The CardBoard
Admin's Poll - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Admin's Poll (/thread-12075.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Admin's Poll - BostonCard - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 08:02 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:For any fans of The Wire, imagine Hamsterdam in thread form  ;)

I just started watching The Wire (about 5 episodes into the first season).  No Hamsterdam yet, but with a wikipedia search, I now get the reference.

BC

Re: Admin's Poll - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 08:41 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15102.msg163633#msg163633 date=1464145329]

For any fans of The Wire, imagine Hamsterdam in thread form  ;)

I just started watching The Wire (about 5 episodes into the first season).  No Hamsterdam yet, but with a wikipedia search, I now get the reference.

BC
[/quote]

Perhaps I should have included a spoiler warning.

Re: Admin's Poll - BostonCard - 05-24-2016

Nah, it's ok; there was not much of a spoiler in your mesage.  Plus. I'm not one to care about spoilers.  I'm more interested in how the story gets to where it goes than the destination.

BC

P.S.  It is so weird seeing Idris Elba in a role other than Luther.

Re: Admin's Poll - TrumpCard - 05-24-2016

Full disclosure: I was against the OT threads in the beginning. The music and coffee house threads aren't exciting to me. But when the political threads popped up, I realized that they were pretty high quality and I came to enjoy them a lot. It increased the number of times that I wanted to pop onto the website.  I think Stanford is really good at teaching it's students to engage in thoughtful and respectful discourse and this board is a good reminder of that. I don't envy Admin's job of moderating, but if that job can be done by someone (or if that job can be left untended) I would appreciate it.

Re: Admin's Poll - Extra Point - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 06:01 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:Or anyone else for that matter. Do we really need to be protected from divergent, even obnoxious and distasteful, opinions. If you don't like what's being said, respond or move along. Doesn't seem that difficult to me...at least for grownups.

You are right. It isn't difficult. But, you are wrong in thinking that a community like this can stay together by simply dismissing deviant opinions. Without a set of rules and some sort of authority The Cardboard would suffer the same fate as most sports message boards. Did you not see what happened on the free forum of The Bootleg a few years ago?



Re: Admin's Poll - Treebound - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 09:31 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:  I think Stanford is really good at teaching it's students to engage in thoughtful and respectful discourse and this board is a good reminder of that.

This is why I have come to this board more than others over the years.  I enjoy the healthy, civil debate, on or off topic. The thread drift, humor, wit and wisdom are the gems.  I appreciate everyone's input although I may not agree with their views.   

I worked at Netscape long ago and one of the first rules of the internet was that you should only write what you are willing to say face to face to the person with whom you are corresponding.  It's easier said than done, but it's a great rule of thumb.    I think a few of us have tried to call people (including Ferrari) when they crossed the line and I think more of us need to invoke rule #2 so that it does not fall to Yvonne.    We all need to hold each other accountable for being civil if we want this to be Our CardBoard.

Re: Admin's Poll - Nan3cy - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 10:02 PM)Treebound link Wrote:[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=15102.msg163648#msg163648 date=1464150705]
  I think Stanford is really good at teaching it's students to engage in thoughtful and respectful discourse and this board is a good reminder of that.

This is why I have come to this board more than others over the years.  I enjoy the healthy, civil debate, on or off topic. The thread drift, humor, wit and wisdom are the gems.  I appreciate everyone's input although I may not agree with their views.   

I worked at Netscape long ago and one of the first rules of the internet was that you should only write what you are willing to say face to face to the person with whom you are corresponding.  It's easier said than done, but it's a great rule of thumb.    I think a few of us have tried to call people (including Ferrari) when they crossed the line and I think more of us need to invoke rule #2 so that it does not fall to Yvonne.    We all need to hold each other accountable for being civil if we want this to be Our CardBoard.
[/quote]

+1. Well said.


