|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
I think this is a more appropriate place to continue the discussion taking place in pure football in the Wimbley thread concerning posters and their use of "I know someone" and their posting. I mentioned this issue sometime back and if I remember correctly that this is a situation by situaion concern, well something seems wrong, I as well as other are noticing that posters are using more of the insider information route when trying to get heir point across and it is getting old.
I would like to propose again that since we as potsers can't post rumors or any other articles related to rumors on this board, along with the rule that we cannot post information/articles without any source, that if a poster has "insider info" then they are required to post a source or not post it at all.
I haven't said anything but have been watching the situation and noticed that what I figured would happen is happening, the sooner this issue gets nipped in he bud the better off he board will be, and of course this is just my opinion, but it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,522 Likes: 22
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,522 Likes: 22 |
We began discussing this issue this past weekend due to the increase in use of this type of posting. It is being discussed and it is my opinion that the use of "insider" information will most likely not be allowed in the future as it is being misused.
We'll make a final determination and post it in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Thanks for your response.
I mainly posted this to stop the discussion in the Wimbley thread but I figured you and the other Admin have bee discussing this issue. Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,715 Likes: 294
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,715 Likes: 294 |
I tend to agree with you now. We all know that their are a couple of people on here that seem to know someone. They can discuss what they want via pm. I like to read some of this stuff but it is getting silly.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 Likes: 1
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 Likes: 1 |
I think that a decent solution to this problem would be to just allow rumor mill material---but make it so it has to be noted in the post. This could be done most effectively by using some type of different colored txt or boxing it like a quote.
That way we can all get our fill of "inside information" while also being notified that the source is somewhat questionable---i.e. kind of like a take it for what it's worth type notification.
I don't see a problem with it----but we should also be vigilant in deleting anything that is COMPLETELY unfounded/done for attention. i.e. The Browns are close to a one-year deal with Tim Couch, or Josh Cribbs is actually a lady--explaining his high-pitched voice.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
another way could be creating a separate forum for such material and not allowing it in the main areas.
that way people that want to write/read the day's current gossip can while not disturbing the main threads.
just an idea.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
along with the rule that we cannot post information/articles without any source, that if a poster has "insider info" then they are required to post a source or not post it at all.
Several problems.
First is that when there is legit insider info, by exposing the person who's the source, you lose the source and hence the insider info. Catch-22. I used to know people but now know only one who's still in the league but out in KC. I'm not about to post his name all over the forums just to validate the need for legitimacy. That could cost him his job. So, instead, I'll just sit on the info and say "I know something you don't know" and the war of words will escalate *L* 
My opinion, which isn't worth any more than anyone elses, is that it should be up to the individual readers to decide if they choose to accept any "insider info" or not. We don't have the government telling us what to believe when the media reports things, and I don't believe the board police needs to do that either. This would also cut off readers from a bevy of media outlets that have some very useful info, such as PFT. If you cut out a site based on "Rumor" then you can't simply pick and choose what info comes out of there on an item-per-item basis because even when sources are named, the information is often retracted. Hell, one of the newspapers that posted a "source" regarding the Stallworth incident retracted an eye-witness account later on in the day. It's all subjective no matter where the info is coming from, so I think it's a VERY bad idea to limit what I can read simply because the Ref's deem it to be unreliable. Let that be MY choice. If I still needed my parents to filter things for me, I'd move back in to their house  And don't give me any of that "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!" crapola 
Also, we'd have alot less to talk about
Listen, the board is suffering financially. That's obvious with the "donate" tab. Further locking down what's discussed, legitimate or otherwise, won't help matters.
I know there won't be a vote, as the Ref's will make the rules, but I say it's a mistake to go down this road. Hell, did we even really KNOW that Fraley's wife was on here posting? I wasn't given proof of that, so therefore she shouldn't be allowed to post, right? Make her give her name and address so I can authenticate her as a source. Just because one poster claims to have met her face-to-face isn't good enough. I'd demand PROOF.
Y'all get the point.
