ruffled some feathers (and the Nazi thing is certainly banworthy), but I didn’t think his criticism up until then was anything over the top. From reading his posts on CF.C, he’s been a coach for decades, and knows basketball. Doesn’t mean he’s always right (he takes a pretty negative view of this team and the coaches), but he doesn’t just make up crazy stuff, either.
I understand (and love that, BTW) the community guidelines are to generate constructive and informative conversations, but sometimes I think there’s definitely a bias on the gavel towards views that contradict with what the authors see. On most posts, it’s obviously not an issue, but on some of the hotter threads, yeah.
I don’t know if this was helpful….
by TiltingRight on Feb 11, 2011 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
His is what I was trying to say.
Coaching I think is just the biggest example of it.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 12:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I guess my main point is
There needs to be a distinction between someone bringing up a "taboo"’d topic but trying to promote thoughful conversation and someone just coming in and tossing bombs tryin to rile everyone up.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 1:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I do hear what you're saying.
And in reading this thread so far, it seems like the coach thing is the main issue. This is helpful to us. I think I speak for the other authors when I say we’ll all try to do a better job shaping the coach conversations so that people don’t have to be afraid.
I'm good
I just got to do a better job censoring myself : )
"If anyone epitomized Cougar grit and courage, Jason Gesser did that." - Bob Robertson
I don't hate CougCenter, I love it.
It is usually the first site I check everyday and the last one I check before bed. That said, I admit I feel uneasy about posting sometimes. I am probably one of those fans that is a “glass half empty” person and probably do overreact sometimes and I think I have posted some comments that have ruffled some feathers when I talk about how I think that this season is just turning into a repeat of last year and how this team hasn’t showed me they have improved. I am told to back that statement up, but really all I need to do to back that up is show this teams Pac-10 record for the last two years.
I like that this site doesn’t allow stupid posts, however, I do enjoy and like reading what other fans are thinking or whether or not they are as frustrated as I am about this team. Sometimes its just nice to be able to vent – yet still keep it civil – and I feel we don’t always get the chance to do that on here without getting possibly getting banned.
I'm really sorry you feel that way
Just give us a little bit of something. For example:
If you feel like it’s turning into last year, be specific about how that is. At this time last year, the Cougs were 4-7 in Pac-10 play and had lost 4 of 5. This team is clearly better by any objective measure. If you can point to things that you see that are similar, you’ll get somewhere with us.
I hope this helps.
I haven't read all the comments on here yet,
but I don’t know what you are talking about Nuss.
We seem to be catching a fair amount of flak from a some people for how we manage our communityWhere is this flak? On Cougfan message boards? I am never seen it. I have been a member since September 2008 (I was reading the site from the beginning, but didn’t sign up right away, so I guess I am an OG) and have never been banned or warned, so I don’t understand the problem. Maybe I have similar viewpoints and humor or it is my age. Who knows?
Maybe ban people who the community flags? Screw CougCenter…flag me!!!!
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
Yeah, we're getting e-mails about it
Someone also put a severed horse head in Nusser’s bed.
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 11, 2011 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
Horse head
Made out of frozen dog doodoo?
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 1:46 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
A horse head...thats crazy!
Now if they would have taken a bunch of stat sheets and run them through a shredder and sprinkled them all over his bed…that would have made Nuss crazy.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
by SoCalCoug on Feb 11, 2011 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
mobile rec
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 1:57 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Disgruntled Wyoming fan?
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Who care about the other areas of the internet.
But I understand you have to keep it PC and there is the idea of growing the site.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
I don't particularly "care" per se
But if there’s an opportunity to examine what we do and figure out how we can do it better, I want to take it.
I like this.
What I like, is you guys try to keep humble and doing things like this is part of being humble. Good Things.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
You guys do a bang up job of it too
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
You should have reposted the Faisal Aden is killing our offense post
as the game recap. Also do you realize the complete collapse of the football program and the launch of this site were almost simultaneous. Conspiracy? Definitely. In all seriousness I love this site.
"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."
I think I have a very unique perspective on this
Obviously, I’m extremely new to the other side of the banhammer. When I was just a community member, I would think “Commenter A is stupid” but would just move on. Now, as someone with the responsibility of keeping this site awesome, I have to look at it from a different light.
I know it seems like we get angry if you disagree with us. That’s not the case, though, I can assure you. I mean, all 5 of us disagree lots of times. Just last week we were arguing — via e-mail — whether we were Team Edward or Team Jacob. There seems to be a split with Nusser completely noncommittal because he “just loves both of them so much”.
In all seriousness, when someone talks about removing a coach, often, their “reasoning” isn’t reasoning at all. They point to record, which we all know isn’t the only metric one should take into account. They point to things like body language or game mismanaging. If you want to talk about things that are quantifiable, then ok. But when people who may or may not be ex coaches in a sport start criticizing a coach’s playbook or what defense he is running by saying “I know, I coached” or something along those lines, it’s pointless.
I love to vent. I just don’t do it here, because this is not the place to do so. There are other forums for that. Jeff and Grady created this site to avoid just that. How many times have we all read CougFan (or another fan site) and wanted to bash our heads into the wall because of all the unjust, unnecessary negativity? That’s what we’re so desperately trying to avoid.
If it seems we’re quick on the ban trigger, it’s because we can see where the conversation is headed, and want to bring it to a halt.
I really appreciate what you guys do.
And there are some stuff that is clearly crossing the line (Nazi comparison perhaps?). But being a giving a little more on game threads, I know I have yet to be banned, but I also know that any filter-like-thingy that I have goes out the window in extremely stressful situations…
And I have a feeling there are other people like that out there
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
For some reason I thought I’d read that game threads were a little more lenient on such regulations. They’re already cluttered anyways, and I always skip right over the comments I think are stupid.
"I mean I was like, okay, there you go, you wanna hit me? There you go, one pitch for you. You don't get it? You have no chance." ~ Felix Hernandez
by johnnycougar on Feb 11, 2011 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
I know its more lienient.
And I might be selfish for asking for a little more give…
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
Respectfully, I submit that last night's thread was not.
"I mean I was like, okay, there you go, you wanna hit me? There you go, one pitch for you. You don't get it? You have no chance." ~ Felix Hernandez
by johnnycougar on Feb 11, 2011 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
Agree
Although Bcougd did have it coming to him
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
I want to make clear that I'm not complaining
And think that each author on this site is great. First place I come for WSU news, period. Love the site and I love what you guys do. The ban thing is just an observation that I’ve made over the past year and a half as a reader. Ill stay a member of the site either way.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 1:42 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I think you guys cater to Husky fans a tad too much
For me personally, just because a Husky fan quantifies their post with “sarcasm” or “friendly rivalry” or some other similar PR spin non-sense, it merely makes it a back handed insult/flame rather than a to your face one. Not sure why you guys allow that but then are
quick on the warning/delete button when Cougs respond in kind, but we have talked about this in private also.
I understand taking the high road, but I also believe in stopping it where it starts.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 11, 2011 1:54 PM PST reply actions
I disagree
I like the way this site handles visitors. I appreciate going over the the UW site and engaging in their threads. By and large the guys that come over here (John, Gekko, tholt, B money) all show a similar courtesy over there. I think the mutual respect helps from threads reducing to a poo throwing contest.
by spencer peaty on Feb 11, 2011 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with this.
When I first joined and saw Huskies commenting (Gekko, Jeff) I would always make it a point to leave some snarky reply. Then I realized that they weren’t being stupid, I was. I thoroughly enjoy discussion with UW fans because the ones the do come here are (for the most part, anyway) pretty cool.
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 11, 2011 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
And Harry the Husky and Jeff in MD?
I don’t mind them being here. Sometimes it helps balance a discussion and can be funny.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
I visit here almost as much as I visit UWdawgpound and think things are just fine. I do get nervous posting sometimes, but that’s just because I know the bar is set a little higher around here. I really have to step my game up and make a reasonably insightful comment, especially as a husky. But that’s a good thing because it produces better quality content.
Bringing Purple to Pullman
by Harry the Husky on Feb 12, 2011 11:52 PM PST up reply actions
You guys bring up poo too often
Bringing Purple to Pullman
by Harry the Husky on Feb 12, 2011 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
You can never bring up poo too often.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 13, 2011 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Since the infamous Poo Thread
I feel like it’s always one comment away from reigniting itself.
Yes I capitalized poo.
Bringing Purple to Pullman
by Harry the Husky on Feb 13, 2011 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
Incase you are interested B-Lot tailgater...
District game at Jackson tonight 8:00 pm
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
Wish I would have known sooner
I would have gone, as it was I just hung out at home last night.
Is there one more district game prior to state?
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 12, 2011 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
Looks like next Friday against Monroe?
District title game?
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 12, 2011 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
Thats the next one yes.
But they already have clinched a state berth so don’t be surprised if Brett, Austin, Mason, Chima and Jason don’t play a whole lot during the first half
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 13, 2011 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
First off, thank you to the CougCenter writers for creating an excellent source of all that is Cougs.
I know I don’t have the time – though it seems like you guys don’t either, yet you make it work – to devote to breaking down each issue and providing useful insight. Not only is this a site I regularly check and respect, it blows most other Pac10 SB Nation blogs out of the water. So kudos for that. Keep it going.
