Blake Harris | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Blake Harris

Status
Not open for further replies.
intlzncster said:
It's not the same thing. If you have some info, you can pass it on. It may not be accurate, as with anything in life, but it's not speculative The rule applies to people saying "' should transfer because he sucks" or "I think these guys are transferring because they are unhappy" (when the poster has no clue). Ward off problems with people's parents reading stuff, mobilizing the fan base against kids, trying to push kids out, etc.
Expand ...
It's a gray area from a person who is admirable. I prefer not shooting the messenger just the message.
 
Storrs South said:
My apologies (no seriously I like this community and don't want to obstruct the rules). So in the future, do I just wait and not say anything when I hear something? What is the best way to handle this going forward because there will be updates on this.
Expand ...
IMO, the best thing to do is not say anything at all.

But there are some on here who disagree. For those folks, there's always private messaging. Just be very vague...
 
fleudslipcon said:
It's a gray area from a person who is admirable. I prefer not shooting the messenger just the message.
Expand ...

Yeah, but if this is the case, we can't have any insider info on this site. Which is stupid.

I mean, if people are talking to the kids, how 'unspeculative' can you get? That's a primary source. Again, I could be totally wrong. I just thought that's how it was done.
 
intlzncster said:
Yeah, but if this is the case, we can't have any insider info on this site. Which is stupid.
Expand ...
It's feeding in the rumor mill of transfers vs. who are potential players.
 
intlzncster said:
Why? It's info from the kids. Not speculative. Speculative comes from posters' heads, not the actual source. See my post above. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this is how it has been for the past 15 years or so. I have lost brain cells in that time tho.
Expand ...
Nope, it's speculation. There's no publically available direct quote right from the horses mouth = speculation.
 
.-.
fleudslipcon said:
It's feeding in the rumor mill of transfers vs. who are potential players.
Expand ...

Not a rumor though. It's asking the source. Maybe we could have a private board for this stuff?
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
Nope, it's speculation. There's no publically available direct quote right from the horses mouth = speculation.
Expand ...

That is an incorrect definition of speculation. Show me where you got that from. Nowhere does it have to be 'publicly available'.

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

He didn't form a theory or conjecture. He had a friend ask the player. The player told him. That's a direct source. It doesn't get much firmer than that

There could be no news articles in the general media with 'sources', which would kill 80% of all news.

You can make up your own definition of 'speculation' if you want, but it doesn't mean it's correct. You've posted about being far more absolutist about this than anyone else.
 
fleudslipcon said:
Just pm storrs for any further updates.
Expand ...

So all insider information is now off board completely? First time I've seen this in 15 years.

I mean, people are looking at vague Vance tweets and saying he's unhappy. Now THAT is speculation.

But I'll take it to PM if that's going to be standard for the whole board.
 
intlzncster said:
That is an incorrect definition of speculation. Show me where you got that from. Nowhere does it have to be 'publicly available'.

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

He didn't form a theory or conjecture. He had a friend ask the player. The player told him. That's a direct source. It doesn't get much firmer than that

There could be no news articles in the general media with 'sources', which would kill 80% of all news.

You can make up your own definition of 'speculation' if you want, but it doesn't mean it's correct. You've posted about being far more absolutist about this than anyone else.
Expand ...
The key is that it has to be independently verifiable.

With all due respect to Storrs South, this is not independently verifiable.
 
intlzncster said:

So all insider information is now off board completely? First time I've seen this in 15 years.

I mean, people are looking at vague Vance tweets and saying he's unhappy. Now THAT is speculation.
Expand ...
I hate censoring anything. But it's board policy not to speculate on transfer rumors and @Fishy made that clear recently in that thread about Vance. I'm following protocol as much as I dislike it.

So take it with a grain of salt censoring is fluid. This is only the second time I've done post deletions except when someone asked a moderator to delete their posts.
 
.-.
fleudslipcon said:
I hate censoring anything. But it's board policy not to speculate on transfer rumors and @Fishy made that clear recently in that thread about Vance. I'm following protocol as much as I dislike it.

So take it with a grain of salt censoring is fluid. This is only the second time I've done post deletions except when someone asked a moderator to delete their posts.
Expand ...

My point is: what exactly is considered speculation? First or second hand knowledge? Only publicly verifiable quotes? Where's the definition of what is allowed and not allowed. Not snark. Again, you are going to be censoring posts in every single recruiting thread if so.
 
intlzncster said:
And that's based on what? Who's the verify-er?
Expand ...
The source is not affiliated with UConn in any capacity, officially or otherwise, and his identity is unknown.

Why is this so hard for you?
 
I have never seen so many butt hurt people in my life as the last few days on here. Everyone relax people can share any info they want it's not a crime
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
The source is not affiliated with UConn in any capacity, officially or otherwise, and his identity is unknown.

Why is this so hard for you?
Expand ...

Show me the definition. I'm cool with it if you can show me the exact rule. I'm not evening being snarky. Rumors are things you start on your own, or make up in your head or heard from people who did the same. But that info was inner circle stuff.

And it's asked in the context of you being far more absolutist than most people on here. Even noted by some of the recruiting heads.

Hey, if it's not allowed as defined by the people who run the site (fishy/tom etc--and not people such as yourself), then fine, I've no problem with that. I've no problem with being wrong either.
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
The source is not affiliated with UConn in any capacity, officially or otherwise, and his identity is unknown.

Why is this so hard for you?
Expand ...

