About transfer talk.

[JS]

While the thread about Kiah's dad denying transfer rumors is still on the front page, let's review the reasons for the BY rule against transfer talk.

This is especially pertinent, because it's very possible that this board was the source of these particular rumors (the "internet chatter" mentioned toward the end of a DesMoines Register article earlier this week).

We deleted or edited several posts speculating about whether Kiah might consider transferring on account of her sparse playing time. But HuskyNan, Biff and I can't spend all our time watching the board. Things may stay up long enough to get picked up elsewhere.

Start with the premise that readers of this board include:

• people (relatives, friends and fans) from players' home towns, who follow the players' UConn careers closely;
• every member of the horde (who will tell you privately that they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't read here);
• reporters for the home town papers (who in turn cross-pollinate with the horde; look at the Fuller/Elliott sourcing for the stories in Iowa); and
• many of the players and athletics staff.

The Boneyard Rules saith as follows:

Don't start transfer talk. Comments like "She should consider transferring" really add nothing to the board.​

Let's expand on that. Beyond adding nothing, transfer talk can actually be harmful.

At worst, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And short of that it can be a hit on morale for the player and maybe for her teammates, who might think something's going on they don't know about. And then they might trust her less, consider her less a member of the group, etc.

So absolutely nothing good can come of such talk, and we need to enforce the rule rigorously. No family should have to deny stuff that originated in the heads (or was pulled from other parts of the anatomy) of Boneyarders.

You can help by hitting the "report" button when you see posts that are possible rules violations. We may act on some reports, and decline to act on others. But a report and/or a private message is the quickest way to get our attention.

Thanks to all for making the Boneyard, in almost every instance, a wonderful place to read during this happy post-season run. The good humor, insights, rules discussions, pre- and post-game analyses, input from fans of other teams and celebratory mood have been a pleasure.

Bravo a tutti voi.

 

[Phil]

Thanks for the reminder about the Report button. I had honestly forgotten it existed, because "I'm telling" isn't part of my make-up, but I agree that this sort of talk ought to be excised as quickly as possible, and you can't be everywhere at once, so the Report option can help the process.

 

[CL82]

JS, I suggest you edit the post above to eliminate the player references. I first heard about this speculation from your post.

 

[JS]

JS, I suggest you edit the post above to eliminate the player references. I first heard about this speculation from your post.

Since there are a couple of published articles and a thread below about the family's denial of the rumors, their existence is on the table. It doesn't let any particular cat out of the bag at this point to say where they likely originated.

If anything, the Boneyard source will probably serve to confirm for many people that the rumors were crazy.

 

[Bestiarius]

JS, thanks for stating the reasoning behind the transfer talk ban. It goes a long way toward our compliance when we understand why the rule is in place.

 

[HuskyNan]

I would like to add that while each board on the Boneyard is its own unique community, the no transfer talk rule is one of the few rules that applies across the boards. Transfer talk has proved to be anywhere from annoying to disastrous in our experience. It just seems best not to even start down that road.

 

[Stinger92860]

Plus her extended family is from new haven, it's likely they read this board. Just want to add that her grandfather is a great guy!

 

[ChrisSmith]

I think this is an absolutely silly rule, and disagree with your logic almost 100%.

This is a message board. The point is to have discussions. Whether or not a player is likely to transfer is interesting and relevant information. If anyone transfers from next year's team, there will be serious depth issues for an expected national title contender.

These kids have consented to becoming public figures. If you accept a full scholarship to represent your school athletically, you are consenting to having people view and discuss you. I think it's one think to moderate the type of language posters use, but it's a completely different thing to monitor the content of discussion. So who cares if Kiah reads a poster's comment that they think she should transfer (for the record, I don't think she should)? As long as it's done in a decent manner, I don't think there is any problem with it.

I think you're overstating the impact of message boards. Sometimes where there is smoke (on a message board) there is a fire (in real life), but smoke almost never causes a fire.

Many of the same alleged harms from discussing a potential transfer can arise from discussing a player's poor play or legal/eligibility issues. There's no corresponding prohibition on these subjects (and for a good reason).

Let the board police itself. If someone says "this player should transfer", another poster can say "here's why she shouldn't". Or posters can just ignore the poster suggesting a transfer.

