Apparently I have to say this: treat recruits with respect
Brandon posted an article about 2016 recruit Teryn Savage, and this is his takeaway from his experience at MGoBlog:
https://twitter.com/TerynSavage/status/382644691738451968
So congratulations, leftrare, MGoBrewMom, JuggernautRides, and chitownblue2, and the other people in that thread who insulted the kid for no reason. Guess what: people are interested to see what people say about them on the internet, and now a potential recruit doesn't want to talk to Brandon.
If you think that 2016 is a magic land from which news cannot come, don't read it. We're going to report on kids that are being recruited.
Going forward, anything that could be interpreted as an insult to a blameless high school kid will result in a no-warning ban. Even if that interpretation is crazy. Any "pedo" references will also result in a ban.
In conclusion, guh.
September 25th, 2013 at 6:35 AM ^
Don't disagree at all. I really think its a personal issue and not a larger ethical issue that many people seem to want to make it.
The two contracts/faculty handbooks I've had in my career have specified [insert school name]'s students should not be contacted on social media until they've graduated & turned 18. In other words, any other kids that don't go to the school you work at is - by the letter of the law - fine. For me, personally, its a gray area.
All that said, in my first post, I was careful to say I'm okay with a reporter emailing a student to ask for an interview. That email may even include a request to ask your mom/dad and "if you don't mind can I get their email so I can ask them myself."
Of course, as a teacher I email my students all the time. As a seasoned Interneter, I realize there's not much of a difference between sending an email and sending a direct message on Twitter to someone you do not follow. However, we have to take a step back and look at perception. Unfortunately, Twitter still has a perception of being a place where teenagers tell the world what flavor ice cream they bought (at best) and complete strangers can see it. So, when dealing with my livlihood, I have to take that perception, however false or misleading, into account.
September 25th, 2013 at 9:15 AM ^
Pretty much all of this. Which is why I am so confused that Brandon, a teacher, wouldn't be taking the time to do the extra steps necessary to clear contact with a parent. He should know that it is a grey area, and realize that while he is contacting the kid not as a teacher, but as a reporter, it still can come back on him as a teacher.
Schools freak out about stuff on the internet. I'm sure a lot of younger teachers know about the woman in Georgia that lost her job for having a picture on facebook of her having an alcoholic beverage while on vacation in Europe. She wasn't friends with any students or parents, but through common friends a parent saw it and complained. It just doesn't seem worth it to not do whatever you can to cover your own ass.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:12 AM ^
One area that the board is clearly going to be divided on are the ethics of not talking to the parents in all this. I've made my view clear upthread, so clearly have a bias in favor of contacting the parents. That said, from a pragmatic viewpoint:
Let's say I'm a high schooler and I'm interview. Now I live with my mother in Michigan and my father lives in Hawaii since they divorced. I do an interview, my mother doesn't really mind, but my dad finds out and absolutely flips his lid. Maybe he does it purely out of a cynical ploy for usage in a custody battle or some other reason, at the end of the day it will still be MGoBlog didn't ask and at least one parent is pissed off and no parent approved since no one was asked. Ethics of interviewing minors aside, there is a certain cover your ass aspect of at least attempting to get approval from one parent. Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission is not always true.
September 25th, 2013 at 6:40 AM ^
As a teacher, I 100% agree that I would get my ass covered.
But, that's because I'm a teacher and we have pretty strict rules about certain things.
I think we can all agree that it wouldn't hurt to get permission first, even if you have to go through the kid to get to the parent (which I'm assuming would normally be the case, what with the Twitterz being easy to find people with).
Also, as I tell my own students and to any other students out there: Your Twitter really should be private. Especially if you hope to play collegiate sports.
September 25th, 2013 at 3:27 AM ^
"And lest we forget, this is a high school sophomore, not a little kid."