Re: Admin's Poll - Extra Point - 05-24-2016

I am in a state of shock about Garvin. In my opinion, he has done more to hold this community together than anyone else. There is a big hole where is wit and wisdom used to be. I fear for this board's survival.

Re: Admin's Poll - Griffins78 - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 10:03 PM)Nan3cy link Wrote:[quote author=Treebound link=topic=15102.msg163651#msg163651 date=1464152550]
[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=15102.msg163648#msg163648 date=1464150705]
  I think Stanford is really good at teaching it's students to engage in thoughtful and respectful discourse and this board is a good reminder of that.

This is why I have come to this board more than others over the years.  I enjoy the healthy, civil debate, on or off topic. The thread drift, humor, wit and wisdom are the gems.  I appreciate everyone's input although I may not agree with their views.   

I worked at Netscape long ago and one of the first rules of the internet was that you should only write what you are willing to say face to face to the person with whom you are corresponding.  It's easier said than done, but it's a great rule of thumb.    I think a few of us have tried to call people (including Ferrari) when they crossed the line and I think more of us need to invoke rule #2 so that it does not fall to Yvonne.    We all need to hold each other accountable for being civil if we want this to be Our CardBoard.
[/quote]

+1. Well said.
[/quote]I agree and have decided to weigh in.

I do not think this has to do with opinions at all - even though several are arguing as if that is what is at fault. From my perspective, it is about how people were treated in an uncivil way - repeatedly and despite feedback that it was unacceptable. Often hidden in the form of "just an opinion." What is the purpose of repeatedly "just giving an opinion" when you know it is highly offensive to many people in a room together? That is not a civil way to treat anyone. It is disrespectful.

I do think that as a community we've tried to give new members feedback on acceptable behavior. This has helped to develop an online culture that most find unique and has attracted many of us here. Often new members are given feedback and almost universally, they appreciate the feedback and adapt.

Some just don't care what others think or whether they say hurtful things. i personally felt Ferrari either purposely tried to bait and irritate people or just didn't care whether he upset people here. Many people gave him feedback that what he was saying was not appreciated and often highly offensive... often and for a long time. Yet he chose to continue and the discourse here degraded significantly and the efforts to get him to change grew.

I know and like garvin and I'm sorry to see him leave. I hope he decides to come back - think he will - but it is HIS decision and I'm OK with him leaving in protest because I think not banning Ferrari would cause others to leave instead.

I support and trust Yvonne's right and decision to ban anyone she sees necessary to maintain the great community that she helped create. It is her vision and effort that created the Cardboard and the rules that helped make it different and better.

Re: Admin's Poll - CornFed - 05-24-2016

I can't claim to know garvin.  Everything I know about him is derived from reading his posts here and a few of his columns.  I am impressed that he took such a forceful action to demonstrate his disgust.  I wish him well.  There was not another person on the Cardboard that expressed a deeper attachment to Cardinal and White.

I would hope that, once he's had time to reflect upon recent events, he will circle back here.  As one of the founders, he put his imprimatur on the Cardboard, and it would be a much different and much less entertaining place without him.  I suspect that we have a significant place in his heart as well.  After some period of time (maybe after winning the national championship in tennis and advancing to the final in the national championship of golf?) perhaps he will be unable to resist the fellowship that is here (well, most of the time).  In that case, I will breath a sigh of relief when he returns.

Re: Admin's Poll - 2006alum - 05-25-2016

(05-24-2016, 11:05 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I am impressed that he took such a forceful action to demonstrate his disgust. 

Respectfully, I can't disagree more. He went out in flaming blaze of hellfire, insulting other posters with pretty harsh language, as well as the admins:

Quote:Here's an explanation of what I'm thinking: that you're a stupid gutless little bitch to continue spewing your bilious idiocy against somebody that your friends among the board administrators have prevented from defending himself.

This was, in effect, the "I'm taking my toys and going home" move. Just me, but I don't find that impressive.