Second, I think the rules you have in place for discussion/comments on the site are useful and necessary to create constructive dialogue without falling into what many of us refer to as “CougFan forum” behavior. The rules are designed with good intentions and they are quite effective. I think we all recognize you are in a tough position to police the comments without acting as a censor. I’ve never been warned or banned for a comment (I don’t contribute too many), but I have read and followed many of the comments I believe you’re alluding to.
Third, the thing I’d like to mention in reply to your call for grievances is this:
I don’t think a person should need to have an expert knowledge of any topic to voice their opinion on it, so long as they refrain from spouting generalized and undefended garbage. If a comment is clearly just a call to arms to create a flash mob of venting, it has no place here. But, if a comment is calmly expressing the perception, and reasoning behind that perception, of a common Average Joe Fan, it has a certain value.
The average donor, for example, is not a football or basketball expert. They just love WSU and what the average person “sees”, as misinformed as that may be, is likely what a large portion of the donor base sees. I am a big football guy and it’s what I feel most comfortable evaluating by Xs and Os. I played it and have watched it since I was a kid, so I see things on the field (like many of you) that RandomCoug74 in the stands may not. But, if RandomCoug74 makes a comment about what they see on the field, so long as it’s not “Bring in backup QB X!” trash, it’s hard to not dismiss what they see as outright wrong (even if I see things that they don’t), and instead approach it as a concerned fan pointing out something they don’t like. I know this happens with my friends all the time, and I can only begin to imagine the difficulty in monitoring this for an entire community of fans on a site like this.
Those with the “banhammer” need to be careful to ride the line between nipping flamewars at the bud and discouraging the average person from voicing their opinion. Replies like “You are wrong.” and “This is wrong.” don’t help the commenter understand why their post is misguided, they just make them feel stupid for speaking out at all. People should not fear speaking out if they disagree with the authors of the site. Dissent is crucial to any healthy discussion, so anything that discourages dissent is, in my mind, detrimental to CougCenter.
Again, kudos/thank you for a wonderful site. Cheers and Go Cougs.
by Coug11 on Feb 11, 2011 2:05 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
Don't know if you guys are big readers, but
“Why Societies Need Dissent” by Cass Sunstein is a great book on this idea.
On Amazon
From my perspective
It doesn’t seem that the mods are quashing differing opinions, they’re quashing opinions and thought that have been played out to the point of being annoying. Such topics: mental toughness, effort, Klay pouting, Coach Bone/Wulff needs to be fired, etc.
My perspective is different, I’m on here several times a day and read pretty much everything and there are others like me and we’re able to stay on top of the ‘ban-topics’. I can see how a person who comes on occasionally would be discouraged because they may not be aware of the stance on certain topics. So when a “You are wrong” pops up, it is generally because it was a response to something that has be addressed in depth and been refuted with statistical evidence.
I don’t have expert knowledge but I try to gauge the atmosphere before I post a comment and I don’t post anything if I feel I’m getting to emotional, so i guess I try to police myself.
The controversial Nusser Bubble post which led to this, I think there was a disconnect between what he was trying to say versus how some interpreted it. It was clarified by the post from today.
Thank you for the thoughtful remarks.
I may need to step back and do a little self-evaluation about why it is I’m not taking as much time to educate commenters as I used to. Thanks.
Thining patients perhaps?
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
If I was completely honest, I'd probably have to say there are a lot of factors beyond the site in play
I don’t want to make this group therapy, but I’ve talked about them before. I need to do a better job, I think.
Fair 'nough
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Agree in all respects (including the kudos). With respect to the "you are wrong, this is wrong" point ...
I find that dogma based purely on qualitative/sabermetric principles, such as “shooting rates will normalize,” while obviously valid in the general sense, sometimes serve as an excuse for lazy analysis and as improper means to shout down reasonable comments based on empirical observations. For example, an opponent hitting 60% from 3-point range in a game may seem unsustainable, and it very likely is. Is it not relevant, though, that in a particular game our players are not even going out to get a hand in the air to contest those shots? Perhaps someone commenting on the lack of defense of three-point shots doesn’t know why that’s happening, due to it being impossible to know why with certainty — e.g., it might because Joe Tallguy is dehydrated, injured, tired, out of position, playing in a defensive scheme that isn’t conducive to contesting those particular shots, doesn’t care, has insufficient foot speed or reaction time, or various other reasons — but for the vast majority of those reasons, the coach has either direct or indirect control of the situation (if, for no other reason, having the ability to get that player off the floor). The coach might have a valid reason to keep Joe Tallguy on the floor even if his man is getting open looks from three-point range (e.g., his own offensive efficiency on the other end of the floor makes up for it, there are no alternatives, the coach believes Joe Tallguy’s man will stop hitting those shots, or various other reasons), but I don’t see anything particularly wrong with simply saying “Joe Tallguy needs to get out there to defend those shots” in order to spur conversation that touches upon the foregoing factors, and he shouldn’t be shot down with some response like “that will normalize.” The element of speed is key in the game thread comments, in particular. It’s not an essay. I think saying “Joe Tallguy sucks,” or “Coach Bone sucks, he can’t even get Joe Tallguy to defend those shots,” would be out of line. Noticing and commenting on an obvious performance element in the game being lacking, though, really doesn’t seem out of line to me, even if that comment might be taken by some (depending on the context) to be a criticism of the player or the coach that isn’t based on any kind of absolute, verifiable fact.
I feel that the reliance on quantitative metrics is analogous to some of the old baseball sabermetric data by McCracken relating to batting average on balls in play — people used to quote as gospel that every player would normalize around .30, but it’s much more complicated than that (it depends on the ratios of fly balls, line drives, and ground balls, along with foot speed, how defenses are positioned, ballpark factors, and velocity of the ball off the bat). As a result, those who simply would say that BABIP rates would normalize would unjustifiably shout down anyone who dared to claim otherwise, even though it ultimately turned out that they were wrong. (BABIP rates do normalize over time for particular players, but there is no magic number that applies to all players.)
Anyway, just falling back on “shooting rates will normalize” and crucifying someone for saying that a player should get out there to contest shots, seems like it’s unjustified. Quantitative metrics are awesome, and I use them all the time (my primary game is baseball). Solely relying on them and shouting down anyone who dares to challenge them, though (especially in a game thread, and especially if the poster isn’t being a total moron or d-bag) runs the risk of curtailing useful discussion.
Just another data point.
I think the difference is
when I’ve seen this come up lately, the other team is shooing like 100% from 3. Then comments like, “We’re not hustling on defense” follow, and that’s where the problem lies.
1. You’re absolutely right about the “regression to the mean” argument. Sometimes it doesn’t stabilize. But most of these comments come very early in the game, and carry a very negative attitude with it.
2. When people question hustle or lack of energy, I get really upset. It’s one thing if it’s Hanley Ramirez walking to a ball. It’s another thing entirely if you’re (not you) making assumptions about someone’s perceived lack of motivation to play.
You bring some really good points to the table, and I think everyone could do a better job of understanding each other (us Mods understanding where you guys are coming from, and you guys understanding how difficult it is to keep this machine running).
Let’s all just go have a beer.
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 11, 2011 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, I'm thinking about this a little more
It’s a given that we place a higher premium on advanced basketball statistics. Shouldn’t the onus be on the person coming to us to understand that’s the lens through which we will view analysis?
When you’re a guest in someone’s house — I actually like that metaphor — do you just show up and do whatever you want, or do you exercise a little tact by observing before acting? Do you put your feet up on the furniture? In some houses I do. But not until I’m absolutely sure it’s OK.
See what I mean? This is where we authors are coming from. This is a house we’ve built from scratch. We’ve taken great care to keep it in the shape it’s in, and it’s actually a little offensive when someone storms into our house and acts like they own the place.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 9:49 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I definitely hear you.
I’ve given these topics a lot of thought, having been banned last weekend, having written you guys that explanatory email, and having seen the responses here (and tonight came across some really disturbing discussion of the issue somewhere else). Lots of thoughts out there on the issue. Seeing the responses of others, and knowing my own feelings on the matter, it seems to me like you might get much more bang for your buck in terms of effort and mental anguish — and maybe even better results in the absolute sense — if you let the community self-police a bit more, especially in game threads. There’s little reason (other than, perhaps, wanting the comment thread to be absolutely clean if someone pops into CC for the first time) to worry excessively about a few one-off, drive-by posts such as “Bone should have made these guys shoot free throws every night – these guys can’t hit a clutch free throw,” or whatever tired/ignorant meme it is. It becomes more of a problem if that poster continues to fill the whole comment thread with the same kind of thing, or if you’re getting a lot of people engaged in a lengthy/useless dialogue with the poster, of course — in which case you can step in — but it seems like a lot of the comments you dislike aren’t of that variety.
Generally, I think some of your most loyal contributors — the guys who now would step in with the plethora of “ban him” comments and attendant GIFs — could instead help you and the community more by just ignoring things that aren’t worthy of discussion. Shunning/ignoring works fairly well, and I’m not even talking about blatantly ignoring people … rather, I just mean that users may be able to figure out, over time, that they needn’t feel compelled to respond to every post that they aren’t fans of, rather than having four or five guys post the “ban him” image and then one of the authors having to ban the guy and deal with whatever results (explanatory emails, hatred of you guys expressed elsewhere on the Internet, you guys being called Nazis, and so on).
