Ivy League issue?

[Matnum PI]

I'll grant you that lesbian coach isn't a name but does it leave any question about who it is?
Still stands, no flags, no penalties.

Then report it. referees can't see everything. Which is why players and coaches will say, "Hey, Ref. Can you keep an eye on...". If you think it's flag worthy, report it.

Just as a side, I heard the entire Cuse wlax team was at the Empire Haven nudist camp this past summer. Don't know if it was a team function or they all decided to go on their own, but word has it many were surprised by their lewd behavior. Apparently that's a bunch of really loose girls.

Exactly. It's just silly...

[DMac]

Can't see everything, or just close their eyes to everything regardless of how untrue or hurtful?

[Matnum PI]

I don't know. But if you report the post(s), you'll find out.

[Can Opener]

I am part of the "sarcasm syndicate" on this issue and believe we have probably made our point -- there should be some reasonable limits on what content is allowed to be posted. Some critiques of HS or college athletes are probably fine. For example, I don't have a problem with someone writing: "Just watched the State U women's game. Now that they are out of play-off contention, the seniors seem to really be mailing it in." As a former player, parent and coach, I probably wouldn't write that, but I don't have a big problem with those who choose otherwise. On the other hand, there have been significant drug violations at high schools over the years that have affected D1 recruits. In some cases, those involved were 18 or older. I do not think we should publish any hints or innuendos on those matters.

Personally, I think that trashing young women by saying they care more about partying at Toad's than working hard is over the line and should be moderated. Women's lacrosse ain't Alabama football or Duke basketball where the athletes know they are signing up for intense scrutiny. When we used to recruit at a large company where I worked, we asked our youngest team members to scan the social media accounts of the applicants for any obvious red flags before extending offers. Remembering that, I jumped into this discussion to point out the remarkable accomplishments of the Yale seniors to offer a counter weight online to the Toad's stuff. I have zero skin in the game otherwise.

I have now read through the Forum rules and they are silly at best. Just a clumsy attempt to mimic unsportsmanlike conduct fouls in a lacrosse rule book. It is hard to see that Forum getting weaker by someone providing a better definition of what crosses the line. As nomofogo says, let's honor the game!

[Angus]

I am part of the "sarcasm syndicate" on this issue and believe we have probably made our point --

You have? No, I think you can all be even more childish and petulant and shameless if you want. This has been the equivalent of a two-year-old having a temper tantrum, thrashing on the floor because mommy told him he couldn’t have a toy to play with anymore. What a pathetic comment on the state of things if your “sarcasm syndicate” is made up of adults and you’re acting like this because you didn’t get your own way after the administrator ruled on the initial posts.

[Matnum PI]

There have been significant drug violations at high schools over the years that have affected D1 recruits. In some cases, those involved were 18 or older. I do not think we should publish any hints or innuendos on those matters... Personally, I think that trashing young women by saying they care more about partying at Toad's than working hard is over the line and should be moderated. Women's lacrosse ain't Alabama football or Duke basketball where the athletes know they are signing up for intense scrutiny.

As long as names aren't used, I don't see a major issue with discussions of this ilk. But to each their own.

When we used to recruit at a large company where I worked, we asked our youngest team members to scan the social media accounts of the applicants for any obvious red flags before extending offers.

Which is why names not being used matters.

It is hard to see that Forum getting weaker by someone providing a better definition of what crosses the line.

Have a crack. Someone needs to do it...

[Matnum PI]

...because you didn’t get your own way after the administrator ruled on the initial posts.

An Admin who is simply ruling based on the Rules. And, similarly, an Admin who welcomes changes to the rule. I was there before the 2019 season when we discussed speaking poorly of high school players. I don't think anybody liked it. When we discussed speaking poorly of college coaches, people were less bothered. As long as it was lacrosse related. And then college players... It wasn't simple. We weren't sure so we tabled it. This stuff isn't simple. Obviously it's much more simple if we say, Never say anything negative about anybody. But, for a forum, a medium for discussions, this strikes me as overkill.

[DMac]

Can Opener wrote
When we used to recruit at a large company where I worked, we asked our youngest team members to scan the social media accounts of the applicants for any obvious red flags before extending offers.

Was going to mention this quite some time back, am sorry I didn't. Your company certainly isn't the only one that checks social media for red flags on applicants, and this where the danger lies in allowing such stories without any kind of proof. Of course, eventually you realize some sites are just not reliable or trustworthy, but you have to hope that realization comes before it affects you or maybe your daughter.

I am part of the "sarcasm syndicate" on this issue and believe we have probably made our point --

You have? No, I think you can all be even more childish and petulant and shameless if you want. This has been the equivalent of a two-year-old having a temper tantrum, thrashing on the floor because mommy told him he couldn’t have a toy to play with anymore. What a pathetic comment on the state of things if your “sarcasm syndicate” is made up of adults and you’re acting like this because you didn’t get your own way after the administrator ruled on the initial posts.

Told him he couldn't have a toy? Rather sexist, particularly when posting on a wlax thread, no?
Actually, you're wrong. The intent was to show why some sort of censorship is needed, has nothing to do with "not getting your own way." You can see how quickly it goes downhill (maybe that's why LaxPower would delete hearsay stories with no proof of said story) and it will get worse when/if more people come aboard. Guess we made our point though, eh?