Re: Admin's Poll - JJJ - 05-25-2016

I recall a credit card company commercial where rival fans embraced to this song, but I can't locate it. Here, we're on the same side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMVTOxELjfU

Re: Admin's Poll - CornFed - 05-25-2016

(05-25-2016, 04:04 AM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15102.msg163658#msg163658 date=1464156358]
I am impressed that he took such a forceful action to demonstrate his disgust. 

Respectfully, I can't disagree more. He went out in flaming blaze of hellfire, insulting other posters with pretty harsh language, as well as the admins:

Quote:Here's an explanation of what I'm thinking: that you're a stupid gutless little bitch to continue spewing your bilious idiocy against somebody that your friends among the board administrators have prevented from defending himself.

This was, in effect, the "I'm taking my toys and going home" move. Just me, but I don't find that impressive.
[/quote]

So you are unsympathetic to his frustration, which is no great surprise.  It is also no surprise that the direction of community empathy is one directional.  Your comment, ".  .  .  . I've generally found that OT political threads that generally get posted here are by right-of-center folks" suggests to me that what you think is center really is not.

There is a large segment of this board that very much enjoyed Stupac2's insults to ferrari - and he remains here to snipe and dismiss posters with whom he disagrees.  Garvin's anger, I think, is simply an expression of pent up frustration with the unfairness of the outcome.

Re: Admin's Poll - OutsiderFan - 05-25-2016

As a non-Stanford alum outsider who also spends time on the Cal Rivals board, perhaps my perspective might be useful.

1. This is a privately owned enterprise and the owners have an absolute right to enforce whatever rules they want.  It is not the owner's place to accommodate posters.  It is the poster's place to accommodate the owner.  The administrator (who I assume is Yvonne) wrote a post saying this topic was causing her stress and physical discomfort, yet we still see all these posts on this topic?  Isn't that a cue to drop the damn subject?  If you don't like the rules, go start your own board or community. 

Message board fact:  Anyone who takes the time to write a "look at me post" announcing they are quitting a board, ALWAYS comes back.  Anyone who does such a thing can't stand people ignoring them or otherwise has a visceral need for attention.  Maybe Garvin will be different, but I somehow doubt it. He'll be back by football season.

2. Cal fans have more maturity and don't have this much hubris.  There was a very similar poster to ferrari on the Cal Rivals board who was banned, and another one who routinely injects political discussion into the board, who was basically called out by other board members for doing so.  Why?  Well, for one, the board admin put a marker down against political discussion, and two, Cal fans are smart enough to know or otherwise don't have the hubris to think political discussions can go on without damaging the board.

It is quite amusing to see Stanford people think they are somehow "above the fray" and can peacefully co-exist while having political discussions.  All you have to do is pay attention to the political discourse in society to see it ALWAYS escalates or devolves, because there are always going to be people like ferrari who don't have the discipline to avoid, or otherwise want to inflame, those with opposing views.

3. This 2016 Presidential election is going to tear this country apart.  These sports boards are going to be about the only place you can go to have discussions that provide an escape from all the ugliness that is going to ensue.  A zero tolerance policy is required to make sure these boards remain untarnished by political vitriol.

Re: Admin's Poll - 2006alum - 05-25-2016

(05-25-2016, 07:23 AM)CornFed link Wrote:Your comment, ".  .  .  . I've generally found that OT political threads that generally get posted here are by right-of-center folks" suggests to me that what you think is center really is not.

There is a large segment of this board that very much enjoyed Stupac2's insults to ferrari - and he remains here to snipe and dismiss posters with whom he disagrees.  Garvin's anger, I think, is simply an expression of pent up frustration with the unfairness of the outcome.

To be clear, I didn't enjoy either side of the stupac2/ferrari debate. I loathed it. I've advocated all along to remove the politics discussions because they often end up going to an ugly place. And as I already said, I'm much closer to the "crazy kids these days and their sensitivities" position than the "trigger warnings must be mandatory" position. But that's beside the point.