I don't know how to block quote, so this will have to do...but, THIS. If the kid is old enough to drive a motor vehicle, he is old enough to decide whether or not he wants to do a 5 minute interview with a sports blog.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:09 AM ^
September 25th, 2013 at 12:22 AM ^
Wow, so that big chunk of Brian and ChiTown going back and forth just got excised. Interesting.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:26 AM ^
And Chitown was banned.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:32 AM ^
Yet things like TheGhostofChappuis are still here. UnFuckingBelievable.
I get that ChiTown probably goes out of his way to rile up Brian, but that just seems a bit much. And I don't even really like the guy, but a banning seems to be too far.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:35 AM ^
I anxiously await Chitownblue3
September 25th, 2013 at 12:41 AM ^
Just like bujee13? 14? 15...??
September 25th, 2013 at 12:46 AM ^
I think he should mix it up.
Perhaps, TheBenightedKnight?
September 25th, 2013 at 12:57 AM ^
I'm gonna go register ChiTownMaize just to thwart him.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:59 AM ^
Snag ChiTownChrome and ChiTownWOW while you're at it. Because, you know, Dave Brandon.
September 25th, 2013 at 3:32 AM ^
You may want to register under GhostofChiTown too
September 25th, 2013 at 1:54 AM ^
Now the exchange is back. I wonder if he was unbanned because it was pointed out that he didn't actually reveal any information that the paid staff of this site hadn't revealed in the past.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:36 AM ^
The best part is the hypocrisy. This is Brian's post back in 2009 that ShockFX referenced.
http://mgoblog.com/content/long-mcfarlin-thread
He does worse than chitown ever did by posting a 16 year old kid's email and phone number. But of course, it's his site and he'll do what he wants right? Yes, I realize that he realized his mistake and all, and can't do anything to correct his wrong, but the banning seems a tad harsh when he's done worse.
September 25th, 2013 at 2:27 AM ^
I care about BISB. I don't care about someone trolling the message board incessantly. It's not an ethical stance. Chitown has been an asshat for years, has been treading on thin ice, and is causing issues for me. Every contributor has complained to me about him, but I've tried to explain to them that blah blah blah about longtime contributors.
No more. I'm done with him, and any remnant WLA uniscorn guys can bitch about it on their own board. I'm done with all of them. Go away. All you do is shit on this, and I'm done hosting that.
Don't forget to continue talking shit about my wife, guys!
September 25th, 2013 at 2:33 AM ^
So then MGoBlog has officially become a platform for you to launch your own, personal vendettas?
September 25th, 2013 at 2:47 AM ^
Screenshotted for the archives.
September 25th, 2013 at 2:52 AM ^
All of you, if you threaten privacy prepare to be banned and more. Consider this a promise.
September 25th, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
"Anyone who posts personal information about another without their consent should be instantly banned."
So does that mean that the staff members who actually posted the information in the first place should be banned?
September 25th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
Please read my previous comment closely: CONSENT, man, consent. That is the critical modifier. But I think you understand what I'm saying.
Anonymity in the internets is an "interesting" thing. On one hand, its important to protect privacy on places like message boards in case lunatics don't like what you post and put you on their "people to kill" list. On the other hand, it allows people to post ridiculous/hurtful things without any real reprecussions. If we lose containment on privacy issues then this Board is lost. I think it is now clear that BiSB made a mistake earlier - people make mistakes - but that does not void his ability to protect himself later on down the line. But I think everyone would agree with that, or at least I hope so for fear that they make a mistake themselves one day!
September 25th, 2013 at 10:47 AM ^
He gave consent to have his identity public when he let a staff member front page it. He can't really "revoke" consent of public info, but we can certainly respect his wishes if someone lets us know. Should I only say "Brian C." because man, I don't know, maybe he changed his mind about it being public?? You can't not do something you haven't been told was wrong, and in fact have been shown by the powers that be is ok.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^
Exactly.
