LaxPower Back-Up Stick

I'm calling them derogatory posts. Others could use a different adjective. Either way, there are umpteen posts within our forum that do not speak kindly of a specific AD, coach, player, or otherwise. Over the years, we've received several e-mails from coaches and otherwise claiming the posts are lies, defaming an individual and/or program, and need to be deleted immediately. And, in every case, we've replied by saying that we do not delete posts and that we suggest that they reply to the post with the truth. Though this has happened several times over the course of many years, for whatever reason, we've never spoken to this. Now we are. If, for no other reason, so forum post-ers can chime in with their perspectives on this issue.

I'm a firm believer in "The truth will out". If two conflicting opinions about a person/program/whatever are written, it's usually clear which poster is coming with the truth and which one has an untruthful agenda. We see it on the politics boards all the time. I appreciate that Fanlax doesn't delete posts and that you allow adults to interact as they do--like out in the real world, where every interaction isn't always pleasant. You've got the rules and guidelines in place. As long as there are no legal concerns, I think things are fine the way they are.

It's a thorny topic, for sure.

On the one hand, we should not encourage the use of this largely anonymous forum to actually hurt people with mistruths.

On the other, serious issues deserve serious discussion and reliance solely on public press has repeatedly proven insufficient across many sports. Much of the media's financial bias in our sport is to the promotion of the popularity of the game and its 'adults' and players, not critique. There are actual important issues that deserve discussion and forum members include those with particular insights to share as well as opinions.

And it's impossible to expect moderators to know what is fully true and what is fully false.

LaxPower took a very different tack, and seemed to protect particular lax community members from tough non-public press critique...and not others. It very much had the feel of moderator bias, a who you like and drink beer with kind of bias. I think that was detrimental to why people of good will participate in a forum like this.

When this forum was created, prospective forum members were asked to weigh in and we specifically discussed the issue and opted for much more openness to tough critique, with full discussion. Point, counterpoint. And not limited to X's and O's.

The moderator has the mandate to restrict personal attacks by forum members at each other and to restrict actual trolling, clearly intentional misinformation designed to inflame.

In the latter aspect, trolling behavior becomes apparent by repeated inflammatory acts. It's not that it never happens, but it gets restrained through feedback and escalating penalties.

Otherwise, "adults" do have the opportunity to challenge one another's posts and it indeed usually becomes clear when someone is shading truth or outright lying.

I'd rather see those disagreements than not. There are legitimate differences of opinion, based on differing perspectives, experiences and personal insights. The more that these are shared openly the easier it is to discern what's actually happening.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 12:42 pm It's a thorny topic, for sure.

On the one hand, we should not encourage the use of this largely anonymous forum to actually hurt people with mistruths.

On the other, serious issues deserve serious discussion and reliance solely on public press has repeatedly proven insufficient across many sports. Much of the media's financial bias in our sport is to the promotion of the popularity of the game and its 'adults' and players, not critique. There are actual important issues that deserve discussion and forum members include those with particular insights to share as well as opinions.

And it's impossible to expect moderators to know what is fully true and what is fully false.

LaxPower took a very different tack, and seemed to protect particular lax community members from tough non-public press critique...and not others. It very much had the feel of moderator bias, a who you like and drink beer with kind of bias. I think that was detrimental to why people of good will participate in a forum like this.

When this forum was created, prospective forum members were asked to weigh in and we specifically discussed the issue and opted for much more openness to tough critique, with full discussion. Point, counterpoint. And not limited to X's and O's.

The moderator has the mandate to restrict personal attacks by forum members at each other and to restrict actual trolling, clearly intentional misinformation designed to inflame.

In the latter aspect, trolling behavior becomes apparent by repeated inflammatory acts. It's not that it never happens, but it gets restrained through feedback and escalating penalties.

Otherwise, "adults" do have the opportunity to challenge one another's posts and it indeed usually becomes clear when someone is shading truth or outright lying.

I'd rather see those disagreements than not. There are legitimate differences of opinion, based on differing perspectives, experiences and personal insights. The more that these are shared openly the easier it is to discern what's actually happening.

Tough job. Thanks for doing it and providing this forum.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 8:36 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 12:42 pm It's a thorny topic, for sure.

On the one hand, we should not encourage the use of this largely anonymous forum to actually hurt people with mistruths.

On the other, serious issues deserve serious discussion and reliance solely on public press has repeatedly proven insufficient across many sports. Much of the media's financial bias in our sport is to the promotion of the popularity of the game and its 'adults' and players, not critique. There are actual important issues that deserve discussion and forum members include those with particular insights to share as well as opinions.

And it's impossible to expect moderators to know what is fully true and what is fully false.