The point is: when was the last OT thread that was a link to an article talking about how Trump will ruin America, overpolicing in black communities is racist and unjust, or how criticisms of Hillary are just veiled misogyny? It just seems like almost every OT politics post is an article about a leftist cause, and the poster adds their two cents about how ridiculous that cause is. Then a number of other posters jump on and agree. Eventually someone like stupac2 challenges that quasi-consensus, and then it goes south.

In short, it doesn't feel like a thoughtful debate, it feels like a group of people agreeing with each other that they dislike a particular view expressed elsewhere, and once the match of someone who disagrees with them strikes, the whole thread blows.

(05-25-2016, 07:45 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:3. This 2016 Presidential election is going to tear this country apart.  These sports boards are going to be about the only place you can go to have discussions that provide an escape from all the ugliness that is going to ensue.  A zero tolerance policy is required to make sure these boards remain untarnished by political vitriol.

Could not agree more. I'm already sick of this election and it's barely begun, and focusing on the awesomeness of Stanford is a nice little haven from the madness of the world.

Re: Admin's Poll - SeattleTree - 05-25-2016

(05-25-2016, 07:23 AM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=2006alum link=topic=15102.msg163667#msg163667 date=1464174257]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15102.msg163658#msg163658 date=1464156358]
I am impressed that he took such a forceful action to demonstrate his disgust. 

Respectfully, I can't disagree more. He went out in flaming blaze of hellfire, insulting other posters with pretty harsh language, as well as the admins:

Quote:Here's an explanation of what I'm thinking: that you're a stupid gutless little bitch to continue spewing your bilious idiocy against somebody that your friends among the board administrators have prevented from defending himself.

This was, in effect, the "I'm taking my toys and going home" move. Just me, but I don't find that impressive.
[/quote]

So you are unsympathetic to his frustration, which is no great surprise.  It is also no surprise that the direction of community empathy is one directional.  Your comment, ".  .  .  . I've generally found that OT political threads that generally get posted here are by right-of-center folks" suggests to me that what you think is center really is not.

There is a large segment of this board that very much enjoyed Stupac2's insults to ferrari - and he remains here to snipe and dismiss posters with whom he disagrees.  Garvin's anger, I think, is simply an expression of pent up frustration with the unfairness of the outcome.
[/quote]

I, for one, am completely sympathetic with his frustration. I'm also in complete disagreement with how he expressed that frustration in his last post. Even with all of the above, I'll miss his posts and hope that he decides to return. 

As this all has unfolded I've gained respect for some and lost some respect for others. I've also realized how lucky we are to be able to participate in discussion with a diverse group of intelligent, thoughtful people who've bonded (at least electronically) over their love of Stanford sports. I echo the sentiments of those here who have called for more civilized discourse and self-policing, both in what we post and in how we react to others' posts. It seems as if we should all be more thoughtful in what we say, more tolerant in what others say and more thick-skinned in how we react to others' opinions.

Most of all I've realized what a brobdingnagian (my own favorite Cardboard autocorrection) debt of gratitude we all owe Yvonne. I answered the survey in the affirmative (to allow OT posts), but would totally understand and support Yvonne's decision if she decided to do away with them. If policing the OT threads is taking too much time, affecting her health, etc., then they are not worth it. As others have said, there are plenty of other places to engage in those discussions.

Finally, to BC, if you just started watching The Wire, you're in for a treat. I still think Season 4 is my favorite season of television ever. 

Re: Admin's Poll - jhftb - 05-25-2016

Great discussion.

When I got my first job after college I made the mistake of complaining about the copy machine. (This was in 1979 when copy machines were much mor controversial than the are now). Problem was that I made said complaint within earshot of the individual responsible for the corporate contract. A week later in my very first one on one with my new boss I was told that I was now in charge of the contract.

Since then I've avoided complaining (at least in public) about something that I was not willing to at least help to make better.

