Creating false scenarios (Don't do it)

[HuskyNan]

As is our wont, the "Geno being sued" thread has wandered down paths based on facts not in evidence, as the barristers would say. A few people have ascribed the most dastardly of motivations to Ms. Hardwick and have written scripts with their imaginings of events to portray her a horrible, money-grubbing person. These may or may not be true, I don't know, but more to the point is that you folks most likely don't know either.

Do we want the Boneyard to become like Other Places that attempt to maul peoples' reputations in order to make ourselves feel better about the situation? I don't think so. Besides, the tissue paper the lawsuit is written on is flimsy enough that we can have lots of fun with the facts that are in evidence.

In addition to suing Auriemma, she claims she's a victim of the "corporate culture of gender discrimination," which has prevented her from being promoted during her career. Hardwick's career with NBA security began in November 2002 as a senior security manager, but she had difficulty attaining a better job or being compensated for additional league work.

Geez, really?

 

[Icebear]

Nan, it might help if you were to give an example of a scenario vs what is simply people noting issues they see within the case.

Ex. I noted based on the filings that she had had an extended list of conflicts with the NBA over job title and compensation. I do not consider that a scenario but rather observation of facts found in the filing.

 

[HuskyNan]

I'm talking about things like, "She probably asked him to come up to her room and he turned her down so she's retaliating".

 

[Icebear]

Thanks, Nan. I thought so, but thought that it would, also, help to make it clear.

 

[willtalk]

What people conjecture at this stage of the game won't really have much of an impact on the final result. That still remains to be seen. But the comments that are posted speak to the objectivity of the posters on the Boneyard. I have always thought that in general the objectivity of the Boneyarders was relatively high. But this issue should be a real test. A real test of objectivity is when an issue might potentially have a major impact on the commentator..

 

[diggerfoot]

I have to say, HuskyNan, this is what I've always admired about you and the other mods. There may be some slight cultural differences that account for how different fanbases behave on different boards, but people/fans have more similarities than differences. Fans are basically irrational, myself included. There are certain other moderators that actually nurture that irrationality. The Boneyard mods are exemplary in their efforts to control that. We get a lot of compliments from visitors, but I don't think our fanbase is naturally better, any more than other fanbases are naturally bad. We appear better because of our moderators.

Did I suck up enough with that post?

 

[pinotbear]

Yup, that oughta do it...

 

[Icebear]

I have to say, HuskyNan, this is what I've always admired about you and the other mods. There may be some slight cultural differences that account for how different fanbases behave on different boards, but people/fans have more similarities than differences. Fans are basically irrational, myself included. There are certain other moderators that actually nurture that irrationality. The Boneyard mods are exemplary in their efforts to control that. We get a lot of compliments from visitors, but I don't think our fanbase is naturally better, any more than other fanbases are naturally bad. We appear better because of our moderators.

Did I suck up enough with that post?

Still doing that "be kind" thing, I see.

 

[willtalk]

------------------------------------------------------------Fans are basically irrational, myself included. There are certain other moderators that actually nurture that irrationality. The Boneyard mods are exemplary in their efforts to control that. We get a lot of compliments from visitors, but I don't think our fanbase is naturally better, any more than other fanbases are naturally bad. We appear better because of our moderators.

Did I suck up enough with that post?

Yes we all have emotional bias, but objectivity need not be lost if we recognize we have them. Yes props to the Mods, but I also noticed that Boneyarders often correct their own rather than remain silent or blindly support them against " visitors" when those other Boneyarders appear irrational. A larger percentage seems to be more tolorant of constructive criticism and being less apt to take every comment as a personal attack

But then it's also easier to be gracious when you are winning or sitting in the "Cat Birds Seat" which is were UConn WB has been and appears to be now and also destined for in the future. Thats why I mentioned that this issue would be a good test for the Boneyarders.

I visited the Summit early this morning and their Mods seem to have put out a warning that on this issue their posters should stick within the facts of the suite and not use this issue as a vehical to vent their personal dislike of Geno. So in this case some props might also be in order for them.

 

[diggerfoot]

Yes we all have emotional bias, but objectivity need not be lost if we recognize we have them. Yes props to the Mods, but I also noticed that Boneyarders often correct their own rather than remain silent or blindly support them against " visitors" when those other Boneyarders appear irrational. A larger percentage seems to be more tolorant of constructive criticism and being less apt to take every comment as a personal attack

But then it's also easier to be gracious when you are winning or sitting in the "Cat Birds Seat" which is were UConn WB has been and appears to be now and also destined for in the future. Thats why I mentioned that this issue would be a good test for the Boneyarders.