LaxPower took a very different tack, and seemed to protect particular lax community members from tough non-public press critique...and not others. It very much had the feel of moderator bias, a who you like and drink beer with kind of bias. I think that was detrimental to why people of good will participate in a forum like this.

When this forum was created, prospective forum members were asked to weigh in and we specifically discussed the issue and opted for much more openness to tough critique, with full discussion. Point, counterpoint. And not limited to X's and O's.

The moderator has the mandate to restrict personal attacks by forum members at each other and to restrict actual trolling, clearly intentional misinformation designed to inflame.

In the latter aspect, trolling behavior becomes apparent by repeated inflammatory acts. It's not that it never happens, but it gets restrained through feedback and escalating penalties.

Otherwise, "adults" do have the opportunity to challenge one another's posts and it indeed usually becomes clear when someone is shading truth or outright lying.

I'd rather see those disagreements than not. There are legitimate differences of opinion, based on differing perspectives, experiences and personal insights. The more that these are shared openly the easier it is to discern what's actually happening.

Tough job. Thanks for doing it and providing this forum.

Agreed, thanks to those who provide the opportunity and thanks also to the participants who keep it informative and lively, and help with civility.

More participants wanted!

To bring this to life, it's not uncommon for us to get messages, e-mails from people saying, There's a post that isn't true! And, on more than one occasion we've received messages, e-mails from coaches, on more than one occasion from head coaches of prominent programs saying, There's a post that isn't true! Nine out of ten times, the post is deriding the coach for being abusive incompetent, nefarious in some way, etc. And the coach contacts us directly and says, These posts need to be deleted! We've been around for a bunch of years/seasons and we've yet to delete a post. We've edited posts to remove profanity or whatever. But we've never markedly changed a post let a lone deleted one. So we don't take the coach's request lightly. Our standard reply is to suggest that they post a reply to the post. (We also sometimes ignore the message and/or e-mail. Sometimes it just seems best to not engage. Just being candid.) Anyway, nothing currently urgent. But it does come up so I wanted to make sure to recognize this reality. For the record, once I got on the phone with a head coach. I didn't regret it but it does seem to be best to not engage too deeply with post-ers and people who don't like certain post-ers offline.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 10:41 am To bring this to life, it's not uncommon for us to get messages, e-mails from people saying, There's a post that isn't true! And, on more than one occasion we've received messages, e-mails from coaches, on more than one occasion from head coaches of prominent programs saying, There's a post that isn't true! Nine out of ten times, the post is deriding the coach for being abusive incompetent, nefarious in some way, etc. And the coach contacts us directly and says, These posts need to be deleted! We've been around for a bunch of years/seasons and we've yet to delete a post. We've edited posts to remove profanity or whatever. But we've never markedly changed a post let a lone deleted one. So we don't take the coach's request lightly. Our standard reply is to suggest that they post a reply to the post. (We also sometimes ignore the message and/or e-mail. Sometimes it just seems best to not engage. Just being candid.) Anyway, nothing currently urgent. But it does come up so I wanted to make sure to recognize this reality. For the record, once I got on the phone with a head coach. I didn't regret it but it does seem to be best to not engage too deeply with post-ers and people who don't like certain post-ers offline.

Sure hope you have good legal counsel.

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 3:15 pm Sure hope you have good legal counsel.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 10:41 am To bring this to life, it's not uncommon for us to get messages, e-mails from people saying, There's a post that isn't true! And, on more than one occasion we've received messages, e-mails from coaches, on more than one occasion from head coaches of prominent programs saying, There's a post that isn't true! Nine out of ten times, the post is deriding the coach for being abusive incompetent, nefarious in some way, etc. And the coach contacts us directly and says, These posts need to be deleted! We've been around for a bunch of years/seasons and we've yet to delete a post. We've edited posts to remove profanity or whatever. But we've never markedly changed a post let a lone deleted one. So we don't take the coach's request lightly. Our standard reply is to suggest that they post a reply to the post. (We also sometimes ignore the message and/or e-mail. Sometimes it just seems best to not engage. Just being candid.) Anyway, nothing currently urgent. But it does come up so I wanted to make sure to recognize this reality. For the record, once I got on the phone with a head coach. I didn't regret it but it does seem to be best to not engage too deeply with post-ers and people who don't like certain post-ers offline.

So, the "forum" accepts the idea that a poster can post what he/she wants about a player or coach and that is ok. A post is such as this is probably seen as a direct personal attack to the individual being spoken about. Now, if a poster gets his/her panties in a wad regarding a post that is seen as a personal "attack" on them the admin will step in? Interesting.

Bart wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:12 am So, the "forum" accepts the idea that a poster can post what he/she wants about a player or coach and that is ok... personal "attack" on them the admin will step in...