For example, the “did you see the Oregon/UW game today – Dana Altman has Oregon playing above its talent level, while we seem to be in the opposite situation” comment that led to my banning, wasn’t something that I planned to keep mentioning — it was a one-off semi-insightful piece of quasi-venting based on observations fresh in my mind. Oregon had really looked great that day, and we were looking bad against OSU after coming off a drubbing against Oregon. I wasn’t going to post that thought again at all, and certainly not frequently. Rather than it just being ignored, though, I had you and Floyd both attacking it as violating a tired meme, and then other comments were made later on that I perceived as referring indirectly to me. Then, when I responded to that, I was banned. Not that my own example is dispositive or even all that interesting, nor that I acted perfectly or deserved a better fate, but I do know that if my comment had been disregarded or responded to in some intelligent fashion (e.g., “Altman definitely has UO playing well, but we can’t tell from the first six minutes whether the Cougs will play well tonight”), I wouldn’t have raised the issue again. I had commented almost 700 times on the site previously, most of which were at least somewhat well-reasoned, I think, and was just making an observation. It wasn’t a novel piece of research regarding the effect on shot arc of differences in air pressure in Pac-10 home arenas, or a survey of all 12 guys on the team regarding their perceived level of preparedness, effort, or focustensity that night … it was a comment in a game thread with some interesting implications, I thought, based on empircal observations. Anyway, I’m not trying to revisit my own situation, but simply mentioning this to illustrate my point about it possibly being better to ignore posts you don’t like instead of hopping all over them and trying to carry out swift justice in a game thread.
Now, all of that said, substantive posts (e.g., the post tonight with objective data regarding teams making the NCAAs) are a different issue, I think — there, you probably have to keep it tighter in the threads accompanying those posts. In those threads, the discussion isn’t in near-real time, and emotions aren’t (or shouldn’t) be as high. The volume of comments is also lower, and it’s more typical to follow a lengthy, threaded discussion, each of which increases the significance of a few inane posts
Also, optics may matter — calling someone out on a game thread might in some cases make the situation worse, not better. It might be viewed as antagonistic by some. I don’t know if SB Nation lets you display a message to a user in real-time, or only when he/she logs in — but if you have the ability to do so, it might be better to send someone you might ban a quick PM/display message that contains some cut-and-paste statement about their behavior in the thread violating the community guidelines. If they continue to go down the road of foolishness, then they get banned.
Finally, one thing that may make it easier for you to ease off a bit on the moderation and to rely on the community, in addition to the benefits I made some attempt at explaining above, is that you always have the ban-hammer in your back pocket. If at any point you feel like the (slightly more) laid-back, community policing approach isn’t working, you you can instantly show up in a thread, ban the offenders, and announce that you want to tighten up moderation to protect the community that you built. That might create some short-lived problems, but I really don’t see it being any worse than what has happened here lately. You can’t, however, go the other way — by wielding the ban-hammer too ferociously, you might be stifling legitimate discussion and scaring some good contributors/users from posting. It also can lead to some resentment/hostility/complaining, all of which I saw tonight on that certain other place on the Interwebs.
Anyway, I just mean this in the spirit of trying to be constructive and to help. This isn’t the first online forum that has had to devote a lot of time/energy/blood/sweat/tears to striking the proper balance between moderation and freedom of expression, and these are just some thoughts and suggestions for you guys. You deserve credit from us and all of our thanks for making this place the way it is, no matter how the comment moderation issue shakes out.
by Fractal on Feb 12, 2011 2:12 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Great thoughts, Fractal
I agree with this. I will say, however, that I appreciate the mods policing because when I try to contribute to the self-policing effort it is usually met with argument (which can spawn good discussion) and you all see what happens when I get started. It takes up more of my time than I want and to spend explaining something. When the mods police, people usually don’t argue as much and we can move on.
I am a person who used to contiribute a lot this site, and I feel like I’ve got some knowledge so it pisses me off when I get the whole “who the hell are you, guy” kind of responses from people. But that is just a pride issue on my part and I need to get over it.
All that said, I like your suggestions and we have more than enough members around here to police this joint. We can help take some of the slack off the mods.
The new members to the community don'
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 12, 2011 8:26 AM PST up reply actions
*The new members to the community don't know what the tired memes are.
At that point a polite, “we already have disscussed this subject to death. The two sides are entrenched and aren’t moving” needs to be written.
And you know that the community members who have been on here before are going to joke about those tired memes..
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 12, 2011 8:27 AM PST up reply actions
Thanks
And to make sure I’m being clear, by “self-policing,” I’m referring to key contributors simply not engaging posters in discussing tired memes, and not referring to five or six guys posting “ban” images or otherwise castigating someone for simply not knowing what is or isn’t on-topic (again, especially in game threads). Admittedly, my idea goes completely out the window if three or four people who aren’t familiar with the rules here turn this into a Cougfan-esque argument consisting of twenty unsupported, empty posts regarding whether “Bone has the boys ready to play” or something of that nature. I can’t promise that wouldn’t happen, and what I’m proposing here is an incremental improvement, not a panacea.
Basically, whatever the mods decide here, I’m good with. I don’t have a compelling need to say that Dana Altman has Oregon playing above its talent level and that I don’t think Ken Bone has our team playing above its talent level, necessarily. I would really like to be able to go down that road once in a while, though. I feel as if there are frustrations (and, potentially, positive comments) that cannot be absolutely or authoritatively backed up by a quantifiable statistic, but that reflect what we see when we watch every single minute of basketball this team plays. At present, it seems like positive observations in that vein — e.g., “wow, the team really seems to have extra pep in their step” are accepted, whereas negative comments that are no more or less backed-up — e.g., “the team doesn’t look ready to play tonight” — are not. There always is Cougfan for negative comments of that nature, I suppose, but part of me would prefer to have an intelligent discussion about those kinds of observations here using what, to be frank, is a higher level of thought and discussion than at Cougfan. I understand that this presents a chicken-and-egg issue — if we permit Cougfan-esque discussion, albeit at an incrementally higher level, do we then eventually become Cougfan — and, while I can’t promise that wouldn’t happen, I don’t think it would.
I’m genuinely curious, for example, whether we can understand anything about the team coming out and getting destroyed by Oregon other than saying “oh, the shots weren’t dropping that night and we didn’t get any rebounds.” For anyone who watched the game, there was a definite difference in energy level between the teams, and many more of Oregon’s shots were high-percentage. Simply looking at whether a shot from the floor was in front of or behind a three-point line didn’t tell the story, yet that’s all we get when looking at the data here. It was a classic trap game for us, coming off the emotional high of the UW win, and it seemed fairly obvious that we fell in the trap to an alarming extent. Can Kenpom stats tell us why that happened, or quantify the likelihood of it happening? No. Does that mean there’s no way to discuss it intelligently, or to consider whether the coaches could have handled the situation differently? I don’t know, but I’d like to. Not trying to start trouble here, but just trying to illustrate what I’m referring to. I think there’s an area between the banality of Cougfan and the near-exclusive use of Kenpom stats here. Sure, I could say something on the Cougfan boards and get 8 or 9 guys agreeing that the team looks flat, but I don’t want that — I want to dig into whether, at any point, any of this is on Bone or the staff, even though KenPom doesn’t have a “prepared team to avoid letdown game” metric.
Part of this desire comes from my experiences in fantasy baseball. I played a high-stakes challenge game ($1000 entry fee, everyone has access to the same players with a salary cap) where, for the first year, I relied almost exclusively on advanced stats to make my decisions. I did okay, winning my league, but I didn’t place overall my first year. In my last three years, though, I started diversifying my input and including more empirical analyses/non-statistical decisionmaking in my analysis. That led to me winning $60,000 over a three-year period, and winning the overall championship one of those years and getting two teams in the top 10 another year. If I would have just made decisions like a robot, no way would I have done that well. I’ve confirmed with various other owners who have done well that they use the same principles. Robotic decisionmaking is usually good enough to get you to what I’ll call the 80th percentile. That’s pretty good, but it leaves the top quintile on the table.
All that said, though, being able to discuss these things intelligently is just something I want, and I’m not entitled to it. It’s not my site. It also presents a tough balance to strike. I wouldn’t want to trade the higher-level nature of this place overall, and all the value I get out of it, for what I feel like would be a really interesting, but incremental, improvement. If we risk losing the greatness of this place by putting our feet on the slope that leads toward becoming Cougfan, then no, that’s not worth it.
I guess I'd say there's a time and a place for everything.
Kenpom stats help paint a picture, but it’s by no means the end all, be all. I’ll re-watch games, especially during football season, to pick apart tendencies to see what’s going on. Because yes, statistics don’t paint a clear, complete picture.
However, there’s a time and place. In the middle of a game thread, when things are going wrong, isn’t that time and place to me. Because what value will you get during a game when everything is emotionally charged? It sets off a firestorm of emotional comments, which is why we try to head them off at the pass.
During a gamethread, however, it is possible to add something of value without sparking an emotional reaction. Though, admitted, those comments are usually something quantifiable. I’m not saying you can’t point out the team isn’t closing on shooters or isn’t running the offense — that’s fine — but sparking a debate with “this team isn’t prepared,” for instance, rarely ends well.