It's no more speculation than anything Chief reports about what he is hearing. Nor is it about anyone transferring, it's about going NBA or not, which is something we have always talked (speculated) openly about. The entire post only talks about exploring the NBA as both Purvis and Brimah did last year, to get information before returning.
 
.-.
intlzncster said:
My point is: what exactly is considered speculation? First or second hand knowledge? Only publicly verifiable quotes? Where's the definition of what is allowed and not allowed. Not snark. Again, you are going to be censoring posts in every single recruiting thread if so.
Expand ...
intlzncster said:
Show me the definition. I'm cool with it if you can show me the exact rule. I'm not evening being snarky. Rumors are things you start on your own, or make up in your head or heard from people who did the same. But that info was inner circle stuff.

And it's asked in the context of you being far more absolutist than most people on here. Even noted by some of the recruiting heads.

Hey, if it's not allowed as defined by the people who run the site (fishy/tom etc--and not people such as yourself), then fine, I've no problem with that. I've no problem with being wrong either.
Expand ...
Check the pinned post at the top of this forum. It's forbidden to speculate about transfers even though the source has veracity.
 
HuskyHawk said:
It's no more speculation than anything Chief reports about what he is hearing. Nor is it about anyone transferring, it's about going NBA or not, which is something we have always talked (speculated) openly about. The entire post only talks about exploring the NBA as both Purvis and Brimah did last year, to get information before returning.
Expand ...

Yup. That's what I'm saying. @fleudslipcon is going to do a whole hell of alot more censoring if that's the definition. There's about 30 posts in the past couple of weeks which need to get pruned.

fleudslipcon said:
Check the pinned post at the top of this forum. It's forbidden to speculate about transfers even though the source has veracity.
Expand ...

Ok fleudy, I'll back down. But you better get deleting pretty quickly then. There's a month or two of stuff to prune. Search chief first.
 
HuskyHawk said:
It's no more speculation than anything Chief reports about what he is hearing. Nor is it about anyone transferring, it's about going NBA or not, which is something we have always talked (speculated) openly about. The entire post only talks about exploring the NBA as both Purvis and Brimah did last year, to get information before returning.
Expand ...
Wrong player.
 
intlzncster said:
Show me the definition. I'm cool with it if you can show me the exact rule. I'm not evening being snarky. Rumors are things you start on your own, or make up in your head or heard from people who did the same. But that info was inner circle stuff.

And it's asked in the context of you being far more absolutist than most people on here. Even noted by some of the recruiting heads.

Hey, if it's not allowed as defined by the people who run the site (fishy/tom etc--and not people such as yourself), then fine, I've no problem with that. I've no problem with being wrong either.
Expand ...
Hey, I was trying to be helpful for the new guy, considering Fishy's pinned post.

And there was a mod who thought the same way I did, apparently.

But you're right, let the site owners take it from here.

I like the no speculation rule.
 
intlzncster said:
Yup. That's what I'm saying. @fleudslipcon is going to do a whole hell of alot more censoring if that's the definition. There's about 30 posts in the past couple of weeks which need to get pruned.
Expand ...
I got one of my posts deleted over the same issue. This is my vendetta against all you dupes and casual fans.
 
intlzncster said:
Yup. That's what I'm saying. @fleudslipcon is going to do a whole hell of alot more censoring if that's the definition. There's about 30 posts in the past couple of weeks which need to get pruned.



Ok fleudy, I'll back down. But you better get deleting pretty quickly then. There's a month or two of stuff to prune. Search chief first.
Expand ...
I have Chief on ignore for that very reason.
 
.-.
Mr. Wonderful said:
Hey, I was trying to be helpful for the new guy, considering Fishy's pinned post.
And there was a mod who thought the same way I did, apparently.
But you're right, let the site owners take it from here.
I like the no speculation rule.
Expand ...

Hey, I'm not being bitchy about it, just curious. I like the rule to an extent, I just don't know exactly where the line is.

And again, I'm happy to be wrong. And support whatever the guys who run this thing say. I'm just a mug.

EDIT: Looks like you were spot on. You too @fleudslipcon h/t
 
Last edited:
The transfer speculation rule isn't new.

It's about 20 years old.

The reason being is that the board is big enough to create its own noise and speculation here can create a story where one might or might not exist. It's easy to envision a scenario where a player has to answer questions based on something that started here.

There's no upside to that, so we just don't do it.
 
I'm really sorry I did not mean to start an argument. The rules are the rules and I broke one of them, so be it. I'll be more careful with what I throw up here in the future. PM if you want updates in the future. Go Huskies!
 
Fishy said:
The transfer speculation rule isn't new. It's about 20 years old.

The reason being is that the board is big enough to create its own noise and speculation here can create a story where one might or might not exist. It's easy to envision a scenario where a player has to answer questions based on something that started here.

There's no upside to that, so we just don't do it.
Expand ...

OK, so no mention of transfer at all unless it's already in the media? I'm cool with the rule. I just want to be clear for the future. Cheers.
 
Storrs South said:
I'm really sorry I did not mean to start an argument. The rules are the rules and I broke one of them, so be it. I'll be more careful with what I throw up here in the future. PM if you want updates in the future. Go Huskies!
Expand ...

No biggie - don't sweat it.
 
intlzncster said:
OK, so no mention of transfer at all unless it's already in the media? I'm cool with the rule. I just want to be clear for the future. Cheers.
Expand ...

Bingo.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,515
Messages
4,579,913
Members
10,489
Latest member
smAAAll


Top Bottom