I understand where BiSB is coming from, but when you've had your name plastered on the front page on the blog, as well as your highly visible Twitter account that is linked on the side bar, which often gets re-tweeted by Brian, you have to understand that you're sending mixed messages when you ban someone who uses your name on the blog.
It didn't seem to me like there was any sort of "doxing" going on, in the sense that doxing in this context typically implies some sort of malicious intent to "out" someone's personal identity.
When you've voluntarily given your identity several times and are a major contributor to the blog it's completely ridiculous claim someone's intent was malicious for merely addressing you by you name (which you've freely given up).
September 25th, 2013 at 8:53 AM ^
You are free to ban whoever you want -- this is your blog. Hosting a blog has to come with tons of stress -- what a lot of posters on here forget is that this is the source of income for (at least) 3 full-time guys. I'm as guilty as riling up trouble on the board as most others, but then I can just get my giggles and then click the X on my browser. These guys can't. If they make a decision, respect it.
My only qualm with your wife is that she doesn't update her blog :(
September 25th, 2013 at 12:40 AM ^
Chitown got banned for revealing the name of Bryan Mac, which everyone knows is a big no-no. I haven't done that, thus I'm not banned.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:42 AM ^
Lol, okay ghost of yost. You keep telling yourself that you've never been banned.
September 25th, 2013 at 1:00 AM ^
I haven't. Now, GhostofYost was banned, but I take no responsibility for that. That guy was a douche.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:42 AM ^
Let's be real. You've been banned like 5 or 6 times.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:49 AM ^
Chitown didn't reveal the name of Bryan Mac. The full name of Bryan Mac was already on a front page post of this blog this year.
September 25th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
BISB changed his screen name to Bryan Mac months ago. Today is the first time I noticed it changed back. What is going on here?
September 25th, 2013 at 5:50 AM ^
September 25th, 2013 at 12:37 AM ^
Can I post the popcorn gif? Or is that bad form?
We are a community. Sometimes, people in communities fight amongst each other whether over money or pride or another point entirely. This community has had a rough couple of weeks and tensions are high.
Brian, like it or not, runs this site. It is how he pays his bills (I'm assuming), unless you know he's got a side job like Walter White. For those of us with regular jobs, guess what happens if the man in charge doesn't like a comment you make during a meeting. You get your ass chewed out. Potentially fired. Opinions, contrarian opinions, have been voiced in this thread. They haven't been deleted or removed. I don't agree with everything this site posts or says or does. I've voiced that stance before. I haven't been banned.
Let's all relax, take a deep breath. Grab a smoke. Grab a bottle of whiskey. Tomorrow will be better.
September 25th, 2013 at 1:57 AM ^
"They haven't been deleted or removed."
They most certainly were. The ChiTown vs Brian stuff is back, but it was definitely gone. And the screenshot that was used to defend what ChiTown did was also removed. That Mod edit is still in the post. Although I completely get why the edit was done, because after it served it's purpose it was no longer necessary.
September 25th, 2013 at 1:11 AM ^
From the OP:
"Going forward, anything that could be interpreted as an insult to a blameless high school kid will result in a no-warning ban. Even if that interpretation is crazy. Any "pedo" references will also result in a ban."
Uh, are you sure you want to go with that? What if someone sees a recruit play and writes "I think player X is overrated." Or "I saw player X at a high school game and he blew a couple of assignments" or "There's this newspaper report that indicates player x may have some academic or character issues." Will the banhammer fall if Ace gives a reported 40-yard time more than one "fake" out of five?
I understand and sympathize with what you're doing here. I won't argue about pedo references -- those are just wierd and disturbing and we're better off without them. But to say "anything that might be interpreted as an insult will result in a ban" is crazy in itself. Because anything short of "If Jesus played football he'd be just like player X" could be taken as an insult. Heck, even "football Jesus" could be taken as sarcasm.