That’s where stats come in. “Team A is 7-8 from three. Either WSU isn’t closing out or Stanford is in NBA Jam mode.” People that are watching — and, admittedly, not everyone has the game on TV — can answer that and add to it.
But when we get into “team A isn’t ready to play,” well, how can you tell? As we’ve said, Tony Bennett’s teams were frequently caught with their pants down to start games, as well. Is it coaching? Is it the players? Is it the talent on the floor? It’s impossible to know for sure.
Because it’s impossible, it leads to circular arguments. Two sides, each entrenched in their own thinking, that rarely budge. So you have an argument that drags on and on without ever going anywhere. You see how this could be a problem when it’s discussed in the middle of a game where emotion comes into play?
And when these discussions, of a particular argument, spread into post after post, it gets draining for us. We spend hours working on a post, only to have the same argument about something carried over from another thread infiltrate the comments section, even if it’s not directly related to the post. It’s like taking a black marker to our work and drawing horns and a mustache on it. The posts are meant to spark conversation, but conversation that’s related to what we wrote.
Critique, add to it, further the conversation, but when it veers off in another direction, it’s disheartening. And when that conversation devolves into a circular argument that spans tens, if not hundreds, of comments it gets old fast. Because, believe it or not, we all read every comment and every fanpost on the site, responding to most of them.
CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug
Night Editor - SBNation.com
Thank you for this.
I struggle with the self-policing for this reason: It often comes across as even meaner and harsher than the ban. The examples provided earlier about Lookout Landing, which is an amazing site I read with great frequency, sort of make me wary of self policing.
I honestly don’t know which is worse — banning, or being publicly flamed and insulted by 12 people.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Banning, I think
If someone gets publicly flamed then at least they know multiple people don’t agree.
"I mean I was like, okay, there you go, you wanna hit me? There you go, one pitch for you. You don't get it? You have no chance." ~ Felix Hernandez
by johnnycougar on Feb 12, 2011 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
Can I make a comment that might help me (besides this banning topic)?
This is not meant to offend anyone at all. I know I am not original myself with the profile name SoCalCoug (because I didn’t know what I was getting into when I signed up for this CougCenter thing, like the rest of you). The profile names with Coug and a number assigned to it confuses the heck out of me (because I am not bright). I can’t get a read on personality or tone sometimes because there is Coug11, Coug999, Coug03 and plenty more of Coug####s that I can’t even remember. I can’t keep up. A good tag line below your name as well as some kind of distinct profile pick (not a Coug logo) on the right side of the screen will really help me. I am a visual learner, so the tagline and profile pick help. Again remember I am dumb. Also, the Coug#### that posts couple times a year throws me off. I have to think to myself, “was that Coug1212 that said that a month ago or was that Coug206?” This is a tip that I think will really help you and your online identity and will probably help the authors from banning you because they know exactly who you are and where you are coming from (because they can remember previous posts). Please, don’t get mad, just a suggestion.
P.S.—Coug999 posts a lot, so I got him down, especially his sarcasm. His tagline really helps me “Attractive, Intelligent Reader.”I like this, classic humor (or is it humor? haha), it reminds me of something Kyle would post.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
look at what the mods have above their names on the bottom of this page
And my tagline will seem less creepy
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 2:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Bam!!!
That makes your tagline even better. TOUCHE. How can you type the accent mark on the E of Touche? Otherwise it looks kind of like Douche.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
by SoCalCoug on Feb 11, 2011 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Touché
I have a Spanish keyboard downloaded that you can switch back and forth by pressing ALT + SHIFT. A simple tap of the ’ key before you type a vowel will give you the accent mark.
Although I have no idea if your question is in earnest or hyperbole.
When i first saw the title of this post
I thought someone had hijacked nusser’s account
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 2:47 PM PST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Obviously worked
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 2:58 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I was thinking...
“Uh oh, Mrs. Nusser wants her husband back.”
by TiltingRight on Feb 11, 2011 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
She's too busy watching Netflix on Nusser's account
“Say Yes to the Dress” is either her doing or Jeff is lying when he says he’s grading papers.
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 11, 2011 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe I just miss the worst comments, but I think banning in general is an overreaction
Outside of outright personal attacks on people or excessive language, I think the community moderates itself fairly well. If someone is being an ass, they will get scorned by some people and possibly congratulated by others. Just because they didn’t agree with Jeff’s giant post on the NCAA tournament doesn’t mean they should be banned for arguing something different – even if the argument is weak or poorly thought out. I’ve seen the CougCenter authors respond to comments many times with simple phrases like “Interesting, I disagree, but please elaborate or bring some evidence to back up your opinion.” Usually the original commenter doesn’t respond, but sometimes someone gets educated. Banning strikes me as something to be reserved for only those times when discussion is useless.
I think everyone here knows this is not a CougFan message board. We’re very far from it, in fact. While there have been several key topics of discussion lately it hardly seems like we’re voyaging into the 7th circle here. Even though I usually agree with the authors, I even felt a little like criticism of the team was being harshly monitored the last few days. During a game, sometimes I DO think “this isn’t a tournament team,” despite the rational part of my brain telling me that the bubble is soft this year and nothing happens in a vacuum. I don’t think everyone needs to jump all over someone for saying that. Ignoring the comment is sometimes an option too.
"I mean I was like, okay, there you go, you wanna hit me? There you go, one pitch for you. You don't get it? You have no chance." ~ Felix Hernandez
Well said.
If I come on here and post some ridiculous statement like “jeff tuel is the worst qb in america”, im probably going to have about 5 people jump on me to the point where id have to be an idiot to make he statement again, renderig a ban in a sitation like that almost unnecessary. Now if I keep coming back then ya thats probably why sbnnation made the button.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 3:15 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I don't understand any of this.
Those of you who work so hard to provide this community deserve thanks and nothing more. I have nothing negative to say about any of you. Nuss and I have battled over Coug topics for years, well before CougCenter. I aggressively attacked Grady with my first comments on this website, and quickly came to respect him. I can’t take Craig seriously, and love him for it. Brian is Miles Davis cool and an excellent addition. Kyle … I know nothing about you but you must be forizzle if these guys have taken you in.
I will direct my next set of thoughts to the readers. I’ve never been banned (that I can remember, maybe I have. Who cares.), but I have been warned several times. You know what I do when I get warned? I say “my bad” and I shut the hell up. I make it my business to know the regs around here, and if I break them I do so on purpose. Like a coach who get’s T’d up on purpose, if I am to get banned then so be it. I’ll come back in a few days and carry on. I have no fear of getting slapped around or banned because it really isn’t a big deal. Fear comes from within you. You can control it. Don’t let these guys and their banhammer intimidate you. Say what you need to say, and be ready to back it up. Be respectful of the rules, and if you get banned then you probably deserved it. Jeff and I have known each other for 15+ years and consider each other to be best friends. Despite the fact that we both know I could beat the piss out of him, he plays no favorites with me, and holds be accountable when I get out of line around here (which happens every so often). I don’t take it personally and I don’t let it foster a mentality of fear. So, say what you need to say.
With that being said I will also lend this wise statement that someone once told me; “You don’t have to play on this team, nobody is forcing you to be here. You are free to stay or free to go. But if you are going to stay, then you ARE going to follow the rules.” I’m not forcing that on any of you, but it is something that has helped me over the years. These rules are here for the better. They keep this place from getting stupid. And I’ll go ahead and say it; the more members this site gets, the dumber this place sounds in my opinion. I’m sure many of you don’t like hearing that, but I find myself constantly thinking “come on guys, we’re smarter than this.” Or are we? I don’t know anymore. I think many members around here would be doing themselves a favor to listen more than speak. I find that I rarely read the comments anymore because more often than not I find myself shaking my head. I don’t like feeling that way. I like this place when everyone is contributing well thought out ideas and discussion. But I feel like the community has grown weak in this area. And now people are complaining because the authors are trying to protect us from sinking. I don’t post or comment around here as much as I used to, for many reasons. But one reason is because I try to think before I speak around here, and because I feel like either A) someone else has/will say the same thing only better, or B) it’s a waste of time because so many people in this community don’t listen. If this community is starting to suck, it is because of us not the authors.
I will now board up my windows and await the angry mob.
PS ~ Abe is still playing the “4”, damnit!
by Jo-Jo on Feb 11, 2011 3:13 PM PST reply actions 7 recs
This seems fair
I usually try not to play the “if you don’t like it, then leave” card, in this case because CougCenter has become THE place for Cougar discussion (in my opinion). For many people it has completely replaced CF.c and message boards on ESPN or Fox Sports. I think people wish not to leave, they want to help make CougCenter their own. That said, there are regulations, and people should be ready to back up controversial opinions or STFU, as they say. Oh crap, don’t ban me for chat speak!
"I mean I was like, okay, there you go, you wanna hit me? There you go, one pitch for you. You don't get it? You have no chance." ~ Felix Hernandez
by johnnycougar on Feb 11, 2011 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't want that to be "if you don’t like it, then leave"
simply, if you are going to be here, then respect the rules. Samie-samie, diffy-diffy? I don’t know.
I guess there's a subtle difference that I missed initially, you are right
"I mean I was like, okay, there you go, you wanna hit me? There you go, one pitch for you. You don't get it? You have no chance." ~ Felix Hernandez
by johnnycougar on Feb 11, 2011 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
This. Rec'd.