I visited the Summit early this morning and their Mods seem to have put out a warning that on this issue their posters should stick within the facts of the suite and not use this issue as a vehical to vent their personal dislike of Geno. So in this case some props might also be in order for them.

You bring up two great points I did not consider in my post. Winning on the one hand makes it easy to be in a good mood, though it also leads to being smug for some. However, I happen to think more humble expectations breeds more social behavior. I've been lurking or posting on the Boneyard since the mid-nineties, which I view as the most social, good-spirited era of this forum. Once we won a few championships a new type of fan appeared, one that does not cater well to not winning, as you note. But things have not always been all championships and good times since 1999/2000 (yes, I realize the first women's championship was 1995, but I think the new millennium is when we saw a distinct change in poster roster and behavior). In fact, I suggest your "test" already has occurred several times, particularly on the Mens board but also on here.

I also stand corrected if other moderators on other boards are now behaving like our moderators. Good for them! The one point I will disagree with is that our fan base as a whole is naturally predispositioned to moderate ourselves more than fans elsewhere. The moderators set the tone and that tone then becomes a selective environment, a la cultural evolution. If we had obnoxious moderators we would have greater participation by obnoxious posters, less so by reasonable ones.

Man, I'm really sucking up here; I'm wondering what kind of perks this can get me on the forum? (so much for kindness ).

 

[rjp172]

As is our wont, the "Geno being sued" thread has wandered down paths based on facts not in evidence, as the barristers would say. A few people have ascribed the most dastardly of motivations to Ms. Hardwick and have written scripts with their imaginings of events to portray her a horrible, money-grubbing person. These may or may not be true, I don't know, but more to the point is that you folks most likely don't know either.

Do we want the Boneyard to become like Other Places that attempt to maul peoples' reputations in order to make ourselves feel better about the situation? I don't think so. Besides, the tissue paper the lawsuit is written on is flimsy enough that we can have lots of fun with the facts that are in evidence.



Geez, really?

Actually, there are currently civil suits against the NBA citing the same allegation of institutional sexism. Some of which are by men who feel they were retaliated against by reporting abuse to their female employees. There have been recent "retirements" by high level officials after allegations of abuse and settlements for sexual harassment. Nothing to do with this specific case whatsoever, but there is plenty of evidence that there is at least an element of the NBA organization that is a "boys club".

 

[UConner]

I have to say, HuskyNan, this is what I've always admired about you and the other mods. There may be some slight cultural differences that account for how different fanbases behave on different boards, but people/fans have more similarities than differences. Fans are basically irrational, myself included. There are certain other moderators that actually nurture that irrationality. The Boneyard mods are exemplary in their efforts to control that. We get a lot of compliments from visitors, but I don't think our fanbase is naturally better, any more than other fanbases are naturally bad. We appear better because of our moderators.

Did I suck up enough with that post?

Clearly sucking up for an assistant mod job...

 

[HuskyNan]

Actually, there are currently civil suits against the NBA citing the same allegation of institutional sexism. Some of which are by men who feel they were retaliated against by reporting abuse to their female employees. There have been recent "retirements" by high level officials after allegations of abuse and settlements for sexual harassment. Nothing to do with this specific case whatsoever, but there is plenty of evidence that there is at least an element of the NBA organization that is a "boys club".

As we've recently found out, it's the same law firm in both suits.

 

[UConnCat]

As we've recently found out, it's the same law firm in both suits.

As I mentioned in another thread, there are many familiar names in both suits. Glover (the former NBA exec who is plaintiff in the other pending suit brought by the Newman firm) is suing the NBA and three individual executives (Tolbert, Cawley and Robinson) who are all mentioned in the suit against Geno. None of those individuals, however, are named defendants in the suit against Geno although the complaint asserts facts that would seem to support their being named as individual defendants (e.g., Tolbert allegedly erased and rewrote Hardwick's evaluations; Robinson did not object to the altered evaluations; Tolbert (and others) were told about the incident in Russia and did nothing; Cawley carried out the reassignment despite knowing about the reasons according to plaintiff). Tolbert resigned from the NBA and reportedly was accused of sexual harassment in a suit/complaint that ultimately settled. There are so, so many questions...