RDT or WolverineInaBag Open Thread (IF YOU CARE)...

Submitted by Fhshockey112002 on June 24th, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Ok, I'm tired of every thread becoming the debate over this RDT/WolverineInaBag conspiracy.  The EuroCup Thread and Jordan Wilkins visiting thread have already fallen, I'm sure more will too if there isn't an outlet.  So for all that care, and those that don't HAVE AT IT! 

Hope the MODS don't take it down, but maybe all you can get it out of your system now, you can post all your "research" on how they are connected or not.

Comments

tbeindit

June 24th, 2012 at 10:19 PM ^

Hey, I said this on the other thread and I just want to say it again real quick.  People keep trying to link him with Hoke's Mad Magicians.  He made a total of two posts on the site, including his interview of RDT and we split ways soon after.  Don't think he represents HMM or the direction we're going in at this point.  He hasn't been with the site for well over a month (going on two now).

BoFan

June 25th, 2012 at 2:29 AM ^

The idea that you accepted an interview of RTD even when he was supposed to be a legit fan but with "inside info" was a joke to start with. His coming out makes it worse.

Also, Sarah was your best analyst and got a lot of exclusive interviews with great recruits. Explain what happened with her. You didn't defend her against the "testosterone" sports Mafia that attacked her.

I was a follower but these two separate events/posts on HMM were very dissapointing.

A learning experience perhaps.

tbeindit

June 25th, 2012 at 9:20 AM ^

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but most of your statements are built on hindsight or completely inaccurate.  It's easy to say, wow, what a mistake letting a person on your blog do an interview with RDT, but it ignores both the current and past situations.  There was really no reason to suspect they were the same person at the time.  Along with this, he's not even with HMM anymore. We're talking about things that happened about two months ago.  If he was still on the blog, I could see your point, but he's not.

Your statement about Sarah is 100% false and she would agree with me.

I agree that we're always learning, but it's hard to correct a problem that has already been corrected.  If he was still on the blog, I could see your point, but the fact is that we had a brief, and when I say brief, I mean brief, relationship with him that ended a while ago.  Without getting into personal details, there was a reason that he is no longer with our blog.  The only reason I'm leaving the interview up now is because it's hilarious and should provide anyone with knowledge of the situation some great entertainment.

BoFan

June 25th, 2012 at 7:35 PM ^

 

There was no hindsight and were no inaccuracies at all in my post:

1)  My first point was that it was editorial bad judgment to post an interview of RTD (just some random dude and not even a credible analyst) alongside a number of great interviews of recruits (done by Sarah).   This was bad judgment when RTD was thought to be just a Bama fan…it had nothing to do with him being a fraud.  Mixing RDT in with all the great interviews undermined the credibility of your site and lent credibility to someone that had none.  At that time I of course did not know of RDT's multiple personalities.  Now that we all know it is more comical to go back and read it.  BTW, I do have a record on here of questioning the credibility of his statements multiple times but that wasn’t my point.

2)  When Sarah resigned...it was due to unjustified badgering by a few other analysts and random fans.  She stated this herself.  They questioned her credibility without any fact checking.  I was disappointed that she resigned under the pressure of what I called "testosterone mafia" and so were many others.   My point in the post that you called inaccurate was that in your editorial role you should have defended her credibility on twitter and on your site.  You did not as far as I could tell.  

My final suggestion was to take this as a learning experience.  Take the high road and stop being defensive.  We all make mistakes.  I like some of the stuff you have on your site recently.  

Again, there is nothing in my statements that require hindsight or that were inaccurate...unless I happened to miss your editorial defense of Sarah

tbeindit

June 26th, 2012 at 1:26 AM ^

1.  Disagree with that assessment.  I don't want to get into exact details of the situation because that will get too lengthy, but if you compare the situation at the time, it really wasn't that insanely out of line.  If somebody's pretty involved in the Michigan community, they're fair game.  Like I said, it's easy to look in hindsight, but at the time, it really wasn't that crazy.  Saying he had "no credibility" at the time isn't that accurate either, that statement relies a lot on hindsight.  Not saying I was a major fan, but the "guy" had a pretty decent following at one point, whether people like it or not.

2.  I defended and stood up for Sarah the entire time she was on HMM and still do today. I completely resent any statement made otherwise. Anyone with knowledge of the details will attest to this.

3.  The reason I'm being "defensive" is because you're challenging the entire credibility of the site for something someone did that had a tiny impact on the blog almost two months ago. The problem is this "learning experience" has already been addressed.  It's like criticizing an employer for an employee that is no longer with the company.  It just doesn't make logical sense.

4.  I do, however, thank you for the positive comments and concern for the future goals, just disagree with some of your opinions

M-Wolverine

June 26th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^

1. Many people have questioned his credibility, both as a Bama fan, and even more so as a "recruiting guru", since he first appeared.  There's a big difference between a Lloyd Brady interview and a RDT interview. No one is asking "Lloyd" for real recruiting advice. So don't act like you're shocked gambling was going on in your establishment. I know it's just a blog, but journalistic standards means if you're going to put an interview up on your site that someone has actually, you know, talked to the dude. If I email Brian saying "hey, here's an interview I did with Brady Hoke, publish it" I would hope he'd check and make sure it's Brady, and not my imagination. This wasn't a board post...it was on your blog.  