[Matnum PI]

Told him he couldn't have a toy? Rather sexist, particularly when posting on a wlax thread, no?

Rather sexist? How's that?

...maybe that's why LaxPower would delete hearsay stories with no proof of said story) and it will get worse when/if more people come aboard. Guess we made our point though, eh?

FanLax Forum is a forum. Social media. People may be fooled by Lacrosse Time Magazine saying nonsense. Or even Joe Bag O'Donuts, Chief Editor of Lacrosse Time Magazine, saying nonsense. But when Dr. Long Stick says nonsense, to believe this is ridiculous. And if a company was to rescind an offer to a young man or woman because of Dr. Long Stick's word, this company should be ridiculed relentlessly.

[Matnum PI]

You're so concerned about these girls... as you post their names.

Where was the sexism above DMac in Angus' post? I have a strong feeling that your calling Angus' post sexist was more sexist than Angus' post.

[DMac]

Suppose I probably should have just provided the link. That's how hard it is to figure out the names, eh?
Still standing too, isn't it?

As for the sexist remark, I'd just figure it should be a she. After all, a she is far more apt to roll on the floor throwing temper tantrums than a he. Some guy who I respect told me that.

[Matnum PI]

Suppose I probably should have just provided the link. That's how hard it is to figure out the names, eh? Still standing too, isn't it?

or you could just stay away from trying to point fingers at specific people. 18-22 year old young women.

As for the sexist remark, I'd just figure it should be a she. After all, a she is far more apt to roll on the floor throwing temper tantrums than a he. Some guy who I respect told me that.

My strong feeling was correct.

[admin]

Edited two posts. Let's not make this personal. "Ivy League issue?" is one question. "Ivy League issue?" and then listing the names of young women, especially based on hearsay, is another.

[DMac]

Suppose I probably should have just provided the link. That's how hard it is to figure out the names, eh? Still standing too, isn't it?

or you could just stay away from trying to point fingers at specific people. 18-22 year old young women.

As for the sexist remark, I'd just figure it should be a she. After all, a she is far more apt to roll on the floor throwing temper tantrums than a he. Some guy who I respect told me that.

My strong feeling was correct.

Spare me your sanctimonious BS, pretty sure I'm the one who has been screaming the loudest about why unfounded slanderous stories about 18-22 year old young women shouldn't be permitted, while you stand and tell us all why it should be.
As for your strong feelings being correct, afraid not. You just can't distinguish between one being an antogonistic smart a*s*s, and one being a sexist.

[admin]

Still standing too, isn't it?

And it would most likely still be standing if someone didn't report it.
#1- People, please report inappropriate content. Especially when it it involves young men and women.
#2- DMac, Based on your post and the follow-up post, it appears that you knew your post was inappropriate and that you posted it as a test to see how long it would take before the Admin removed it. Your post was a problem. Your intent is seemingly worse. In the future, do not do that.
#3- In case it's not already obvious, this is a touchy subject. While it most certainly relates to lacrosse, it also relates to young women and innumerable people who care about these young women. Be respectful.

[DMac]

No, my intent was not worse, my intent was to show that unfounded slanderous stories should not be permitted to be posted.....for all of the reason you list in your post.

Edited two posts. Let's not make this personal. "Ivy League issue?" is one question. "Ivy League issue?" and then listing the names of young women, especially based on hearsay, is another.

Just so I've this part right, it's okay to post unfounded BS stories about, let's say about Yale senior wlaxers, just as long as we don't mention any names. Have I got that right?

[seacoaster]

Boy, talk about a can of worms.....I had no idea how this would go when I posted the original post.

Holy Sh*t. I had a really good local Double IPA yesterday. Hope these Yale kids grab a four pack and relax.

[Angus]

You can see how quickly it goes downhill (maybe that's why LaxPower would delete hearsay stories with no proof of said story) and it will get worse when/if more people come aboard. Guess we made our point though, eh?

You pushed it downhill, or better said, into the gutter. You contrived to provoke this cesspool of exaggeration, even to the point of printing the names of young women you supposedly cared about and were acting as the advocate for. It will only get worse if you and folks like you are allowed to be childish and throw petty temper tantrums whenever you don't get your way here. You made your point alright. Your "contributions" can be poison and toxic and are to be given a wide berth.

[Dr. Tact]

Boy, talk about a can of worms.....I had no idea how this would go when I posted the original post.

Holy Sh*t. I had a really good local Double IPA yesterday. Hope these Yale kids grab a four pack and relax.

Good on ya....I had (gulp) 3....but it was my birthday so, I could stumble at home and not get in too much trouble.

[admin]

Posting "unfounded BS stories" is a nuanced question. There are numerous follow-up questions to be asked. Including, What's your intent in posting it? So is it OK to post unfounded BS stories? The answer is, It depends.

Does every post pass muster as long as you remove the relevant young men's and women's names? No. Leaving out their names doesn't make the post OK. With this said, like in this instance, including the names of young men and women with a less-than-pleasant post most certainly will create a problem.