I might ban people who post clear gratuitous insults, and give stiff warnings to guys whose posts are close to the line, but I just don't think you can go around banning people for honest, intelligent criticism.
September 25th, 2013 at 1:15 AM ^
Dang missed this meltdown! At least I was listening Jalen Rose speak to my class at CMU tonight. I guess I caught the better show.
September 25th, 2013 at 1:18 AM ^
I am just glad that I do not have a twitter account to follow high school kids.
September 25th, 2013 at 2:27 AM ^
a million times
September 25th, 2013 at 2:03 AM ^
This is ridiculous. Brian, if you or Bryan had a problem with chitown re(!) posting Bryan's name you could have just deleted it. You're lucky your content is Greg Mattison because the message board is becoming Darrell Funk.
September 25th, 2013 at 2:31 AM ^
This is the bullshittiest of bullshit. First of all, Teryn needs to man up a little bit. Someone says the vaguest of insults saying he looks like he's 12 (which....he does) and his response is to run away and not talk to them anymore. Definitely his choice, but you really think that's on an mgoblog commenter?
So....the time to insult people comes once they're on campus? Like I easily could have shared with Obi Ezeh how horrible of a football player everyone on here thought he was. My girlfriend (who I would tell the things that were said about Ezeh on here) regularly talked to his mom about him.
As many many have mentioned, but cannot hurt mentioning once again, what about negative comments towards a potential recruit's ability?
What if I run into Al Borges (would not be the first time) and tell him how awful some of the things that are said about him on mgoblog are? Then he decides to never talk to Heiko again. "Guys, let's not ever criticize a coach again because they might not talk to us anymore. Okay guys?"
Let's just not critique, criticize, or comment on anything anymore. Completely ridiculous.
September 25th, 2013 at 2:45 AM ^
Get off your high horse or I better not see you ever bad mouthing anyone.
September 25th, 2013 at 3:38 AM ^
You misunderstood my post.
I am saying that it is wrong (yes I know he can do whatever he wants as it's his blog) to censor comments just because they might offend someone. "Borges can't coach!" "Devin Gardner needs to be benched!" "Jack Miller needs to be replaced"
Deleting comments for flat out INSULTING someone's physical appearance or personal life is correct. "Coach X is fat" "Player Y looks so tiny he couldn't block a child" "Maybe if Player Z stopped partying all the time he could get a pass rush."
That's far different than saying "Player Y looks like he would be too short to play tackle" "Player X shouldn't have been talking trash during the game" "Player Z seems like an okay recruit but I hope we get Player W instead." Reasonable to assume that any of those could conceivably insult a recruit, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. I don't think I would be interested in this site anymore if that became the policy.
September 25th, 2013 at 7:05 AM ^
This has more or less been the informal policy in game threads or any snowflake thread - asking questions about positional assignments and strategy and in-game items remain unless there is something in them which is a personal slam. Posts that directly question ability....at least when I am reading them, it depends on how it is done (some people manage to keep it professional, others not so much). Direct personal slams to players and coaches are removed if seen or reported and the users are dealt with swiftly usually.
September 25th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^
Did you read the whole thread? The criticism of Savage is way off base--he "manned up" by re-reading the thread, realizing no insult was intended, coming onto the board and saying everything was OK. What else can you possibly expect?
September 25th, 2013 at 11:01 PM ^
September 25th, 2013 at 11:28 PM ^
Sorry, I guess the way the posts are nested makes it hard to see what I was responding to and I didn't help by not specifying which thread.
That was a reply to JohnnyV123 above and his "Teryn needs to man up...his response is to run away and not talk to them any more," which was an odd thing to say about a guy who had just made an appearance on the thread to clarify things. I wasn't referring to anyone or anything on the recruiting thread itself.
September 25th, 2013 at 2:48 AM ^
I think this is as good a time as any to remind everyone that this shirt is now available in the MGoStore!
Get yours today!
September 25th, 2013 at 11:04 PM ^