Beyond the Beat for tonight | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Beyond the Beat for tonight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great job! Enjoyed it very much and you presented a wonderful representation of this "community." Thank you!
 
Blueballer said:
OK - Now on to anonymity, It would be a terrible idea for people's real information to appear on The Boneyard or any other message board for the same reason we have to be very careful on other social media sites. Identity theft and/or personal security. I can see where a sports writer or other public figure would be upset that some clown on a message board can call them names. But unfortunately that goes with the territory of being a public figure. Is it fair?- NO - but that is and always has been a cost of having your name on a byline or on a Lineup card or on a theatre marquee.
Expand ...
Real good point. We probably should have anticipated their viewpoint better. But so many boards are anonymous, didn't really cross my mind. But they certainly had a problem with it.

The thing that really stood out for me, we talked with them a little before and with Joe after, was their real concern/distaste/problem with what people say about them. I can certainly understand some of the things crossed the lines, (inferring pedophiles, death threats, etc.) and they should be upset about them. But they also seemed very upset about being called idiots, or hacks, or over-the-hill, etc. particularly by anonymous posters.

I've been call many names over the years. Heck even my Boneyard "nickname" is basically smart@ss. (kinda carry that one with pride :cool:) But I've tried not to concern myself too much with what some idiot, probably living in their mother's basement, on a message board says about me. I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???

We did mention to them, that you just have to ignore the idiots, even told them there were functions where they could put the people on ignore.

For me the old saying holds true..... Wolves do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep. I like that one.
 
meyers7 said:
Real good point. We probably should have anticipated their viewpoint better. But so many boards are anonymous, didn't really cross my mind. But they certainly had a problem with it.

The thing that really stood out for me, we talked with them a little before and with Joe after, was their real concern/distaste/problem with what people say about them. I can certainly understand some of the things crossed the lines, (inferring pedophiles, death threats, etc.) and they should be upset about them. But they also seemed very upset about being called idiots, or hacks, or over-the-hill, etc. particularly by anonymous posters.

I've been call many names over the years. Heck even my Boneyard "nickname" is basically smart@ss. (kinda carry that one with pride :cool:) But I've tried not to concern myself too much with what some idiot, probably living in their mother's basement, on a message board says about me. I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???

We did mention to them, that you just have to ignore the idiots, even told them there were functions where they could put the people on ignore.

For me the old saying holds true..... Wolves do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep. I like that one.
Expand ...
Totally agree Meyers. They were so sensitive about what is being said here. As I told them, there are morons everywhere and you can't take them seriously. Some of the name calling definitely was over the line and I'm proud that it was not on the womens board.

Heck, we treat each other sometimes worse than we treat them....lol

True, we did not anticipate that line of questioning to us about that name calling. I thought it was awesome that Jacobs can get to the boneyard on his phone.

Both Jacobs and DiMauro admitted they get ideas from this board. I think that is fantastic. We ARE being heard as the main voice of the fan.

As always, people are just people. Joe Zone was all prepared for his closing statement to be trashing the boneyard (that "over the hill" comment really bothered him) but after talking with us on and off the camera, he didn't think it was the right thing to do. I'm glad he didn't.

Jacobs and DiMauro were nice guys. Looks like they want us back again.

It was a really fun experience and I believe we accomplished what I was hoping we would. Coming off as pretty normal folks with a passion for Uconn. It was not the time for Doggydaddy to be there, calling them idiots and snipping at their legs. I know some are disappointed.
 
.-.
meyers7 said:
Real good point. We probably should have anticipated their viewpoint better. But so many boards are anonymous, didn't really cross my mind. But they certainly had a problem with it.

The thing that really stood out for me, we talked with them a little before and with Joe after, was their real concern/distaste/problem with what people say about them. I can certainly understand some of the things crossed the lines, (inferring pedophiles, death threats, etc.) and they should be upset about them. But they also seemed very upset about being called idiots, or hacks, or over-the-hill, etc. particularly by anonymous posters.

I've been call many names over the years. Heck even my Boneyard "nickname" is basically smart@ss. (kinda carry that one with pride :cool:) But I've tried not to concern myself too much with what some idiot, probably living in their mother's basement, on a message board says about me. I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???