I was wondering where you went. I haven’t seen you post in a while, especially since Abe became a “2.” Haha.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
Definitely Rec'd
The authors of this site put in a lot of time to make CougCenter what it is. I feel it’s the responsibility of the community to adhere to their standards, not the other way around. Even if I were to think that someone didn’t deserve a ban it’s not my place to make that judgement. When I’m at CougCenter, I’m visiting someone else’s house.
I’d rather CougCenter keep a heavy hand with site moderation to maintain the type of community that they desire than to see it turn into a clone of other internet sites where “discussion” is few and far between.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
by Matt Gardner on Feb 11, 2011 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
inded.
I would say 99% of this community came here because they were sick of the overreaction from Cougfan posters. If the banhammer is the only thing that keeps this place from becoming that place, then I’m all for it.
If the only two choices
are a banathon and Cougfan, then I agree.
I think the authors feel like that’s a false dichotomy. I know I do.
I still post at CF.C, and there are still some good comments over there. I’ve been on long enough to know which threads (and posters) bring good stuff, and which ones wail and squeal in top freakout form. Besides, it’s sometimes fun to reflect their sophomoric idiocy, or to put up facts to straight up mock them.
by TiltingRight on Feb 11, 2011 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
i still post on Cougfan, too
partly just to know how good it is over here. I love ruffling the feathers of the “mental toughness” and “lack of leadership” midgets…
If you thought Cougcenter had some doom and gloom stuff about our basketball team, holy crap you’d think we were in last place in the Big Sky over there. It’s absolutely sickening to read, and I think the negativity over there has kept people who actually like this basketball team from posting over there. I think the last thing in the world I want is for that kind of unfeterred negativity to infest this site, where anyone with a sense of rationality gets chased off.
If we reach a tipping point in a game thread or whatever, I see no problem with the banhammer showing up.
Agreed
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks, Jo.
I totally am forizzle. I had to have an interview with the other 4 guys and one of the final questions was:
How forizzle are you?
a) kind of forizzle
b) solidly forizzle
c) super forizzle
d) Snoop Dogg thinks I’m forizzle
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 11, 2011 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
ahhh that would be
the answer was ‘Dizzle’- obviously— aight. Aight?
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Feb 12, 2011 1:20 AM PST up reply actions
I think the bans have been coming along more swiftly this week than most
am i dreaming this?
If someone wants to play the lack of focustensity card , he/she generally will be mocked by the other users, which in my mind is a better format than an outright banning. the offender will learn from that mistake and we can all move on. Of course if this forum gets overrun by the lack of focustensity crowd, I’m assuming most of us will leave and then you have the new Cougfan forums. So I get what you’re doing, but I think the leash can be a little longer. Especially when people talk about our tournament chances. I think it’s a viable thing to discuss. That thread the other day kind of threw me the wrong way. I don’t happen to think it’s over, but I’m not going to lament someone who does.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is when people get Macro in game threads. I think this is where posters like hbelvoir catch some flak. It’s obvious members like him are putting some thought into their ideas, but I’m trying to watch a game here, not figure out who’s going to be the new coach when we fire Bone after next season.
so anyway, the amateur psychology and getting macro during a micro discussion: those are really the only two things that bother me about posters, and i’m not really sure either one is ban-worthy. but i have no problem with the rules, either.
Is there really any doubt
that we need a focustensity coach?
Wrong forum?
by TiltingRight on Feb 11, 2011 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
the only thing i think is ban-worthy at this point
is pining over Tony Bennett.
He left us. Move on with the rest of us or go root for Virginia.
With respect...
you may be a wee bit biased…?
by TiltingRight on Feb 11, 2011 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
ha! definitely
but i think that some people who have valid criticisms of Ken Bone get mixed up with people that are just mad because Tony would never let this happen. So anytime I read something criticizing CKB, the first thing I think is “are you really that upset with CKB, or are you still upset that Tony left you?”
Maybe that’s partly my fault for making the assumption. Ban me.
It was a joke. BigWood's last comment was
“Ban me.”
Lighten up, Francis.
by TiltingRight on Feb 13, 2011 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
Still the best rant-post ever.
CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug
Night Editor - SBNation.com
by Brian Floyd on Feb 11, 2011 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Indeed.
And the first time I read it, it was incredibly cathartic.
by TiltingRight on Feb 11, 2011 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
Also, in regards to game threads
I didn’t follow last night’s game thread closely but when Stanford was shooting lights out in the first half, I’m sure there were responses like ‘we need to play better defense’ followed by responses like ’Stanford’s shooting will normalize’. I’ve seen this in other GT’s before.
My point is, its hard for people only listening on the radio to fully comprehend what’s going on. Its easy to say ‘play better defense’ listening on the radio because you can’t see what’s going on versus actually seeing the game and knowing whether or not the shots are contested.
So perhaps more leniency during gamethreads for those kind of comments to allow for the radio deficiency.
My response would be
if you’re listening on radio, instead of saying, “play better defense” maybe ask, “Are we just failing to close out on the shooters? What’s happening? I’m not watching this, so it’s hard to tell” and hopefully someone with the stream will respond.
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 11, 2011 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
I really can't say with too much authority what happened last night
I joined the thread for about the last four minutes, as I was out of the house watching my high school team get thrashed.
99% of things are done magnificently here
The only thing is I think there should be a touch more understanding for those that don’t have the depth of knowledge that the writers and many commenters have. For example, I really don’t know the X’s and O’s of basketball, and because of night classes I don’t get to watch any of our Thursday games. I might throw something out there that seems logical to me, but perhaps is wrong because I missed Reggie Moore’s resurgence in a couple games. Just a softer re-direction would be nice.
But again, if this is the only criticism I have you guys are doing a hell of a job. I’m feeling a writers tree developing here
a la Bill Walsh.
Same here, though in my case it's because I'm an outside fan
This site is terrific and the level of knowledge, innovation and detail is matched by only a handful of blogs out there, so it’s very much worthy of a preset on the ol’ radio tuner.
But… I don’t want to be told that I can’t raise some vaiid point because someone else did a crap job of it. Odds are I didn’t even read that thread.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Feb 11, 2011 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Food for thought
Which of the topics we’ve said are “tired memes” and therefore off limits would you consider to be worthy of discussion on any given day?
Sure-- I'll divide them between legitimate issues and ones which can be easily dismissed
Preparation: Legitimate, especially in rematches if a team is getting burned by the same issue they were burned by in the previous game.
“Mental toughness”: Not really any basis to say anything about this. Easily Dismissed.
“Body language”: There’s actually some real science behind this now (think “Lie to Me” but less dramatic), but only about five people know anything about it, and it has nothing to do with the intuitive “body language” that most people are looking at, so I’ll say Easily Dismissed.
“Heart”: Easily Dismissed.
Effort: Seems Legitimate. Effort is somewhat visible from afar. Three or four low (or high) effort plays in a half can draw one’s attention.
Blaming the coach for players: If it’s reflexive, it’s easily dismissed. If someone’s unhappy about schemes and thinks they’re making a player play poorly, though, that’s real, so I’ll say Legitimate.
Halftime adjustments: Lots of correlation-causation pratfalls here, but again, if someone sees something specific, that’s Legitimate.
Questioning others’ fanhood: That’s a flat-out personal attack, which is not merely Easily Dismissed, but is an active moral justification for banning someone. I have zero patience for that “argument.”
Declaring that a win/loss is definitive: I’ve already talked about this elsewhere. I think there’s a line between excusable hyperbole and Chicken Little. Legitimate.
Repetition: Easily Dismissed. As I said, if you’ve been through it with someone already, there’s no reason to walk through the same mud puddle twice.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
By the way, there's a common theme here
I strongly agree with what one might call the “golden rule” of the CGs: specific, evidence-based arguments are good and generic rants are bad.
I feel like the “tired meme” section, specifically, steers away from that golden rule by closing off certain avenues of discussion completely.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
So, here's my counterpoint for consideration
Our stance is that if you come here, we expect you to be up to our level. And if you’re not, that you’ll have a desire to learn. How do we handle those who refuse to budge even an inch?
I am going back on what I originally said
I think you guys do a fine job of policing here. There really is no perfect way, and every circumstance is different. I liked the “our house” metaphor. I feel a little bad that you guys are catching a lot of flak over these issues. Right now, it is overshadowing all the good work that you guys put in.
by spencer peaty on Feb 12, 2011 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
It's really ok.
When you grow to the stature this site has, you’re going to become a target in some ways. It’s just not possible to please everyone. What this thread has accomplished is to provide tremendous insight from our most dedicated readers, and we’ve learned a ton about how to make this an even better community. It’s been a good community building exercise, and it’s because of the contributions of you guys.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
hmmm
about how to make this an even better community
make Yaaaardsma the head editor of gif’s.
In all seriousness I just looked over at the Stanford thread and I completely get why you would just want to ban the one poster on the spot. Emotional game, very unintelligent comment, bad timing.
by spencer peaty on Feb 12, 2011 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
This thread right here is what makes CougCenter so great.
The fact that the authors/editors are willing to have a thread to discuss what can make the site better for all involved is absolutely amazing.
