Boundaries - 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: Boundaries (/thread-23970.html)
+- 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: Boundaries (/thread-23970.html)
Boundaries - Cooter - 01-16-2023
Very important post - one that perhaps a couple of you need to read.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilder_treadway/status/1615084049500098560?s=42&t=7sTksF6ZcnzjBJDx1JHKvw[/tweet]
RE: Boundaries - Spiny_Norman - 01-16-2023
I wonder if this story about an LSU gymnast was a catalyst for that tweet.
Headline - LSU Gymnastics enhancing security after fans of TikTok star Olivia Dunne disrupt meet
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/us/louisiana-gymnastics-tiktok-olivia-dunne/index.html
RE: Boundaries - Leftcoast - 01-16-2023
Judge for yourselves at the link below but after looking at the SWBB twitter feed I was underwhelmed. The bulk of the "hate" seems to be coming from obvious rival fans and most of the obvious Stanford fans were very supportive.
I mean, one troll has the Duck mascot as HIS AVATAR and another posts mainly about UConn basketball. Another's previous post was "Fight On SC!!!".
No excuse as trolling is universally awful but still .... Are there other threads where Stanford fans are acting up?
https://twitter.com/StanfordWBB/status/1614773783147204609
RE: Boundaries - 81alum - 01-16-2023
(01-16-2023, 07:29 PM)Leftcoast Wrote: Judge for yourselves at the link below but after looking at the SWBB twitter feed I was underwhelmed. The bulk of the "hate" seems to be coming from obvious rival fans and most of the obvious Stanford fans were very supportive.I have never read Twitter but followed your link and saw that thread and was absolutely disgusted. I wish I had not read it.
I mean, one troll has the Duck mascot as HIS AVATAR and another posts mainly about UConn basketball. Another's previous post was "Fight On SC!!!".
No excuse as trolling is universally awful but still .... Are there other threads where Stanford fans are acting up?
https://twitter.com/StanfordWBB/status/1614773783147204609
My guess is that Twitter has become even more of a cesspool since virtually its entire staff monitoring the civility of that platform was fired.
RE: Boundaries - chimera - 01-16-2023
Those assh0le comments on Twitter were clearly not from Stanford fans. Twitter is a cesspool, that's for sure. Some people don't like Stanford and take the opportunity when a team loses to take that out on the players on that team. Too many people just enjoy being jerks online, unfortunately.
With rampant transferring and NIL money all over college sports, they feel more like pro sports these days. College sports feel more mercenary and more unstable. Rosters turn over so much. Who exactly are some fans rooting for, if their team has 7 or 8 transfer out and 7 or 8 in and some of the players they rooted hard for now play for their cross town rival, for instance? I don't think I would enjoy that feeling. You lose some of the relationship with players, not a personal relationship, but the feeling of following a career, the highs and lows, watching players develop, etc. I think some fans (general observation, not Stanford specific) treat players more like rich pros than like college kids. Nobody should be an ass online to pro athletes either, of course, but well, they often are.
As far as message board etiquette, to me seems fine to say so and so did not play well, so and so doesn't shoot threes well, coach made poor choices, etc. Criticism even of a team you love or players you admire is part of the deal. That's just what fans do on message boards. We are nothing on here, meek and mild, with very, very little that is truly objectionable. I mean look at the FB discussions everywhere, including Stanford boards. They do not hold back about who they think is a good player and who they think is...not.
If anyone from the program or a family member or friend reads this stuff, I would tell them just to laugh it off. We know nothing, have no control over anything, and the criticism is almost always from a place of wanting the team to do well and wanting individual players to do well. Sometimes fans let the emotion of the moment get to them when they are posting, let off worry steam. Being a really devoted fan can be tough. We have limited information and no control. We have no way to help when things go bad. All we can do is talk among ourselves.