Correct. This is a forum for discussions. Discussions about teams, players, coaches, sticks, helmets, etc. Everything and anything about lacrosse (and politics and other stuff, too). Discussions about the people who are discussing lacrosse is substantially of less interest to us.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 8:01 am

Bart wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:12 am So, the "forum" accepts the idea that a poster can post what he/she wants about a player or coach and that is ok... personal "attack" on them the admin will step in...

Correct. This is a forum for discussions. Discussions about teams, players, coaches, sticks, helmets, etc. Everything and anything about lacrosse (and politics and other stuff, too). Discussions about the people who are discussing lacrosse is substantially of less interest to us.

sometimes you just have to call an a-hole an a-hole.

Where is it written that disagreements of opinion must necessarily descend into personal insults? Wasn't that all covered back when we carried our Speed Racer lunch boxes to grade school?

Bart wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 8:38 am

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 8:01 am

Bart wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:12 am So, the "forum" accepts the idea that a poster can post what he/she wants about a player or coach and that is ok... personal "attack" on them the admin will step in...

Correct. This is a forum for discussions. Discussions about teams, players, coaches, sticks, helmets, etc. Everything and anything about lacrosse (and politics and other stuff, too). Discussions about the people who are discussing lacrosse is substantially of less interest to us.

sometimes you just have to call an a-hole an a-hole.

And sometimes that might be a coach, right?

Seriously, who in the sport or in politics or in education or... should be entirely off limits to critique?
If a critique seems not based in more than hyperbole, it tends to fall flat on its own lack of substance.

Surely, if a critique is blatantly meritless, other participants will say so.
If something is factually incorrect, other participants are free to refute.

And the 'public figures' (and yes, coaches are public figures) can participate directly, though probably wiser to simply avoid unless a purely factual statement has not been addressed. But a back and forth with a poster could never reflect well on the public figure. Others will likely carry that water just fine if the critique is meritless, and perhaps even if it's not.

But what we are generally talking about here are critiques that have some basis to have formed an opinion that is being expressed. Reasonable people may disagree, others may not have much basis to agree or disagree.

How that critique is made can certainly violate the rules of the forum, ala the trolling rule. And how posters interact with one another can violate the main 'unsportsmanlike conduct' rule, but the forum isn't intended as a puffery site for the sport or any specific people, right?

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 10:56 pm I'm calling them derogatory posts. Others could use a different adjective. Either way, there are umpteen posts within our forum that do not speak kindly of a specific AD, coach, player, or otherwise. Over the years, we've received several e-mails from coaches and otherwise claiming the posts are lies, defaming an individual and/or program, and need to be deleted immediately. And, in every case, we've replied by saying that we do not delete posts and that we suggest that they reply to the post with the truth. Though this has happened several times over the course of many years, for whatever reason, we've never spoken to this. Now we are. If, for no other reason, so forum post-ers can chime in with their perspectives on this issue.

Asking for things to be removed is highly preoblematic by people unwilling to put themselves out there. Reeks of hiding the truth. Don't go that path please, please.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 8:42 am Don't go that path please, please.

no plans to...

Found this interesting:

"... a lawsuit between two companies you might recognize: Stratton Oakmont and Prodigy. The former is featured in The Wolf of Wall Street, and the latter was a pioneer of the early internet. But in 1994, Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy for defamation after an anonymous user claimed on a Prodigy bulletin board that the financial company’s president engaged in fraudulent acts. The court ruled in Stratton Oakmont’s favor, saying that because Prodigy moderated posts on its forums, it exercised editorial control that made it just as liable for the speech on its platform as the people who actually made that speech. Meanwhile, Prodigy’s rival online service, Compuserve, was found not liable for a user’s speech in an earlier case because Compuserve didn’t moderate content."

We don't moderate our content. We have Rules/Guidelines and we have penalties for users who do not follow these Rules/Guidelines. But we don't moderate. We've never edited nor deleted a post (to the best of my knowledge). Post-ers can edit and/or delete their posts. But FanLax does not and has not.

Since this Prodigy case, the internet has become more Prodigy-friendly, not the opposite. Today, the Facebooks of the world can moderate their users' content and still not be responsible for what is posted. In a word, the critical law (Section 230) says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It bears mentioning that Sex Traffickers and Terrorists that benefit from Facebook and YouTube are getting some traction due to the severity of the crimes committed. But, though some may argue, I don't think this is relevant to FanLax's post-ers who are sharing salacious information that is purportedly untrue. Especially when the purported victims of these posts have full and complete access to the thread and fully have the ability to share their retort.

There's more as the Trumps of the world bristle at platforms that tag his posts as inaccurate (e.g. Covid) etc. but I found what I posted above the most interesting.

'Course, Stratton Oakmont was hard up for cash at that point and Prodigy was on a downward trajectory, since Netscape showed you didn't need an expensive online service to connect to the web.