UMassHoops.com

umassfan0000 wrote:Mike is 100% right. Firts of all, it is unfair and hurtful to a player, coach, and team when rumors are started. Unless there is factual, hard evidence then it is not fair to put it up here. I have a close relationship with a lot of the players, but I'm not going to come on here and discuss there every move. As far as Wiggins, its not right because like Matt said, we are not credible unless we have something to prove it. Period. If there are no police logs or anything else then it just doesnt add up. YOUR
word that something happened just doesn't cut it.

This whole thread is sad though.

Journalists cite "unnamed sources" when they write stories. It's laughable to think that if someone who is active on these forums and has more credible, first-hand knowledge of a situation, that they should be forced to wait for what, the only 2 PEOPLE (Matt & Ron) to write about UMass happenings first. It's 2009. Next thing you know people on this board are going to tell us that we should be reading paper version of newspapers as the only source of news. Or throwing away cell phones for rotary land lines.

Rather than reinforcing such a stifling environment , we should be working on a thread to discuss ways to make UMassHoops.com a more enjoyable & fun place to participate in and perhaps actually get more people on board. It's always saddened me that UMass has such a minimal internet presence for basketball fans when compared to not just other national or regional fansites, but even in our own conference. Even worse when you see minimal programs in other, smaller conferences have such a stronger online presence that they can support multiple fansites, with more activity on each than we have on one.

Solid post, Quinn.

Rather than debate journalistic standards and practices, I would draw the line at rumors about alleged criminal acts. Rumors about Player X failing too many classes or Coach X meeting with officials from another university about a job opening have a different impact than rumors about Player X sexually assaulting another student, for example. Those first two things can lead to negative judgments about those people, but it ends with judgments. Whereas with the latter, there's much greater potential for defamation of character, influencing a jury and possibly taking away that person's liberty, affecting whether the person can get a job after college even if nothing ever comes of the rumors, etc.

You saw what happened with Duke's lacrosse team. Granted, that didn't start with message board rumors, but let's say an Amherst resident comes home to find her house broken into, reads rumors at UMassHoops about Doug Wiggins breaking into houses, and based on that lies to police that she saw Doug Wiggins leaving her house and could they please check if he has her stuff. Anonymity allows anyone to post material like that on a message board without any accountability. It's dangerous in a way that posting rumors about non-criminal acts is not. If you have information on someone committing a crime, go to the police, don't go to a message board. Nothing helpful can be accomplished on a message board with regard to those subjects.

Quinn wrote:It's laughable to think that if someone who is active on these forums and has more credible, first-hand knowledge of a situation, that they should be forced to wait for what, the only 2 PEOPLE (Matt & Ron) to write about UMass happenings first.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm still not budging from my stance.

There's a very low bar for becoming a member here. Just because someone has a few dozen posts under their belt, that doesn't make them a credible source of news. I'm not willing to let "relatively anonymous guy" start breaking sensitive news about member(s) of a team.

If the news is "I ran into a player at the DC and he said ___'s injury is gonna keep him out a few games", that's one thing. If the news is about a guy getting into legal trouble, that's different in my book. The bar is MUCH higher for stuff like that.

Quinn wrote: It's laughable to think that if someone who is active on these forums and has more credible, first-hand knowledge of a situation, that they should be forced to wait for what, the only 2 PEOPLE (Matt & Ron) to write about UMass happenings first.

Or Jeff Goodman.

I love UMass!

MikeUMA wrote:

Quinn wrote:It's laughable to think that if someone who is active on these forums and has more credible, first-hand knowledge of a situation, that they should be forced to wait for what, the only 2 PEOPLE (Matt & Ron) to write about UMass happenings first.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm still not budging from my stance.

There's a very low bar for becoming a member here. Just because someone has a few dozen posts under their belt, that doesn't make them a credible source of news. I'm not willing to let "relatively anonymous guy" start breaking sensitive news about member(s) of a team.

If the news is "I ran into a player at the DC and he said ___'s injury is gonna keep him out a few games", that's one thing. If the news is about a guy getting into legal trouble, that's different in my book. The bar is MUCH higher for stuff like that.

Or perhaps you could take the training wheels off, and allow educated people to make their own assessments on the validity of information rather than enforcing censorship.

There are plenty of people who post here that are anonymous to the rest of us. But because a small handful of the 'good ol' boys" here know who they are, their posts are considered legitimate. But then when someone comes around that you don't know, you take a different stance. LOCK, EDIT, etc. And I know for a fact that some of these people have been far more reputable than virtually everyone on this forum.

But I do agree about what you consider "sensitive" info. The same people who have interest in that type of news are the same that care about celebrities, read the rags, etc. But it's my choice are a reader to stay away from those "stories". And it's my choice as a poster to have no interest in those types of stories. But others obviously do or they wouldn't be on the front page of every sports news site when they happen. And if a person here witnesses something that falls into that category, or has first hand knowledge of something, you should simply choose not to read it or respond rather than forcing your censorship. The sites privacy statement protects from any far fetched legal claim so there's no reason to try to be the moral police of these types of posters.