RE: Boundaries - old spanish trail - 01-16-2023
Excellent last paragraph Chimera
RE: Boundaries - TonyLima - 01-16-2023
(01-16-2023, 08:59 PM)chimera Wrote: Those assh0le comments on Twitter were clearly not from Stanford fans. Twitter is a cesspool, that's for sure. Some people don't like Stanford and take the opportunity when a team loses to take that out on the players on that team. Too many people just enjoy being jerks online, unfortunately.
With rampant transferring and NIL money all over college sports, they feel more like pro sports these days. College sports feel more mercenary and more unstable. Rosters turn over so much. Who exactly are some fans rooting for, if their team has 7 or 8 transfer out and 7 or 8 in and some of the players they rooted hard for now play for their cross town rival, for instance? I don't think I would enjoy that feeling. You lose some of the relationship with players, not a personal relationship, but the feeling of following a career, the highs and lows, watching players develop, etc. I think some fans (general observation, not Stanford specific) treat players more like rich pros than like college kids. Nobody should be an ass online to pro athletes either, of course, but well, they often are.
As far as message board etiquette, to me seems fine to say so and so did not play well, so and so doesn't shoot threes well, coach made poor choices, etc. Criticism even of a team you love or players you admire is part of the deal. That's just what fans do on message boards. We are nothing on here, meek and mild, with very, very little that is truly objectionable. I mean look at the FB discussions everywhere, including Stanford boards. They do not hold back about who they think is a good player and who they think is...not.
If anyone from the program or a family member or friend reads this stuff, I would tell them just to laugh it off. We know nothing, have no control over anything, and the criticism is almost always from a place of wanting the team to do well and wanting individual players to do well. Sometimes fans let the emotion of the moment get to them when they are posting, let off worry steam. Being a really devoted fan can be tough. We have limited information and no control. We have no way to help when things go bad. All we can do is talk among ourselves.
Agree 100%. Any athlete who reads our stuff should … stop.
RE: Boundaries - Cooter - 01-16-2023
I think perhaps Wilder’s reference to “direct outreach” is being missed here. I’ve heard from good sources this is actually e-mail being sent directly to athlete university accounts. It’s hard to simply “stop” reading criticism when knuckleheads send it directly to you. I think a little empathy and some self-reflection would be appropriate for anyone who throws criticism around so freely at these kids.
RE: Boundaries - PVTree - 01-17-2023
Only interesting things on that Twitter thread were that Maya Moore officially retired, and Walker Little didn't allow Joey Bosa nor Khalil Mack to pressure his QB on 39 pass plays.
The rest, as Al Michaels would say, was internet compost.
RE: Boundaries - chimera - 01-17-2023
(01-16-2023, 11:40 PM)Cooter Wrote: I think perhaps Wilder’s reference to “direct outreach” is being missed here. I’ve heard from good sources this is actually e-mail being sent directly to athlete university accounts. It’s hard to simply “stop” reading criticism when knuckleheads send it directly to you. I think a little empathy and some self-reflection would be appropriate for anyone who throws criticism around so freely at these kids.
Someone is emailing players?!?!?! That's pretty insane and definitely not something your usual fan would do. I would think whoever is doing that is not a Stanford fan or is an extreme outlier as a fan if somehow they are a Stanford fan. I don't think admonishing the entire Stanford fan base for something that highly likely came from someone who is not a Stanford fan will solve anything. If the perpetrators are not Stanford fans all that will happen is they will feel good that their trolling upset people, as was probably intended.
RE: Boundaries - cardcrimson - 01-17-2023
Guess nobody here recalls the vitriol on this very site directed towards Stanford's Eileen Gu. . . .
Or the disparaging comments regarding Katie Meyer. . . .
RE: Boundaries - fullmetal - 01-17-2023
My guess would have been odious Instagram DMs sent to Stanford student-athletes (email addresses may be more difficult to obtain). IG seems to be the NIL platform of choice. Does Treadway (i.e. the athletic department) parse the inboxes of NIL student-athletes? Or has he been told by the student-athletes of disgusting/harassing messages?