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 4:52 PM PST reply actions
So now that I've had most of a day to think about this:
The time I got banned was the morning after the OK State football game for making some comment about Paul Wulff. Anyways, I was promptly banned about 2 minutes later. Here’s the thing: at least for me, getting banned didn’t make me think “Ya I probably shouldn’t have said that”. Instead, it just made me more mad and made me think “Wow really? You don’t even want to discuss it.” Now if someone had done something like BigWood said earlier like “Oh ya? Why do you say so?” I probably would have realized that I had no evidence to back up my assertion, and the problem would have fixed itself. So I guess my point is that (at least in my situation) the other method probably would have solved the problem a lot easier than being banned for however long it was.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
So after reading this I went over the Cougfan.com and signed up just to see what people were talking about.
Ok..I see what y’all are talking about…
Personally what gets me more is some other certain unnamed blog pulling out:
“NCAA Hopes Dashed”
“And that, my good followers, is a failure of heart, discipline, and coaching.”
…our heart wasn’t mentally tuff-e-nuff…
When he gets into analysis
Sutra’s pretty good. Even if I don’t see things exactly the same, he makes good points.
But, yeah. A bit dramatic there.
by TiltingRight on Feb 11, 2011 9:20 PM PST up reply actions
I can make that happen if you really want me to ...
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Can you keep ban stats?
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 10:05 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, one guy.
He was the worst of the “Fire Paul Wulff” crowd, and he created multiple accounts to keep saying the same junk.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
For every penny he said....
was a penny wasted.
by well you win some and lose others on Feb 11, 2011 10:56 PM PST up reply actions
Nah.
But I can see when someone creates an account from an IP address that another account has been created from. It’s pretty obvious.
I know
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
reply fail
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 11, 2011 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
All I can really do is look up whether someone has been banned in the past.
I can honestly tell you guys that I only need two hands to count the number of people we’ve banned in 2 1/2 years.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 11, 2011 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
Actually,
membership is simple. And the application is free and easy!
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 11, 2011 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
CougCenter sucks
Just kidding! After BTD, this is the second site I visit every day, mostly because of your great College Hoops coverage.
Keep up the good work guys.
Go Beavers!
Especially myself.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Feb 12, 2011 8:05 AM PST up reply actions
Kind of ironic
that a post title I Hate CougCenter is the most rec’d post on CougCenter.
As a side note, I just now realized that the center in CougCenter is capitalized.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
Just read this entire set of posts
I greatly appreciate this site, the commentators, and the fact that they try to steer the conversation in a constructive direction and keep somewhat of a lid on fan emotionalism. It is the this adult approach that keeps an old guy like me checking into CougCenter for Coug news and comments.
That said- I would like to express a bit of dismay at the apparent ‘glee’ of the bans on the Stanford thread the other night. There were fully prepared gifs and even a bit of pile on effect by moderators, that came off to me as a bit distasteful and somewhat out of character for the site. It seemed that humiliation was the desire. Rather than a mild chastisement for incorrect forum behavior. It felt calculated and a tad vindictive. As though each one of you really had your finger on the ban trigger as it were.
I had read the rules last year and re-read the ‘new Nuss version’ and felt that others clearly hadn’t. I want to be clear, I am not commenting on whether of not anyone deserved it- but rather the nature of the way it went down.
I would like to suggest that rather than just the BANNED gif- perhaps you devise a series of them that warn of the use of memes and discussion points which may be straying into a bad area. Gifs designed to educate more than humiliate (this word reads a lot harsher than I intend) while simultaneously informing and entertaining the ‘violating’ poster.
Also, in closing I want to say that the very idea that CougCenter has opened this discussion and invites these comments is testament to the class and style that you all say you hope to project with this site. A bravo to you all good sirs… Go Cougs
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
Upon reflection, I agree with you.
We allowed our frustration to get the best of us.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
Just a couple observations
I have been on CougCenter now for about a year. Like most of you I check it throughout the day because it’s so well done. Quite frankly I love it.
Like texting, commenting on here is not face to face and what one person is trying to say isn’t necessarily what the other person is hearing.
I have tried to sit back and learn the rules of this house, but what the hell is rec’d? For the life of me I cant figure it out.
Making comments that you can quantify and back up. First off let me say that I’m totally on board with Wulff. Why? Because his teams week in and week out go out on gameday and run through a wall for him. Sometimes do I shake my head over some of the plays or whatever? Occasionally. But his teams are out there punching people in the mouth and competing. Conversally(sp) look at Willingham’s teams. Did they play with fire and punch people in the mouth? Did you shake your head at some of the play calling? Not quatifiable but obvious to those who understand the game.
It would also be interesting to see the background of the posters on here. It’s got to be a diverse crowd and will shed light on perspective
My background of; 47 years old. Dad had season tickets to Sonics from late 60’s thru about 76. I saw Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Jabbar, Bob Mcadoo, Rick Barry, Kansas City Omaha Kings and so on. Football was similar in dad had season tickets since 76.
So my perspective would certainly be different than a 19 y/o student. The 19 y/o can certainly bring up some valid points though in some regards teaching us older dogs some new tricks.
Another interesting age perspective from our Coug angle would be the time frame you became a Coug. Being older I have seen far more down years than bowl/tourney years. So my patience for coaches is pretty long. But a 30 something y/o went thru the late 90’s and early 2000’s when it was bowl games almost every year and some Bennett tourneys mixed in. So maybe their patience for coaches is thinner do to what they have been accustomed to.
Anyway I enjoy you all.
by bv eburg on Feb 12, 2011 7:53 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
rec'd ;)
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 12, 2011 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
Teehee.
I believe rec is short for recommended
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 12, 2011 9:03 AM PST up reply actions
Indeed
And if you click on the “actions” button on any comment, you can the click “rec” to recommend it. If a comment receives enough recs, it will turn green to alert other readers to it.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
Always wondered how the heck you could make those turn green.
Learned a lot from I Hate CougCenter today.
Rec'd is short for "recommended"
which, along with flagging, is one of the sub-options in the “actions” menu.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Rec'd as a guy from the similar era
I too have far more patience with new coaches and find it unreal that Bone managed a .500 record with a brand new system, literally a 180 from the old, and real young players to boot. Lat in the PAC 10 to solidly in the middle this year and inching, albeit painfully toward a 20 win season, and folks are pissed. I remember Rav into Len Charles and that horrid period all too well. Graham as well was basketball ineptitude at it’s purest. This is a treat, to be in the hunt is fun. Perspective is important. It is year two for Bone. Anyway, nice post bv— Go Cougs
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Feb 12, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
Thought about mentioning Bone, big fan of his also.
But thought my post was getting a little long winded.
Been watching his teams for 15 years or so and they always played smart and were well prepared They were also very scrappy.
I have 2 concerns that are starting to creep up. First is with this years team. They just don’t play like a traditional Bone team. Way to many dumb turnovers and no passion(believe Grippi said that first and he is correct). But like you mentioned only year 2 and players he inherited were from a 180 style of coach.
The second concern is recruiting. His SPU teams seemed to always have a very good scoring post. And when teams collapsed on that they would kick it out to numerous good outside shooters. Can he get that dominant low post threat to WSU? He will probably get the shooters but I wonder about the bigs.
I have no problem with the regulations on this site
Clearly, this is not the site on which to vent. (Got knows there has been a lot to vent about.)
I’d learned my lesson in this regard early on during FB season.
If your going to vent, use Twitter, especially after a few tall cold ones.
You guys have a great blog ...
…sure, you might have a little itch on the trigger finger, but you never leave anyone banned for long which is way more than any other site can say. Keep it going.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
It does help to keep things in perspective
and by keep things in perspective, I mean spend five minutes reading (or worse, posting at— then again, you’ll probably be permanently banned by then anyway) the full-blown Stalinist Gulag that is Bruins Nation…
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Yet, they are one of the five most trafficked sites at SB Nation.
Something I find interesting, given their reputation.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
Bruins Nation - they are the worst in terms of tolerance for other views.
I was banned there after three posts for doing far less than what you guys tolerate from me.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Some thoughts for your consideration on banning
vI hear what a lot of you are saying. I just want to give you a little insight into how we’ve used the ban in the past.
As hollyweird pointed out earlier in the conversation, we weren’t very smart about how we did it on Thursday, but that night was an anomaly. We authors were a bit fried, and felt like some people were just trying to pick fights. We were in no mood for it, especially after my post from just a few hours prior. So, we were quick on the trigger, and the jpgs and gifs were probably a bit over the top. That’s not how we usually handle things.
Most of you know at this point that I’m a teacher. Two staples of management in the classroom are redirection and exclusion. When a student is doing something that’s counter to what we’re trying to accomplish, redirection is first (“Johnny, please stop touching Jenny,” “Jimmy, it’s not respectful when you talk when others are talking”). But if that doesn’t work, exclusion becomes the next step — having them head outside to wait for a few minutes.
Now, most people view the exclusion as punitive — especially the one who’s being excluded. It’s embarrassing to be asked to leave in front of all of your classmates. But teachers have a different view of exclusion: It’s simply a different way to educate.