We did mention to them, that you just have to ignore the idiots, even told them there were functions where they could put the people on ignore.

For me the old saying holds true..... Wolves do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep. I like that one.
Expand ...

You bring up a good point. I wanted to say something along the lines of this but the timing was not right. Surprisingly to me, Mike was probably the least agitated, Joe the most, though I certainly understand the things he found upsetting. Until Joe felt comfortable with us I felt like we needed to choose our questions carefully. Now they all feel comfortable with us, which affords us greater latitude for the future. Do you concur, meyers and dd?
 
And now DD can return to his regularly scheduled programming of nipping at our legs....(Kidding!) Seriously, you guys were great! I think it went very well, and hope you will be invited back. But bring Meyers out front this time, okay?
 
diggerfoot said:
You bring up a good point. I wanted to say something along the lines of this but the timing was not right. Surprisingly to me, Mike was probably the least agitated, Joe the most, though I certainly understand the things he found upsetting. Until Joe felt comfortable with us I felt like we needed to choose our questions carefully. Now they all feel comfortable with us, which affords us greater latitude for the future. Do you concur, meyers and dd?
Expand ...
I agree, digger.
 
I have always enjoyed Joe Zone all the way back to his days in Wilkes Barre/Scanton. He did the local sports there and always treated high school coaches, athletes, schools really well.
 
I live in FFLD County and couldnt find it. Is it on YouTube? Can someone post a video.
 
Yeah, I'm in the Midwest and would love to see it.
 
.-.
A note to those not reading the thread Nan Lids started, The link to the location where the Beyond the Beat videos are stored is here:

Beyond the Beat

At this moment the newest show (#226) with our guys in it is not posted but it should be in the next few day. I'm sure once it's there people will alert us all.
 
DaddyChoc said:
nope... UConn football coach is currently on
Expand ...

Yes, that's the show that is currently featured on their website (#225). We might want to
keep an eye on the CPTV Sports schedule. Perhaps the next time it comes on (not in their
usual time slot) it will be #226.
 
Again, I can't wait to see it. Nan can you pin a post with the link when the video is available?

I'm glad it went well. Congrats to the Boneyard delegation. Although I wouldn't have said it beforehand, it is difficult to keep your head in the environment, with the lights and the pressure of being "on." I'm glad our guys (apparently) knocked it out of the park.
 
Being a WCBB nut and not spending time on the other boards at the BY means I don't have a real sense of what happens there, but I do notice a different tone in posts from infrequent visitors from football or MBB when they post here. I really appreciate our mods and most of our posters. And it hadn't occurred to me that the reaction to the BY might be more strongly biased by visits to the other sites, just because ... who would bother reading those boards! :cool:
I can't wait to see this show, and I suspect to a certain extent you and they were talking at cross purposes because you more closely represent this forum and their harsh reactions are probably more directed to the other forums. Doesn't mean that we don't have issues with some of the things they write, just that we probably react to them with more facts and figures and rational thought and fewer swear words and epithets.
It is interesting that they are as sensitive as you say - threats cross the line, but bad reactions from the folks they cover and their readers comes with the territory of publishing your thoughts. These guys have been around for a while, you would think they would be used to it. Yes the internet is anonymous and immediate and gives a public forum to those bad reactions, but they must have been called bums and worse face to face by irate fans, family of players, coaches, staff, administrators, and the general public. And as has been noted, most news personalities live on publicity and at least occasionally appear to write stories/give commentary specifically to draw strong reactions and create controversy - nothing like buzz to keep the paychecks flowing and your bosses happy.
 
You cut to the chase well. I will take it a step further for what I see. Ultimately, it is all about people and how people treat other people. For me, it is no more complicated than that.
 
Great job by both DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot. They represented the Boneyard extremely well -well spoken and well reasoned questions and comments.

It's a good thing DiMauro and Jacobs are print journalists - If I just tuned in and didn't know any of the participants I would have thought DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot were the media mavens.
 
.-.
CCinCT said:
Great job by both DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot. They represented the Boneyard extremely well -well spoken and well reasoned questions and comments.

It's a good thing DiMauro and Jacobs are print journalists - If I just tuned in and didn't know any of the participants I would have thought DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot were the media mavens.
Expand ...
You are way too kind.

