Insider Deleted??
Did the board melt down last night with the "insider" friend of a friend rumors?? The rumors seemed semi-plausible and he presented them fair enough as to their reliability. Did the thread spiral off topic or am I missing something?? It didn't seem delete worthy.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
when i was in undergrad i had a friend that was a team manager. and he had another friend that was a team manager. and they had friends that were team managers. the point is, theres more than just one person watching practice that is not part of the team. to find the guy who spilled the beans would not be an easy task.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
So I'll spill the beans at the risk of getting the boot forever. Not worth being here anyway if that's the way things are going to be. You can't stop the flow of information, like it or not. If these rumors are wrong, we'll know soon enough and people can crucify the person who spread them.
Guy claiming two degrees of separation from team says that:
* Tate was taking snaps with second team while Sheridan was with the first
* Fight broke out between Woolfolk and Shaw
* Cissoko dismissed
Personally, I don't see a damn bit of harm in these rumors, even if they're wrong. Anyone who's played football knows the occasional practice fight is bound to happen. And what the hell difference would it make if the whole world was under the false impression that Sheridan was starting next Saturday?
[Edit] Ah, for shit's sake! Just saw why that post was taken down, and it has nothing to do with censorship. Oh well. I'm not deleting this. There's been enough of that for one day.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^
It's not censorship. We're not talking the government shutting down a newspaper here. Come on. We're talking about an anonymous (and previously reliable, if I might add) message board poster insider guy on a publicly viewable forum that's privately owned, operated, and managed, and about a thread that spun out of control. (We're also talking about a situation where the guy that provided the information didn't want it out there any more). In the end, that private management can make decisions about what stays and what goes for whatever reason they see fit, just the same way they would have to decide what to do if you took a dump in their yard.
That being said, I think your other point is that you think it's ok to pass along the information and that's a point on which I think reasonable people can debate and disagree without making it a bigger issue than it really is.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^
Private entities can censor too. Glad to see this wasn't the case here. That's a good way to lose trust, credibility, and readers.
Also, information spreads. That is fact, not a point on which reasonable minds can disagree.
Finally, trying to staunch the flow of leaked information is useless.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^
I disagree, but won't be so self-righteous to proclaim "I'm right and you're wrong." I just wouldn't be so bold to call what you're calling "censorship" or toss the term around so loosely and sensationally as you are here. I'm sure you think you're speaking truth to power or some such, but let's not lose sight of the fact that you're posting on an internet message board that's mainly devoted to Michigan sports, that generally wants Michigan teams to succeed, and that you not only don't own, but have no claim of right as to how it's run.
That said, although it was probably unintentional, you did actually stumble onto something important here: The way the message board is run, and however that relates to one's vision of the blog's overall credibility, in whatever way one defines it, does partly determine its value as a source of information in the "market of ideas" and, ultimately, its success. I'm quite positive Brian keeps that in mind as he makes ownership/editorial decisions of this sort.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:54 PM ^
And, you completely misrepresented or failed to understand my point on which I said reasonable people could disagree. I didn't say information doesn't spread. I suggested very clearly, based on the events of last night, that reasonable people could disagree about whether someone such as the poster from last night should be passing along information from managers which includes their observations about closed practices. Whether you think they should or should not do that is very much open to debate. You either don't understand that point and why it might be important for some to debate here or you purposefully chose not to understand it at all.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:35 PM ^
I'm going out on a very sturdy limb here to say: mmm...I'm right and you're wrong.
Just kidding, rlew. You seem like a smart guy, probably one of those Michigan grads. I'm only having fun. Doing a bit of mental gymnastics, if you will. I think we see fairly well eye-to-eye on blogs and the infosphere.
And for the record, I try very hard never to make a point unintentionally. They taught me that at Albion.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
We need a front page post. Too many people care way too much more than they should about this.