Frankly, to me, this seems to be much adieu about nothing that'll not really do anything more than get people bent out of shape. Let people talk as if they have insider info, then let the readers decide for themselves if it's legit or not. Locking the board down further isn't going to solve anything. I know why we're considering this, but there's enough censorship as it is. I know this isn't a democracy, but there comes a point where it's a little rediculous. IMHO, this discussion would take us about 2/3'rds the way across that bridge.
Is there a poll yet on this?
None of this was directed at you, Fletch.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,149 Likes: 833
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,149 Likes: 833 |
Quote:
Listen, the board is suffering financially. That's obvious with the "donate" tab.
While not entirely inaccurate, that is not totally accurate.
Quote:
Hell, did we even really KNOW that Fraley's wife was on here posting?
Being that more than a few of us had dinner at one of DTD's with her and her kids, yes, we do know that.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
But I didn't meet her. I don't know that she's legit. I have to take your word for it.  I have to decide that I believe you or not, so by proxy, I have to decide if I believe her or not. Even then, is she a legit source, or is she biased because of her relationship to the player and the team?
That's my point, Prp. Even IF a source is exposed for everyone to see, we're STILL going to have to make a choice to believe or not believe this person. Having a name won't do the trick. We'll want to know whether or not they'll have an angle on things. So we end up right back at square one with a choice to make. So if we still have to make a choice, let ME make the choice. Don't make it for me.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
I don't see a problem since this was how the rules were setup prior and was somewhat changed to allow certain things to be posted. The problem now everyone is starting to have a source, so since people can't handle the changed rule you revert back to the old and don't allow rumors from sources who are unreliable or "hide" and keep to the rules in place, this isn't a problem it's just going back to what was norm.
Some people can easily validate who they are, and some can hide behind a computer and make claims which has happened. Thisis an easy situation to solve since all you have to do is revert to the old way, and I have no problem with that, good disscusion can be had without the "this little bird told me" stuff. I think your making it more difficult, not really asking for change just asking to go back to what has worked in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
What do you have against birds?  
Since all of this pretty-much revolves around B, allow me to use him as the example.
He claims to be from Ohio. He's a small-college or high-school football coach. He's going to ultimately do himself some damage by posting his name all over the forums for people to look at, which could ultimately do harm to his reputation and ultimately his job. By validating who he is, he's opening himself up to all kinds of negative things, not to mention being cut-off from the very people he knows.
I'll use myself as an example. Over the years, I've parroted things I've been told. An example is when we signed Anderson. I'd forwarded the belief that Savage wanted Anderson to take Frye's job. That did NOT go over very well around here *L* Some people believed me due to things I've said in the past, while some did not. But what happens if you ask me to name the guy who gave me the info? I surely won't, so my post gets deleted, and we lose a ton of useful and fun discussion.
This entire place is just one big random discussion. Much of it is gossip regardless of the source, be it a newspaper or an individual poster. I simply don't see the harm in choosing to believe "Woody" or choosing not to believe "Loyaldawg." Let me make that choice. Don't make it for me.
Out of respect to the point of discussion, I'll leave it be right here. I've had my say. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
LOL I hate da Birds
I think the Ref's are gonna do what they feel is right for the board and either way it's their job to moderate it, so I am sure they will come up with a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961
Administrator
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961 |
Quote:
another way could be creating a separate forum for such material and not allowing it in the main areas.
that way people that want to write/read the day's current gossip can while not disturbing the main threads.
just an idea.
That is not an option because it is a proven fact that if someone reads something whether or not it is true it is at times passed on as if it is truth. The thing that has always made the football discussion on this board superior to other sites is the fact that there is no BS allowed, just real talk. We can debate and discuss opinions but rumors lend nothing to solid discussion.
If something is happening you know that ninety-nine times out of one hundred you can come on here and find the real deal. Allowing the gossip and rumors in one forum and trying to police it from the others would be impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961
Administrator
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961 |
Quote:
I don't see a problem with it----but we should also be vigilant in deleting anything that is COMPLETELY unfounded/done for attention. i.e. The Browns are close to a one-year deal with Tim Couch, or Josh Cribbs is actually a lady--explaining his high-pitched voice.