Yvonne doesnt seem to want to moderate a board with political content. She's doing ths for free. If you want political content feel free to step up and help moderate. Perhaps a separate top level board with a wider range of subject matter could be created and you could moderate that. Those of us who come here for Stanford sports could more easily ignore things that don't interest us.  I have a feeling that why The Bootleg has CEB and Thunderdome.

Re: Admin's Poll - PrinceLightfoot - 05-25-2016

(05-24-2016, 06:01 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=15102.msg163590#msg163590 date=1464134479]
But this shouldnt fall on Yvonne to police us.

Or anyone else for that matter. Do we really need to be protected from divergent, even obnoxious and distasteful, opinions. If you don't like what's being said, respond or move along. Doesn't seem that difficult to me...at least for grownups.
[/quote]

+10

I voted "No" on the poll because the inclusion of charged OT subjects can be destructive towards our common goal of supporting Stanford Athletics and by extension our camaraderie. Moderating political topics is nearly impossible to execute without bias because those with opposing views will eventually offend each other. Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly with CowboyIndian (and question my initial vote as a result); thought police should not be necessary in any discussion where deeper understanding can be gleaned whether or not we agree with that understanding.


(05-25-2016, 04:04 AM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15102.msg163658#msg163658 date=1464156358]
I am impressed that he took such a forceful action to demonstrate his disgust. 

Respectfully, I can't disagree more. He went out in flaming blaze of hellfire, insulting other posters with pretty harsh language, as well as the admins:

Quote:Here's an explanation of what I'm thinking: that you're a stupid gutless little bitch to continue spewing your bilious idiocy against somebody that your friends among the board administrators have prevented from defending himself.

This was, in effect, the "I'm taking my toys and going home" move. Just me, but I don't find that impressive.
[/quote]

Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.


Re: Admin's Poll - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 05-25-2016

(05-25-2016, 07:45 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:As a non-Stanford alum outsider who also spends time on the ןɐɔ Rivals board, perhaps my perspective might be useful.

1. This is a privately owned enterprise and the owners have an absolute right to enforce whatever rules they want.  It is not the owner's place to accommodate posters.  It is the poster's place to accommodate the owner.  The administrator (who I assume is Yvonne) wrote a post saying this topic was causing her stress and physical discomfort, yet we still see all these posts on this topic?  Isn't that a cue to drop the damn subject?  If you don't like the rules, go start your own board or community.

Respectfully, this point has been made at least a half dozen times over the past 48 hours and I believe that's half a dozen times too many.  I haven't seen a single person suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that Yvonne is not (or should not be) legally allowed to ban posters as she sees fit.  I believe we are all well aware that (moderator) of (private forum) can rule with impunity.  The issue, then, is that some posters believe her actions were simply inequitable.  Just as Yvonne is allowed to ban ferrari, others are allowed to think that action was unjust.  And then, of course, it's up to Yvonne whether to allow us to debate that or not.

I believe the freedom we've been given to wade through the wreckage has been great.  Some feel that this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion, and I can't say I entirely disagree.  However, I believe it's a positive thing for us to have this "state of the board" fireside chat.  This board is uniquely intimate, which is part of its charm.  However, the flip side of that is we must take extra care to nurture it.

Re: Admin's Poll - stupac2 - 05-25-2016

(05-25-2016, 08:15 AM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.

Look, if you're going to call me out at least have the courtesy to name me...

I don't think there's a lot to be gained by re-hashing this ad nauseam, but I want to point out that the Administrator post that explained ferrari's ban specifically stated that it wasn't just one action that did it, and that in previous private conversations between them he had admitted to "stirring the pot", ie trolling. Saying "oh well stupac started it" is missing the point, if you look at all the various threads that blew up there was a common denominator, and it wasn't me.

(That said if anyone really takes issue with the way that I post going forward, feel free to let me know. I know it might not seem like it sometimes but I am a quite reasonable person and willing to take feedback to heart.)