Quinn - why don't you start your own UMass hoops community? Seriously. Mike has always enforced some control that could be called 'censorship' (by someone who ignores the connotation of government control implicit in the term). If there is a demand for an 'uncensored' site then you will flourish. You can, like Mike does, eat the costs of hosting the site.

As long as there has been messageboards there have been those who claim someone else is 'censoring' them or that their 'free speech' rights are being abrogated. These are ludicrous claims.

I think that message board already exists. It's called Masslive!

UMASS06 wrote:I think that message board already exists. It's called Masslive!

I was thinking the same thing.

UMass87 wrote:Quinn - why don't you start your own UMass hoops community? Seriously. Mike has always enforced some control that could be called 'censorship' (by someone who ignores the connotation of government control implicit in the term). If there is a demand for an 'uncensored' site then you will flourish. You can, like Mike does, eat the costs of hosting the site.

As long as there has been messageboards there have been those who claim someone else is 'censoring' them or that their 'free speech' rights are being abrogated. These are ludicrous claims.

Thank you for making your position clear (and note that censorship in the private sector is still censorship...it's not restricted to government). But we already have a perfectly good place here. The key, as mentioned before, is finding ways to make it more inviting to UMass fans and increase the activity. Because as it is now, unless there is a coaching change, there is minimal activity in comparison to other schools of our caliber. You'd think we were in the America East . There will always be needs for moderators on a forum and that's why forum admins find a good group of members to assist. But the goal of any forum should be promoting participation and building an increasingly fun community.

UMass87 wrote:

UMASS06 wrote:I think that message board already exists. It's called Masslive!

I was thinking the same thing.

Me three

You've obviously never read an america east forum. This is actually a pretty active--and very well run--message board. I don't think that relaxing Mike's already pretty relaxed rules will somehow create a new critical mass of users, as you suggest. I can't even believe that people are somehow in support of rumor mongering; that does nothing but denigrate the legitimacy of this board. And you can mock the notion of message board legitimacy, but do so at your own expense. The site will fast turn into masslive if you allow anything and everything. Suggesting censorship is one of the more ludicrous things I've heard in a long time. If one controls a site, they control its content. End of story. Mike is far from dictatorial in his administering of this site. Lay off.

Quinn wrote:quote=

Quinn wrote:It's laughable to think that if someone who is active on these forums and has more credible, first-hand knowledge of a situation, that they should be forced to wait for what, the only 2 PEOPLE (Matt & Ron) to write about UMass happenings first.

Mike wrote:If the news is "I ran into a player at the DC and he said ___'s injury is gonna keep him out a few games", that's one thing. If the news is about a guy getting into legal trouble, that's different in my book. The bar is MUCH higher for stuff like that.

Or perhaps you could take the training wheels off, and allow educated people to make their own assessments on the validity of information rather than enforcing censorship.

There are plenty of people who post here that are anonymous to the rest of us. But because a small handful of the 'good ol' boys" here know who they are, their posts are considered legitimate. But then when someone comes around that you don't know, you take a different stance. LOCK, EDIT, etc. And I know for a fact that some of these people have been far more reputable than virtually everyone on this forum.

But I do agree about what you consider "sensitive" info. The same people who have interest in that type of news are the same that care about celebrities, read the rags, etc. But it's my choice are a reader to stay away from those "stories". And it's my choice as a poster to have no interest in those types of stories. But others obviously do or they wouldn't be on the front page of every sports news site when they happen. And if a person here witnesses something that falls into that category, or has first hand knowledge of something, you should simply choose not to read it or respond rather than forcing your censorship. The sites privacy statement protects from any far fetched legal claim so there's no reason to try to be the moral police of these types of posters.

You are missing a number of important points Quinn.

First and the only one the matters is IT IS MIKE'S FORUM. End of story.

Second. This case was not talking about an inury or that a player is leaving the team. It was about a legal matter, a criminal matter. If is was false do you know, because I don't, what is Mike's legal standing. He he responsible for teh content of his site? Does the the site's privacy statement protects Mike how all legal problems.

Third. Shaman did not have b] first-hand knowledge of the situation[/b]. Someone he trusts told him about it. He did not witnesses something he heard something. I agree that if it is not a legal matter people can post what they hear but this was different.

And from your other post. 'But the goal of any forum should be promoting participation and building an increasingly fun community.'

Why? Does that have to be the gaol of every forum? Not all forums want to big huge. Maybe the goal of Mikes forum is to have a place where a small group of UMASS fans can discuss UMASS sports maybe it is not. Only Mike can tell you the goal of his forum.

Not much more to add other than I don't think Mike's rigid censorship is keeping this site from exploding in popularity.