RE: Boundaries - BobK - 01-17-2023
From a Stanford staffer today. An individual set up several false email accounts. These were not sent by Stanford fans. The players were notified
It’s the new world sadly
RE: Boundaries - lex24 - 01-17-2023
(01-17-2023, 10:09 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Guess nobody here recalls the vitriol on this very site directed towards Stanford's Eileen Gu. . . .
Or the disparaging comments regarding Katie Meyer. . . .
I think vitriol is a bit strong. Gu made her choice. People commented on it.
RE: Boundaries - cardcrimson - 01-17-2023
(01-17-2023, 07:03 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-17-2023, 10:09 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Guess nobody here recalls the vitriol on this very site directed towards Stanford's Eileen Gu. . . .
Or the disparaging comments regarding Katie Meyer. . . .
I think vitriol is a bit strong. Gu made her choice. People commented on it.
Lex, IIRC, you were fairly reserved in your comments. Other's not so much. Here are a few after looking at the first page or so of previous threads:
"If I say she's a hypocrite who places money above morals am I being intolerant?"
"I hope her future classmates draw her out more than the journalists can about how she is using her Chinese heritage for a very lucrative career choice to represent a country she wasn't born in, while that same country represses and imprisons their own citizens for having the wrong ethnicity. "Growing skiing in China" GTFO, she's bright enough to know what bullshit that is."
"The colossal harlots who suck up to the Communist Chinese today are just that: post-modern, high-tech escorts and their cohort in entertainment and media.”
"Eff-Gu!"
Lovely ad hominem attacks directed at a 19 year old headed to Stanford.
RE: Boundaries - BostonCard - 01-17-2023
Pet peeve, but an "ad hominem" attack does not mean a personal attack; it means an attack on an argument that relies on attacking the person making the argument. Since Gu did not make any sort of argument, an attack on her is just personal, not ad hominem.
An ad hominem attack would be to say that your arguments in support of Gu are garbage because you are a no-good Harvard alum (my recollection is that this is where the Crimson comes from in your username).
BC
RE: Boundaries - cardcrimson - 01-17-2023
(01-17-2023, 10:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Pet peeve, but an "ad hominem" attack does not mean a personal attack; it means an attack on an argument that relies on attacking the person making the argument. Since Gu did not make any sort of argument, an attack on her is just personal, not ad hominem.
An ad hominem attack would be to say that your arguments in support of Gu are garbage because you are a no-good Harvard alum (my recollection is that this is where the Crimson comes from in your username).
BC
Thanks for the reply and clarification; I'm just trying to understand. So calling an incoming freshman a whore is okay. Saying a post is callous and ignorant is okay. Accusing the poster of said post of being callous and ignorant is not okay. Tis a puzzlement for me.
To further my confusion, here's a definition from Dictionary.com: ad hominem
adjective
attacking an opponent's character or motives rather than answering the argument or claim.
Seems to me that there was a lot of attacking Ms. Gu's character and motives rather than answering her argument for competing for her mom's home country, China.
Sometimes, verbal comprehension is tough for me, I'm just an engineer from Stanford, with another degree from a small school on the Charles. I still can't grasp the distinctions. . . .
RE: Boundaries - BostonCard - 01-18-2023
(01-17-2023, 11:07 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Seems to me that there was a lot of attacking Ms. Gu's character and motives rather than answering her argument for competing for her mom's home country, China.
Fair enough.
FWIW, I wasn’t trying to comment on the propriety of attacking Gu (and I admit to being one of the people critical of her, though hopefully not in personally offensive terms); I was just noting that many people use”ad hominem” instead of “personal”, and that is a pet peeve. That being said, you make a good argument for why the attacks could be interpreted as ad hominem and in any case, the distinction is so often lost that I might as well get over myself and accept that in common usage, ad hominem is synonymous for a personal attack, regardless of whether or not it is part of a logical fallacy.
BC