It feels un-American and un-Internet like to prohibit discussing a certain topic. I think there is a real cost (posters lose out on talking about an interesting and relevant topic), and I think there is no benefit. I also wonder if part of the rationale for the rule is antiquated, sexist views. I hope you re-evaluate the rule, or at least open the rule up to discussion.

 

[HuskyNan]

I think this is an absolutely silly rule, and disagree with your logic almost 100%.

This is a message board. The point is to have discussions. Whether or not a player is likely to transfer is interesting and relevant information. If anyone transfers from next year's team, there will be serious depth issues for an expected national title contender.

These kids have consented to becoming public figures. If you accept a full scholarship to represent your school athletically, you are consenting to having people view and discuss you. I think it's one think to moderate the type of language posters use, but it's a completely different thing to monitor the content of discussion. So who cares if Kiah reads a poster's comment that they think she should transfer (for the record, I don't think she should)? As long as it's done in a decent manner, I don't think there is any problem with it.

I think you're overstating the impact of message boards. Sometimes where there is smoke (on a message board) there is a fire (in real life), but smoke almost never causes a fire.

Let the board police itself. If someone says "this player should transfer", another poster can say "here's why she shouldn't". Or posters can just ignore the poster suggesting a transfer.

It feels un-American and un-Internet like to prohibit discussing a certain topic. I think there is a real cost (posters lose out on talking about an interesting and relevant topic), and I think there is no benefit. I also wonder if part of the rationale for the rule is antiquated, sexist views. I hope you re-evaluate the rule, or at least open the rule up to discussion.

The rule is against starting transfer talk, not discussing an article or public statement made by the player.

The rules came to be as a result of our experiences moderating the board and they aren't changing for any one person. If you don't like the rules here you're free to find a board that suits you better.

 

[ChrisSmith]

The rules came to be as a result of our experiences moderating the board and they aren't changing for any one person. If you don't like the rules here you're free to find a board that suits you better.

I'm not asking that the rules change for me. I'm just expressing my opinion. If it's persuasive and a lot of people agree with me, I would hope the rule would be re-evaluated.

I understand perhaps this is not your first time discussing the rule and perhaps you are a bit tired of discussing it, but I think your response essentially comes down to "it's my ball and my rules". That's fine, but it's not fun to play a game by yourself. I'm not suggesting I would leave the board because of the rule, but I would hope that if we can make discussion on the board a richer experience, we would consider it. Again, what makes the board discussion a richer experience is up for debate, and that's all I was doing.

 

[HuskyNan]

As I said, this is one rule that carries across all boards. There are 8 different admins or moderators on the Boneyard and we all agree - we do not allow speculation on transfers and do not allow initiation of discussion on transfers. Period.

 

[ChrisSmith]

As I said, this is one rule that carries across all boards. There are 8 different admins or moderators on the Boneyard and we all agree - we do not allow speculation on transfers and do not allow initiation of discussion on transfers. Period.

I'm disappointed that consideration of the rule is not allowed, but as you said, your ball, your rules. Tough to tell what the cost to the Boneyard community is.

 

[JimGunther]

Far be it for ME to defend the moderators (or any particular rule) but, out here in the anonymity of cyber world, anybody can say anything without a glimmer of truth and take no responsibility for the harm they do.

FWIW: Your screen name may or may not be your real name. Using such may inforn the way you conduct yourself. I belong to several forums where real names are required. The atmosphere on those forums - in general - seems to be, how do you say, "More responsible"?

PS: Thankfully, this one does not require one's avatar be their authentic photo.

 

[JS]

Far be it for ME to defend the moderators

Oh hell, indulge yourself, Jim. We can take it. Moderation in the defense of moderators is no virtue.

As for ChrisSmith, he lost me at the disrespectful "absolutely silly rule." Unfortunately, that was in his first sentence. His notion that the players consent to "public figure" status (a bastardization of a defense in a defamation lawsuit) is too off-point to warrant serious discussion.

The essence of the rule is to avoid harm to the team, not to protect any individual's feelings. And that includes the feelings of a self-indulgent few message board posters who think they have a right to a "richer experience" through saying whatever they want about the players, however irresponsibly.

Our rules are not immutable but are based on long experience and have, we think, served the board well. They evolve primarily through further experience. We welcome suggestions about them or anything else by private message.

Thanks to those who understand and appreciate the explanation, which was meant to inform, not to invite dissident manifestos. In hindsight, probably should've locked the OP and will remedy that now.