2. Don't know anything about the situation, so I'm not taking sides...but just on logical consistency you can't say when someone asks where the public denouncement was that "if you know the details, you'd see that I was defending her."  I have no reason to believe you weren't. But you have to show where you were doing it in public where he or others could read it. It may be there. He may have missed it. But you can't say "behind the scenes I was defending her" when he's saying "I didn't see you knock the public attacks against her."

tbeindit

June 26th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^

1.  The problem with that statement is again, you're avoiding the details of the past situation.  If a random person emailed Brian about a Hoke interview, I would kind of expect him not to believe it or to check it out.  However, this situation was a lot different.  This wasn't a random person and the people interviewed warrant completely different responses, especially considering the time period.  Sure, everybody claims to have questioned his crediblity now and I'm not saying I ever kept up with him to a deep extent, but he certainly got a pretty big response if everyone thought he was a fake...  Along the same lines, as I've repeateded numerous times, he's no longer with our site and there's a reason for that.  Using hindsight isn't a legitimate argument against what happened at the time.

2.  The facts are that most people don't know the half of what was actually going on with the situation and I would like to avoid discussing the details since they involve many different individuals.  I can say without a doubt that I defended her the entire time she was on HMM.  Ask anybody involved in the situation and they will attest to this.  Regardless, this isn't the issue being discussed anyway.

jmblue

June 26th, 2012 at 3:29 PM ^

This wasn't a random person

Why do you say that? This was some guy that (as far as we knew) suddenly started posting in February claiming to be an Alabama fan - not an ex-player or anything, just a fan. And if you did not even know his real identity, doesn't that make him a random person?

M-Wolverine

June 26th, 2012 at 3:57 PM ^

I don't know or care about the dealings behind the scenes. I barely care about it in front of the curtain. Just provide a link where you defended this person in public from her detractors. That's all the OP was saying. Not that you didn't...it just wasn't visible.

1. You're using hindsight to defend the actions, saying you could only know now. I'm saying you could know then. Within a couple of post people were saying "this is too good to be true". And it didn't take much recruiting info passed on to figure he was pretty full of it in that area, even if he was who he said he was.  You can say he was popular, which was true. But you were willfully being blind more than those who liked him to say you couldn't see anyone doubting his credibility. It came with almost every post he made. You chose to believe one thing.  Which is fine for an internet posting board guy; it was a tough learning experience for someone running a news source.  The person had to be be a bit random...because it was the same person! If he was only used for two months, you must have never trusted him that much. So how hard is it to say "ok, I know you...can you give me the contact info for this guy?" not because I think he's you, but I'd like to know for my site that he really has the credentials he claims he has. Even if you didn't doubt RDT, you obviously had doubts about WIAB. 

It's not a federal crime, it's more an amusing footnote on internet nonsense.  But acting like it was something that would blindside anyone is just being defensive.  Could you have known they were the same guy? Maybe, but doubtful. Could you have had doubts of RDT's credibility? Hell, yes. But you published it anyway.  Live and learn.

tbeindit

June 26th, 2012 at 4:41 PM ^

1.  As I said, there is a ton of misinformation regarding that situation and without knowing the things behind the scenes, you really can't know the full story.  Sorry if that doesn't meet your requirements, but it's the truth.

2.  I never said I believed anything particular regarding RDT.  I said he was popular among the Michigan community, especially the Internet fanbase, and had a big following, which are all true.  Never claimed he was legit or a recruiting expert, just said that because of those two things listed above, one short interview really isn't that far out of line at the time.  Second, when I said a "random person" I wasn't referencing RDT.  I was saying that WIAB wasn't exactly a random guy approaching me with an interview.  Obviously, the interview wasn't what it was supposed to be, but like I said, at the time, there was no reason to suspect anything regarding the double person, etc.  Also, one of your facts is mistaken.  He was never with us for 2 months, my statement was that he hasn't been with us for about two months, he was only a member of the blog for about a week.

The thing is that people keep stressing this "learning" experience, but the problem was fixed long ago.  That's the reason I'm being "defensive", WIAB is not a representation of our blog and if you consider a one week period almost two months ago to be representative of our entire blog, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sac Fly

June 24th, 2012 at 10:38 PM ^

I specifically remember him posting on the hockey boards, saying he didn't know the rules and how the game was played because he lived in Alabama. What was the point of that?

Cope

June 24th, 2012 at 11:31 PM ^

To Whom It May Concern (Brian),

Please check everyone's email and out them if they have two accounts.

Sincerely,

The one guy who doesn't get Score: 5 Normal's

/s

Broken Brilliance

June 24th, 2012 at 11:59 PM ^

I think WIAB has really caught the attention on the mgoboard. Hell people in...here...are starting to discuss him. Never in a million years I would have thought that. Providing a few laughs at the end of June is a great start.