They just set the bar real low....lol.
 
Reading the comments on the show I, too, am intrigued by this question of anonymity and vesting in other people's reactions to what you write/post.

Following the shift in message boards and commenting has been an interesting journey. Many initially heralded anonymity and comments sections because they hoped it would provide honest and free dialogue. Only to discover that some participants weren't interested in that -- or, perhaps more importantly, struggled with being okay with NOT agreeing with another point. And then others who just take it to an ugly place. It's why USAToday eliminated comments on many of Christine Brennan's articles, because when she wrote about women athletes, the responses were so unattractive they 1) were awful to read and 2) seemed to form some sort of "referendum" on the interest in/validity of covering women's sports. I know another writer who regularly swears off message boards because she takes it too personally. I guess, to many degrees, most of us work anonymously. Outside of our rather insular work place, nobody knows what we do or how well we do it. That's the spotlight athletes (and artists) are in. And, because of this country's obsession with sports, that spotlight has expanded to include sportswriters. Where once they could publish something and get a phone call or letter to their editor, now folks have almost direct access to them.

One of the wisest comments I've heard from a writer is that he considers comments PART of his articles. Which means they have to be monitored. He also, if IRRC, has "senior" or "trusted" responders that support the content/tone.

I think, to a degree, we have the here at the 'yard. It doesn't mean we don't push each others' buttons, or that we don't get defensive or impatient. Nor does it mean every post survive the "would I say it to this person's face" test. There are times when I re-read something, and then reconsider. There are times when I'm just straight up snarky. I have learned that sometimes it's worth it to post your thoughts and then leave the thread alone... sometimes.

Seems to me the internet (as it relates to message boards and comments sections) was in it's infancy and is now moving into adolescence. Some of us are moving with it - some not so much. :-) Maybe our mood depends on the day.
 
ThisJustIn said:
Reading the comments on the show I, too, am intrigued by this question of anonymity and vesting in other people's reactions to what you write/post.

Following the shift in message boards and commenting has been an interesting journey. Many initially heralded anonymity and comments sections because they hoped it would provide honest and free dialogue. Only to discover that some participants weren't interested in that -- or, perhaps more importantly, struggled with being okay with NOT agreeing with another point. And then others who just take it to an ugly place. It's why USAToday eliminated comments on many of Christine Brennan's articles, because when she wrote about women athletes, the responses were so unattractive they 1) were awful to read and 2) seemed to form some sort of "referendum" on the interest in/validity of covering women's sports. I know another writer who regularly swears off message boards because she takes it too personally. I guess, to many degrees, most of us work anonymously. Outside of our rather insular work place, nobody knows what we do or how well we do it. That's the spotlight athletes (and artists) are in. And, because of this country's obsession with sports, that spotlight has expanded to include sportswriters. Where once they could publish something and get a phone call or letter to their editor, now folks have almost direct access to them.

One of the wisest comments I've heard from a writer is that he considers comments PART of his articles. Which means they have to be monitored. He also, if IRRC, has "senior" or "trusted" responders that support the content/tone.

I think, to a degree, we have the here at the 'yard. It doesn't mean we don't push each others' buttons, or that we don't get defensive or impatient. Nor does it mean every post survive the "would I say it to this person's face" test. There are times when I re-read something, and then reconsider. There are times when I'm just straight up snarky. I have learned that sometimes it's worth it to post your thoughts and then leave the thread alone... sometimes.

Seems to me the internet (as it relates to message boards and comments sections) was in it's infancy and is now moving into adolescence. Some of us are moving with it - some not so much. :) Maybe our mood depends on the day.
Expand ...
I hated everything about your post.

Everything but when you said I was great on the show.....

Wait, you didn't say that.

I hated everything.

I'm having a bad day.
 
Thisjustin - nice review of the considerations. I find it interesting that a number of sites are now requiring some form of identification/confirmation of a persons identity before you can post - you can still maintain the general anonymity, but the moderators/owners of the sites have a better idea of who you are and it does seem to inhibit some of the worst behavior.
 