Do we like to embarrass kids? Of course not. But exclusion provides the kid a few minutes to reflect before I come out to talk to them. When I talk to them, we discuss why the behavior was unacceptable, and what I expect if they’re going to continue to participate in class. I’ve done this dozens of times over the years, yet I only need on one hand to count the number of times it ended badly — with the kid totally blowing up and being sent to the office. In those instances, there’s usually some other reason why they’re so upset. (A pastor I had in the past used to frequently say, “The issue is rarely the issue.”) The rest of the kids head back into class and their behavior is improved.
This is the lens through which I view bannings. After redirection (“We’re just not going to go there with that topic”) didn’t work, the exclusion creates an opportunity to dialogue with the person off the site about what happened and what the expectations are for participation going forward. Truly, I view it as an opportunity to educate that simply isn’t there in the thread, where discussions can get heated quickly. This gives both sides an opportunity to cool down and reasonably discuss what happened.
I think there’s this perception that we ban lots and lots of people. That’s honestly not true, and since I can see under the hood of some other sites, so to speak, there are many other sites out there who use it FAR more liberally than we do. We’ve probably only banned about 15-20 people in the history of the site, and only one of those ever stayed permanent. Most are rescinded within a matter of days; many within mere hours after a particularly productive off-site discussion. Some have even been rescinded within 10 minutes. Virtually every time we’ve used it, it’s accomplished what I wanted.
Unfortunately, as with the students in my class, our bans are being viewed as purely punitive — an interpretation we didn’t do a very good job discouraging because of the very public manner with which we did it which, as hollyweird pointed out, is counterproductive. So, I’m throwing out a proposal for your consideration. What if we handled things like this:
1) Redirection, either by the authors or community members. “We’ve discussed this very topic a number of times, and there’s just no value in discussing it further.”
2) Formal warning through SB Nation’s warning tool. “No, really — I know you want to talk about this, but we have good reason for not wanting to. Please take a moment to read our commenting guidelines before you comment further on this topic.” Link provided.
3) Banning, accompanied by this text in the message the person receives on their screen from SB Nation (which, again, only the user can see): “Please e-mail us at cougcenter @ gmail.com so we can discuss this further, including terms of your reinstatement.” No gifs. No public humiliation. The person is quietly removed and nobody has to know except for the parties involved.
Thoughts?
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 11:58 AM PST reply actions 6 recs
I like it.
I agree with the sentiment that it’s probably worse to be held up to public ridicule by the “insider’s club” than getting it dealt with “off-air.” I know I would be less likely to comment at a site if I felt like I didn’t “get it” and was getting a .gif-beatdown from a dozen posters every time I posted.
by TiltingRight on Feb 12, 2011 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
And you are just now finishing your procert?
Someone procrastinated! :-)
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Feb 12, 2011 11:39 PM PST up reply actions
I can't believe you have only banned 15-20 people since you started in 2008.
And I can’t believe that it has created such in riff across the world wide web. I am surprised we even had a discussion over these 15-20 bans, especially since only 1 of them is banned for life. What you are suggesting above sounds good and I wouldn’t worry about this issue to much. I thought you were talking about a larger amount of people being banned and banned permanently. You guys don’t have to worry with that little amount, heck Angie Mentink pisses off over 75% of people who listen do her and that is a fact. Look it up. You guys are under 0.0001%, if you compare it to your daily traffic. Nothing to worry about.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
Perception is important, though.
And there was a perception that we just run around running people off. I want to change that perception.
True.
I guess you don’t want to become like Lookout Landing. After hearing people’s comment about that site, I really don’t have any reasons to go there. It sounds like a haughty site.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
It's a fantastic site.
With some incredible writing. It’s just that the commenters can be a little rough on the newbies if you don’t do your due diligence to make sure you’re fitting in.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
Lookout Landing is a fantastic site.
I just don’t post too much after I stepped in it big time on my first fanpost…
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 13, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
This is good
It addresses most of the concerns I expressed, since at least it will provide an opportunity for anyone who really wants to discuss some issue to demonstrate that they have a legitimate argument through email.
I’m hoping that most of the time, the fact that one is making a serious argument (even if it to some extent treads on previously beaten-down turf) will be obvious from the degree of care that hopefully goes into the original post, but this should soften the blow if there’s a borderline case.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I think that if people get banned...
they should be able to have it lifted sooner if…
1.) they post a video of themselves singing the fight song on youtube and make a fan post
or
2.)make a donation to let you guys have someone at every cougar event (this one is more of a joke the first thought I think is awesome)
by Dgood on Feb 12, 2011 12:04 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
I don't really understand the problem...
Why would you ban a fellow coug fan for trying to express there opinon/feeling about the cougs? That seems to me the whole reason for going to a blog like this. To either 1) express joy, or 2) vent about loosing with other fans who simpithyze with your feelings. I can see banning someone who is obviously being annoyning or a jerk or purposly causing conflict, but someone who is just trying to express themselves…I don’t know.
I guess what I am not understanding is this: If you are tired of seeing the same topics go nowhere, just don’t comment on them. Check them for rules violations and move on. I have never been a moderator before, so I admit there could be more to this than I realize and if there is I will happily correct my thinking. However, I AM NEW to this blog and after reading a little of this thread, I am a little worried about what I write now. Which kinda sucks becasue what I love about this place is it is all about being a Coug fan!!! I live in Oregon so I don’t get to just talk to my buddies about the Cougs, they don’t care, you all here do and I think that is great.
I'm really sorry about my spelling.
Dont ban me please I will work on it (Sorry bad joke)…but seriously…sorry about my spelling.
"That seems to me the whole reason for going to a blog like this."
That’s the thing, though: We’ve clearly stated that our purpose at CougCenter is a little higher than simply expressing joy or venting. And that’s all we really want you to keep in mind.
As for being worried about what you write, just observe how other people do things, and then try and fit in. It’s nothing to be scared of. If you put forth a good faith effort, we’ll coach you along.
Point taken
I will remember that on future posts. :)
Good post.
See what I did there. Helped the community out. I am almost like a post/comment coach.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
Nuss
Maybe you could do a Jing session and show people how to navigate CougCenter…anything from rec’d, to flag, to fanpost, to reply button, to the up button, why we use the subject line, etc. When people join they can watch to video and those who are on hear that don’t understand everything yet can watch it, so they feel comfortable in the community.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
Brian wrote a series of posts on this last summer.
I’m too lazy/drunk to look for the links.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Feb 12, 2011 11:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for doing this guys.
It’s cool that you are in complete power on this site and really can do whatever with it you want, and yet want to know what we think could be made better. And at least for me, now that I know you want to do this, it just makes me want to follow the rules even more. Kudos.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
Great Site
Just saw this thread so I wanted to comment since I have been banned twice lately.
I think this is an awesome site and I appreciate what you guys do.
Nobody is more of a die hard coug then I am and I think my banning has been very over officious, kind of like Pac 10 officials. I do apologize for calling you Nazi’s but your harsh tone and quick dismissal of reasonable discussion pissed me off. Of course It was just a phrase, like parking nazi’s or soup nazi. not actual nazi’s obviously. I should have said Pullman Police instead.
A few things-
1. We are all Cougs just wanting good discussion. The only thing I think deserves banning is personal insults.
2. When I comment in a basketball game thread I comment as a coach.. I had mentioned Klay and Reggie’s really bad habit of ball watching instead of moving while the shot is in the air to block out or get back on D in a previous thread. I was severely warned when i brought up that Klay didn’t block out during the game thread and it cost us a bucket and him a foul. There was nothing wrong with that comment. I watch the game and comment as I see it during the game. I had several positive comments in that game thread, like Nice pass Reggie, Good Passing, Nice Break, . Furthermore, pointed out that Klay didn’t block out brings validity to my point of view from the previous discussion. Evidence if you will. Nothing wrong with that. If I never said anything positive then I would understand. If I was coaching the game on the floor, i would have been pissed at Klay. I just express that to our fans on this board.
3. I use my real name not a nickname so I don’t hide behind anything. I worked in the Coug athletic department my last two years of school, always sat on the floor during my years 1990-94. I have Sat in practices with Bobby Knight, Rick Majerus, Norm Stewart, Richard Williams (Miss. St.), Jim Harrick, Seth Greenburg, and Dick Davey (Santa Clara) oh and Kelvin Sampson and Kevin Eastman. I’m a hoops junkie, I have officiated at a high level, coached and watch a ton of basketball. I do some scouting. Just wanted to give you my background so you could see why I was pissed and laughed at being dismissed like a naive fan that just throws out useless info.
4. Mental Toughness- You guys are definitely off with your stance on this subject. I think a lot of people are looking at it the wrong way. Here is the coaching definition of mental toughness.
“Mental toughness is the ability to control thoughts and actions and maintain a focus on what is truly important in a calm and poised way under competitive pressure.”
We have sessions on mental toughness at the coaching clinics I work. So mental toughness can be quantified and is not an attack on a individual players smarts just his ability to focus when the pressure is the most intense. The only thing that is up for debate is the reason for lack of mental toughness. It may be coaching, it may be the kids, it could be some other reason, but I think that is reasonable debate. I love to make players do mental drills while conditioning. Stuff like relatively simple math problems on flash cards while conditioning. Make them focus while tired. Also can do memory drills while running. A great team and player can focus when they are tired and that is mental toughness as defined above. When we settle for bad shots that is mental toughness. It’s a fact not an attack
Again, thanks for your hard work and great blog. I’m glad you opened up this debate because it was definitely souring me to your great site.