Yes we should be vigilant. And that is the decision we have come to, and we have come full circle in doing so. Anything that is unfounded, i.e. a rumor without a valid link will be disallowed. Modern technology allows for the rapid sharing of information and if there is truth to anything it can be verified. And if we are an hour or two late to getting the information, what's the big deal? The important thing is to get solid information.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
He claims to be from Ohio. He's a small-college or high-school football coach
Or not.......
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Quote:
He claims to be from Ohio. He's a small-college or high-school football coach
Or not.......
I vote for not, and I have plenty of facts to back that NOT vote up.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
Quote:
We began discussing this issue this past weekend due to the increase in use of this type of posting. It is being discussed and it is my opinion that the use of "insider" information will most likely not be allowed in the future as it is being misused.
We'll make a final determination and post it in this thread.
Wonder where that came from
![[Linked Image from pic18.picturetrail.com]](http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL905/3216203/6567769/349897772.jpg) "The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478 |
The new rule is fine, but you need to decide what you will and will not allow.
I noticed that you deleted my post about a three way trade involving the browns and jay Cutler and washington. However you have left up the aticle about Julius Peppers moving to the patriots.
Both articles are based upon info from a writer citing "league sources." What is the difference between them?
I am more than happy to follow the rules as long as they are clear and everyone knows them.
But if the rules are going to be enforced half hazardously , then it makes it very hard to know what you are and are not allowed to post.
I honestly don't care one way or another, but I am honestly confused on how the law is being enforced. I understand that you are volunteers doing this on your free time, and I try hard follow the rules, but I am a little confused about what I am and am not allowed to post.
Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,522 Likes: 22
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,522 Likes: 22 |
There is nothing haphazard about it. As another poster pointed out to you, your "article" was posted on a fan site where anyone can sign up and post anything they like. It's no more credible than message board fodder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478 |
Thanks for the quick response ref. I honestly missed that, and will make a more concerted effort to not repeat the offense.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,730 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,730 Likes: 156 |
Just clicking
The answer to this problem is simple. It won't make everyone happy, but the solution is already at hand.
If info comes from a rumor mill site, then it is what it is and shouldn't be allowed.
If it's insider info that can't be verified,, then it shouldn't be allowed.
I know that it will make some of you with true insider info go nuts, but the fact is, as we've recently learned, not everyone can be trusted.
Sadly, if I was in charge (and I'm not, nor do I want to be) I'd stick to the basic rule, if it can't be substantiated, then it doesn't get posted.
But that's JMO
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,224 |
Just a suggestion, how about renaming the Chat feature, "Rumour Mill" or something so if people want to discuss insider stuff or rumours around the NFL they can go there and do it....that way, nothing is set in stone and a feature of the site is used more than just 16 days a year!
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961
Administrator
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961 |
Quote:
how about renaming the Chat feature, "Rumour Mill" or something so if people want to discuss insider stuff or rumours
How about we go with what we used to go with and what we decided to go with once again; that being that rumors are now allowed?
If you don't have a link then don't post it. Saying you heard it on the radio or saw it on the TV doesn't fly; nor does saying your cousin's barber's neighbor works in Berea and he heard it in the cafeteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,730 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,730 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
that being that rumors are now allowed?
You meant NOT allowed, right?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
That had to have been THE biggest typo on this board EVER.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961
Administrator
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 961 |
Quote:
Quote:
that being that rumors are now allowed?
You meant NOT allowed, right?
Yeah, NOT allowed. 
Thanks D.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
No, No....my sources say he meant what he posted the first time........
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,730 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,730 Likes: 156 |
You are most welcome sir... glad to be of service to you.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,531 Likes: 61
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,531 Likes: 61 |
Oh great, i took it for what it said and got in trouble with ref 6 cause of it. 
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 316
Administrator
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 316 |
No trouble at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,228 Likes: 333
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,228 Likes: 333 |
This is a very good thread - unusual for this forum haha. While OT and others made some solid points, I'd have to agree with this line of thinking most of all: Quote:
Yes we should be vigilant. And that is the decision we have come to, and we have come full circle in doing so. Anything that is unfounded, i.e. a rumor without a valid link will be disallowed. Modern technology allows for the rapid sharing of information and if there is truth to anything it can be verified. And if we are an hour or two late to getting the information, what's the big deal? The important thing is to get solid information.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Fan Feedback Forum User posted rumors
|
|