UcMiami said:
Thisjustin - nice review of the considerations. I find it interesting that a number of sites are now requiring some form of identification/confirmation of a persons identity before you can post - you can still maintain the general anonymity, but the moderators/owners of the sites have a better idea of who you are and it does seem to inhibit some of the worst behavior.
Expand ...
a lot of blog/comment sites make you post comments thru your Facebook acct which most people use their "real name"... then people google your "real name" and find out all type of information about you. (address, DOB, pending court cases etc.)
 
.-.
Other than Meyers' tired trite and standard sniping at we denizens of our mother's basements (and holing up next to a warm dryer following those infrequent Husky losses is wonderfully comforting therapy), the comments have been very informative. And as to the sports journalists of the world, if they feel compelled to come to the BY to steal ideas, they have to realize that occasionally they will stumble into their own personal pile of doggy doo to smear their soles.
 
DobbsRover2 said:
Other than Meyers' tired trite and standard sniping at we denizens of our mother's basements (and holing up next to a warm dryer following those infrequent Husky losses is wonderfully comforting therapy), the comments have been very informative
Expand ...
I do what I can. :rolleyes:
 
I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???
Expand ...

I understand why. If someone came to my office and told me my work was crap and called me names, especially if they did it multiple times, I'd be irate. So, I get that part. The thing is, I don't go to peoples' houses to watch them just to see what they think of my work. And if I threw a hissy fit over what I'd heard, my boss would tell me to suck it up and act like a professional.
 
Last edited:
HuskyNan said:
I understand why. If someone came to my office and told me my work was crap and called me names, especially if they did it multiple times, I'd be irate. So, I get that part. Thething is, I don't go to peoples' houses to watch them just to see what they think of. my work. And if I threw a hissy fit over what I'd heard, he'd tell me to suck it up and act like a professional.
Expand ...
Good point, nor do you put your work out there for everyone TO comment ON. They were very nice to us. I think it might have been more the threats they didn't like (understandably) and that stuff just carried over to other obnoxious things said about them???? IDK. Does seem like they could be a little tougher skinned???

I ref soccer, and I get yelled at quite often. Most of the time, I just ignore them (parents) cause they don't know what they are talking about anyway. Did have one physical threat, but threw him out.
 
I used to have a blog with semi-political content, semi-political because my focus is on grassroots community, not the nation or state where most politics applies. I had one frequent commenter who I at first did not mind because he was clever and witty. Yet his posts started missing the mark entirely of what my message was while getting more insulting. I would have liked to know who he was in a better attempt to understand and perhaps resolve the disconnect. Otherwise, my choice was simply to ban a commenter who otherwise might offer clever and witty counterpoints. With this background there are two reasons why I sympathize with journalists wanting to know their attackers, and one reason why the sympathy only goes so far.

1. Occupational hazard. Most people would be insulted with things like being called a "scumbag." We can protest that they should avoid reading that if they are going to be "thin-skinned," but researching the Boneyard is now something any responsible sportswriter/caster for UConn should be doing. Doing their job well necessitates they come to a place where they will be insulted. They have to "take it," so to speak, but they don't have to like it; particularly when they can't confront the attacker as they would if the post was not anonymous.

2. Family members. A concern expressed was that Joe's daughters might read some particularly awful comments. Having Internet-savvy daughters myself I certainly can identify with that concern. Once again we can refer to this as an occupational hazard, but one a person understandably would abhor. Under an older, less anonymous system of letters to the editors, etc., if someone goes way over the line you can at least confront them about it (or not print the letter), while both you and loved ones are better able to consider the source. As others have mentioned perhaps we can get to that point even on the Internet. Indeed, I think something like the "facebook" solution might be even better than a name and address.

Yet an online forum "is what it is," and results in us policing our own house. We chastise; we ignore; moderators ban. There are consequences within the forum for people stepping over the line, which is the most you can expect from us. Given that, I would turn that around on them and ask how are they being policed by their own for "turning the volume up too loud." I'm not saying they are not, I would just want to make clear that policing "by their own" is the responsible safeguard and response to being out of line, whether posting on the Internet or writing a column. There should be consequences either way imposed "by their own" that people know happens reliably.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,934
Messages
4,545,531
Members
10,426
Latest member
kmbazz15


Top Bottom