Go Cougs
I don't know if anyone has said mental toughness doesn't exist
but 1) since none of us are with these players day in and day out, I don’t think any of us are in a position to question their mental toughness and 2) it’s used by someone EVERY TIME something bad happens to the point where it’s become a tired cliche.
Your not getting IT
It’s not a question! Do we settle for bad shots in long stretches. Yes, Do we hedge properly every time. NO Do we screen properly every time. NO
If we are doing the above things then we are mentally weak. That’s not an insult. You don’t have to be in practice to see that.
What is up for question is the reason that we aren’t mentally tough. Some of that would require being in practice but I think it is fair to make educated guesses.
I agree that it is brought up too much sometimes but it really is the bane of this team. We could really use a strong power forward but our mental make-up is the main thing holding us back, so that is probably why it is brought up so much. It is making the difference between tourny or not.
I'm definitely getting IT
i just don’t agree with IT.
This is a thread about how we can improve the community. And here you are AGAIN hammering away at “mental toughness.”
Write a fanpost about it. I’m sure you’ll get a better reaction going that route
by BigWood! on Feb 12, 2011 10:20 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
And here you see the problem
It’s a circular argument with two sides entrenched in their thinking. Nobody will be changing anyone’s mind and we just go around and around. Which is why we try to stay away from it. Because at the end of the day, we’ll end up with 100 comments on “mental toughness” with nothing new added to the conversation while it swings around in a loop.
This would be the perfect example.
CougCenter, SBNation Seattle, @FloydCoug
Night Editor - SBNation.com
by Brian Floyd on Feb 12, 2011 10:50 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe we should have everyone add a tag to their signature that says "I do/don't believe in mental toughness" and then we'd all know where everyone stood!
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 13, 2011 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
To simplistic...
I believe in mental toughness…
I just think we would need FMRI on the players while they are playing to begin to really say anything about it.
By hbelvoir’s definition:
Mental toughness is the ability to control thoughts and actions and maintain a focus on what is truly important in a calm and poised way under competitive pressure
I can’t say anything about their ability to control thoughts or maintain focus by watching them through the TV. I understand some people think they can by what they see reflected in actions, but I think they are wrong.
I have no problem with there being an actual phenomenon of “Mental Toughness”, I just doubt people’s ability to gauge it in any meaningful way in the players and therefore becomes an easy canard to fall onto when you want to blame something for lack of performance.
i would put myself in the same category
although I’m not sure I had all those ten-dollar words in me to post it. well done, sir.
Cicular arguments on a thread
leads to way too many posts. In person I’m sure you would be able to reach an agreement of some sort. Or atleast a disagreement.
by newportcoug on Feb 13, 2011 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Couple of things
First off, thanks for telling us a little about yourself that’s helpful.
Regarding “mental toughness,” here’s the thing: If you want to point out they’re not hedging properly, great. If you want to point out a bad screen, great. Making the leap from poor technique to lack of mental toughness is something that only WSU’s coaches can really assess, and that’s why we don’t find it to be a great topic of conversation. We try to stay away from speculation as much as possible, and most of the time, that’s all any comment about “mental toughness” is.
I’ll remind you that I did write a post about sharing the basketball and implied in there that they weren’t very mentally tough at times on offense. I didn’t use that exact phrase, but I talked about how they often seemed to lack the resolve to make the proper cut or pass because it’s easier to settle for a jumper. There are ways to talk about the sorts of things you’ve labeled as indicative of “mental toughness” while bringing something to the table.
Lastly, I tried to e-mail you regarding your banning so we could talk about it — the main issue was the repetition of the rebounding thing — but the e-mail I sent you to the address you registered under got bounced back to me. Perhaps consider updating it to a more current address.
Thanks for the thoughts.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 12, 2011 10:29 PM PST up reply actions
When I worked in sales,
my boss was wont to say, “I hear you clucking, Big Chicken, but making eggs keeps you out of the soup.” His way of saying, “Quit bitching about the leads and customers and produce sales or be gone.”
Not a perfect analogy here, but I find the comments about boxing out, ball watching, hedging on screens, etc. to be far more helpful in focusing and illuminating what I’m seeing than any “mental toughness” comment. Even if repeated several times, and would fall under the rubric of “making eggs” rather than just “clucking.”
by TiltingRight on Feb 13, 2011 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
Mental toughness coach...
Military training can show what is really mental toughness training.
by well you win some and lose others on Feb 12, 2011 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
I realize the importance of wanting to keep this site at a higher intellectual level than cougfan.
You want to avoid ignorant/irrational posts by just banning that person, causing a ripple effect through the whole community, like you were saying Nuss, telling a kid in a classroom to stand outside. It causes the whole class to feel the emarrassment. And it’s effective in keeping order.
However, I believe in most cases, the self-policing is the better route. Simply because if someone has an opinion that is controversial, or appears to be, at least initially, ignorant or irrational, that person will be effectively cut down by other posters who feel they understand how to cut his/her argument down effectively in an intellectual fashion.
Except sometimes this poster who initially appears ignorant has actually put a lot of though behind it. He/she feels they can take on the luke-warm moral majority and has legitimate responses to all angles of the previously thought accepted bannable post.
In other words, even if the poster is 95% wrong, that 5% might add a whole ’nother way of thinking about the subject matter. And if you were to ban him/her right off the bat you are not just disallowing that person to speak his/her viewpoint, but you are denying the listeners from hearing it.
When is the Beer of the year thread coming up?
Or Drink of the year if you don’t like beer?
by well you win some and lose others on Feb 13, 2011 10:56 PM PST reply actions
Not like beer?
Unacceptable. Should be a bannable offense.
by displacedcoug on Feb 14, 2011 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Moving Forward With The CougCenter Community, Part 1
Nice bit of writing.
I always thought that instead of banning people, it would be cool (and cruel) to just banish the offenders to the ESPN boards. I feel like I need a shower (and a major I.Q. boost) every time that I’m stupid enough to actually visit them.
by Heavy_G on Feb 15, 2011 5:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Re: Moving Forward...
I have been periodically posting on the ESPN boards for a long time, and their horrific slide into mediocrity was what drove me over here to begin with. Sure, there have always been jerks over there, but lately the jerks have completely taken over the WSU threads, and the gamblers dominate the game threads. It’s a sad mess.
That being said, one of the reasons I enjoyed posting there for so long was the absence of exclusivity found on most blog sites. As someone who’s been online since 1995, I’ve spent way too much time dealing with small groups of people who settle in a chat room or message board, take over conversation, and make everyone who’s not in their little group of cool kids feel excluded. I hate that, even if I’m one of the cool kids.
I’ve never gotten that feeling at Coug Center, although I try not to post anything that’s going to upset any of the authors, and I read the standards carefully. Still, it’s something to keep in mind. This site has tremendous potential because it’s operated by knowledgable, intelligent fans who are NOT crude and vulgar (an old-fashioned word, but I’m 45, so cut me some slack). The only danger I see is getting too exclusive and driving away folks who might have something to bring to the table but feel too intimidated to say anything, lest they end up banned.
The good news is that the authors here are obviously doing everything humanly possible to avoid that kind of scenario. So listen to them.
good point
small groups of people who settle in a chat room or message board, take over conversation, and make everyone who’s not in their little group of cool kids feel excluded.
This has come up repeatedly here. And It is something this website and its authors have strove to avoid. They have done a great job.
currently a zag, always a coug
by spencer peaty on Feb 15, 2011 9:24 PM PST up reply actions
For words
vulgar (an old-fashioned word, but I’m 45, so cut me some slack)
Vulgar knows no time or place.
by well you win some and lose others on Feb 15, 2011 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
I Apologize
I really shouldn’t have cast such a broad net over the ESPN boards. I posted there years ago, then sadly watched the thing slowly devolve into a typical 1990’s era Jim Rome rant. When Rome was all smack with very little substance.
I’m one of those people who went to a high school where Coug v. Husky was half and half. I think that is why I try to treat my postings as if I were talking to my friends (and yes, I know , I hardly post). I wonder why someone would post something on this or any board things that they would never dare say in real life… that’s probably because I, too, am old (48).
Now stay off my lawn!!!
The next post is going to work hard to make it clear that bannings are a last resort
We want new people to join the conversation. Heck, it’s right in the middle of our community guidelines.
I also enjoyed this post, but one thing bothered me
Why would you invite a Husky to your house party?
Cougar Basketball 2010-2011: *But Wait... There's Moore!*
SBNation Seattle Contributer -- WSU Daily Evergreen Newspaper columnist -- Twitter: @JeffdCollier
by GoCougs on Feb 16, 2011 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Because he was living in a tent in the front yard,
and the Coug took pity on him.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
Question:
does this Husky also have a radio show in Seattle that is simulcast on Comcast Sportsnet?
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
No
mainly because Softy doesn’t live in a tent. Softy lives in a bakery.
by Kyle Rancourt on Feb 17, 2011 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
I think a more likely scenario
is that a bakery lives inside Softy.
Attractive, Intelligent Reader
by Coug999 on Feb 17, 2011 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Flagged.
For ledbetter.
Cougcenter OG
by J.J. FeKl on Feb 16, 2011 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, he is sporting a Detlef Schrempf mullet.
"Yaka Fest from outside for Klay Thompson" – Marques Johnson
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
