Jump to content
  • USF Bulls fans join us at The Bulls Pen

    It's simple, free and connects you to other South Florida Bulls fans!

  • Members do not see this ad, Register

  • Men's Basketball
    Great Season Bulls!
    nit3.jpg

    Sun 3/24, 7:30 pm ESPNU

     
      1 2 Final  
    VCU 32 38 70  
    Bulls 30 35 65  
    📻 Listen 📊 Live Stats 📺 ESPNU  
    Prediction Contest - In Game Thread 
    Last:  Romped over UCF 83-77
     
     

cee Finds Refuge at Greg's Blog


Brad

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Admin
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  96,791
  • Reputation:   10,713
  • Days Won:  468
  • Joined:  05/19/2000

...I'm surprised to see people blaming CJL for Erskin's injury (see the response in GA's blog).

It's "cee" the troll that was banned from TheBullsPen.com.  You can disregard his comments as they rarely are sincere and instead only attack USF and anything related.  Like Knight_Light.  Looks like greg's blog is getting overrun with the USF-haters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

  • Group:  Member
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  1,913
  • Reputation:   58
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/12/2004

I can't block somebody just because you guys don't agree with his opinions. I understand you not wanting anti-USF or anti-Leavitt comments on your site. Unless someone is violating the policies we've set for blog comments, I don't want to start flagging posters and blocking IP addresses. If that kind of stuff gets out of hand, it's the kind of thing that makes supervisors get rid of comments altogether, and I don't want that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Admin
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  96,791
  • Reputation:   10,713
  • Days Won:  468
  • Joined:  05/19/2000

That's the same belief I had until I realized I was being played.

It's not that people object to negative comments, it's when you realize you have an unobjective anti-USF troll on your hands that twists everything to a negative slant against USF or specifically Jim Leavitt.

If you choose to allow it to continue, you'll find people (that are truly your readers and target audience) that want no part of it.  cee is there because he was banned here.  Providing him accommodation is your choice though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Member
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  1,913
  • Reputation:   58
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/12/2004

I'm not going to filter opinions. It'd be just as appropriate for me to ban someone for being too pro-USF as it would be to block someone who's anti-USF -- neither is wrong. The comments have certainly picked up on the blog in the past month, and I understand that not all of them are in line with what you guys believe. I'd like to think people generally want to post comments in response to stories and news and not as much other people's incendiary posts. As I've said on the posts, if you find something in violation of our blog comment policies, let me know and I'll address it ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Member
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  1,757
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/12/2005

Cee is an "energy feeder"  don't give him any response and he'll lose interest eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Admin
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  96,791
  • Reputation:   10,713
  • Days Won:  468
  • Joined:  05/19/2000

I'm not going to filter opinions. It'd be just as appropriate for me to ban someone for being too pro-USF as it would be to block someone who's anti-USF -- neither is wrong. The comments have certainly picked up on the blog in the past month, and I understand that not all of them are in line with what you guys believe. I'd like to think people generally want to post comments in response to stories and news and not as much other people's incendiary posts. As I've said on the posts, if you find something in violation of our blog comment policies, let me know and I'll address it ...

If it is all about traffic and not the integrity of the participants or the value of the discussion, you're all set.  You're dealing with comments soaked in untruths resting on the edge of slander.

You are wrong to believe that it is an issue of being anti-USF or pro-USF.  It's not a matter of being in-line with what "we think".  That's a very simplistic thought and you can do better than that.

It's an issue of whether someone is purposely trying to defame USF and/or its programs/coaches.  When the intent is not to discuss, but to deceive and to harm, it's a whole different ball game.

I think if a poster can post things like this (unchallenged):

"it is a shame leavitt has to run such a high risk practice.. he is putting a lot of kids' health at risk and he is ruining their college careers by getting them hurt."

it is a very powerful indictment against Jim Leavitt and USF.  You call it an opinion.  Without any proof that Jim Leavitt runs a "high risk" practice and is "ruining college careers" you set a dangerous precedent for your posters.  One the SPT attorneys probably don't want to deal with.  At what point does one's opinion become slander? 

slander (n.) :

1)

an abusive attack on a person's character or good name

2)

words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another

Comment policy #1 at your site:  "Please be sure your comments are appropriate before submitting them. Inappropriate comments include content that: "Is defamatory or libelous""

defamatory (adj.) :

1)

(used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

libelous (adj.) :

1)

(used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

Perhaps you can clarify for me why the statements quoted above do not reach or approach the SPT policy?  Is the intent of the poster to save college kids from Jim Leavitt?  Is it good will?  Or is to malign Jim Leavitt?  None of the above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Member
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  1,913
  • Reputation:   58
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/12/2004

That comment does seem to cross a line, yes. I'll try to address it later today. Again, asking to have a comment removed and asking to have a poster blocked are two entirely different courses of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Member
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  10,874
  • Reputation:   4
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  05/01/2003

I can't block somebody just because you guys don't agree with his opinions. I understand you not wanting anti-USF or anti-Leavitt comments on your site. Unless someone is violating the policies we've set for blog comments, I don't want to start flagging posters and blocking IP addresses. If that kind of stuff gets out of hand, it's the kind of thing that makes supervisors get rid of comments altogether, and I don't want that to happen.

Greg,

I don't believe that this is a situation where people don't want "anti-USF or anti-Leavitt comments", it is a situation where people don't want UNWARRANTED attacks.  If this were a situation where negative posts were occurring that were simply reflective of someone whose opinion differs from the group, it would be a different story.  Instead, we're talking about someone whose sole goal is to spread ill will through whatever means necessary, including the use of of false accusations, slanderous statements, and outright lies.

Ultimately, you need to decide as the operator of a message board whether or not you will allow such UNWARRANTED attacks that use false accusations, slanderous statements, and outright lies to continue.  the big question is whether such a decision will be made before or after traffic declines on your site because we tire of seeing such posts being allowed to flourish.

Respectfully,

USFMikeB

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Admin
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  96,791
  • Reputation:   10,713
  • Days Won:  468
  • Joined:  05/19/2000

That comment does seem to cross a line, yes. I'll try to address it later today. Again, asking to have a comment removed and asking to have a poster blocked are two entirely different courses of action.

Right...

Nice fine line.

And you know, it's not his first time doing such on your blog.

You know as well as I know that those comments get picked up in Google and circulate around the internet and can create some real issues for USF and for the St. Pete Times.

Greg, I appreciate what you do.  But never should you sacrifice integrity for traffic. 

Handle it how you will, but please, handle it.  If you are not going to approve posts before releasing them to the public, then a block may be in order.  Honestly I don't care how you handle it, but something is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Member
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Content Count:  1,913
  • Reputation:   58
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/12/2004

I think most of the comments in question are comparably harmless. Questioning recruiting success is fair game; alleging putting players in physical danger, not so much so. Again, I'll try to address comments on an individual basis. Calling someone who's not a public entity like a coach a "troll" in a comment, for instance, would seem to be inappropriate, regardless of that person's previous actions. (I mean no offense to actual trolls in conceding this).

Just as a favor, I'd just as soon deal with these questions via e-mail in a less public manner. If I were posting comments trying to rile up fans of a certain school -- and I'm not saying anybody's doing that -- this kind of thread would be a dream come true and would only inspire more of that kind of activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.  Registration is free and reduces ads.