Rutgers - Game Thread

Quote from: boo3 on March 04, 2012, 07:39:31 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on March 04, 2012, 06:17:30 PM

Quote from: Dan on March 04, 2012, 05:57:11 PM

While I disagreed with Lapchick1 this is the same kind of stuff that occurred when everyone was rah rah about Norm Roberts.  This time most of these rm.com'ers won't look foolish since Lavin is a good coach, but keep in mind many of these homers that put down others and their opinions were celebrating the failure of Roberts.

I don't see what Lapchick did wrong.

 Please tell me your joking....

What had he done differently than what has been done the past few years? Posters have been complaining about the players,staff, the AD, a priest and where the program is going since ii can't remember.

So you concede that posters aren't banned just for being negative.  Some people are over the top.  Old Red (one of his many monickers) was over the top in support of the program.  You have to recognize the difference between Lapchick1 and Illwills posts versus others who are critical of the coaching staff.

Quote from: Marco Baldi on March 04, 2012, 09:15:04 PM

Quote from: boo3 on March 04, 2012, 07:39:31 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on March 04, 2012, 06:17:30 PM

Quote from: Dan on March 04, 2012, 05:57:11 PM

While I disagreed with Lapchick1 this is the same kind of stuff that occurred when everyone was rah rah about Norm Roberts.  This time most of these rm.com'ers won't look foolish since Lavin is a good coach, but keep in mind many of these homers that put down others and their opinions were celebrating the failure of Roberts.

I don't see what Lapchick did wrong.

 Please tell me your joking....

What had he done differently than what has been done the past few years? Posters have been complaining about the players,staff, the AD, a priest and where the program is going since ii can't remember.

So you concede that posters aren't banned just for being negative.  Some people are over the top.  Old Red (one of his many monickers) was over the top in support of the program.  You have to recognize the difference between Lapchick1 and Illwills posts versus others who are critical of the coaching staff.

How many times did we hear how much the previous staff sucked? Years worth of repetition. Was that good  for the program?

Some of those posters went too far as well.

The site is private.  Dave can do whatever he chooses.  I commend him for staying on top of issues like this.

This site is the 6th man of St.John's basketball. To me, that means that objectivity isn't its definition. That's fine, but I don't think it's fair to call out anyone who complains about a 13-19 season. No matter what the circumstance.

Quote from: Moose on March 04, 2012, 06:32:12 PM

The site is private.  Dave can do whatever he chooses.  I commend him for staying on top of issues like this.

This site is the 6th man of St.John's basketball. To me, that means that objectivity isn't its definition. That's fine, but I don't think it's fair to call out anyone who complains about a 13-19 season. No matter what the circumstance.

Free speech doesn't apply on a private site though.  The other site has rules that are posted.  I'm sure Dave has some rules here somewhere.  And I'm sure that Lapchick1, illWill and whoever else have violated them.  And whether Dave and the mods give someone 1 strike, 2 strikes or 88 strikes its their call.

Thank Dave, the guy brought nothing to the board.

Quote from: Poison on March 04, 2012, 09:27:11 PM

Quote from: Moose on March 04, 2012, 06:32:12 PM

The site is private.  Dave can do whatever he chooses.  I commend him for staying on top of issues like this.

This site is the 6th man of St.John's basketball. To me, that means that objectivity isn't its definition. That's fine, but I don't think it's fair to call out anyone who complains about a 13-19 season. No matter what the circumstance.

Free speech doesn't apply on a private site though.  The other site has rules that are posted.  I'm sure Dave has some rules here somewhere.  And I'm sure that Lapchick1, illWill and whoever else have violated them.  And whether Dave and the
mods give someone 1 strike, 2 strikes or 88 strikes its their call.

I fully understand that a private site doesn't have to provide free speech. Nor should it, but that doesn't make this Lapchick guy wrong for coming down on our program. He's entitled to his opinion. We finished at 6-12. Maybe we'll turn it around next year. I personally like our chances to do that.

However, I do see some of his points. He, like me, has seen this movie before. SJ posted on Twitter that this season was the first time since Lopez/Hamilton in 1995 that two SJ's players made all rookie team. The next season isn't guaranteed. Dave can ban whomever he chooses, but let's not ignore all objectivity. It compromises all of our knowledge of the game.

Quote from: Moose on March 04, 2012, 09:31:10 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 04, 2012, 09:27:11 PM

Quote from: Moose on March 04, 2012, 06:32:12 PM

The site is private.  Dave can do whatever he chooses.  I commend him for staying on top of issues like this.

This site is the 6th man of St.John's basketball. To me, that means that objectivity isn't its definition. That's fine, but I don't think it's fair to call out anyone who complains about a 13-19 season. No matter what the circumstance.

Free speech doesn't apply on a private site though.  The other site has rules that are posted.  I'm sure Dave has some rules here somewhere.  And I'm sure that Lapchick1, illWill and whoever else have violated them.  And whether Dave and the
mods give someone 1 strike, 2 strikes or 88 strikes its their call.

I fully understand that a private site doesn't have to provide free speech. Nor should it, but that doesn't make this Lapchick guy wrong for coming down on our program. He's entitled to his opinion. We finished at 6-12. Maybe we'll turn it around next year. I personally like our chances to do that.

However, I do see some of his points. He, like me, has seen this movie before. SJ posted on Twitter that this season was the first time since Lopez/Hamilton in 1995 that two SJ's players made all rookie team. The next season isn't guaranteed. Dave can ban whomever he chooses, but let's not ignore all objectivity. It compromises all of our knowledge of the game.

I think he made some valid points as well.  Its too bad he had no common sense and clouded 80% of his posts with crap surrounding those valid points.  And using those valid points to blame everything from our record to peace in the Middle East.

He would make a thread unreadable.  Thank God he's gone.

Dave -- congrats for giving Lapchick1 the boot.  I support the decision entirely.

You're the only person who ever has an issue when someone gets the boot.

I also don't like it when peoples views get censored.  I fully recognize that it's your ballfield and you may do as you wish.  However,  if I had my druthers, free speech of any kind, yes even the annoyingly contrarian kind,  would be permitted and protected.

Quote from: Dave on March 04, 2012, 06:29:48 PM

You're the only person who ever has an issue when someone gets the boot.

I also don't like it when peoples views get censored.  I fully recognize that it's your ballfield and you may do as you wish.  However,  if I had my druthers, free speech of any kind, yes even the annoyingly contrarian kind,  would be permitted and protected.

Funny thing about free speech is that it isn't really free.  This is Dave's site; he's has put the time, effort and money into establishing, maintaining and improving it.  We all  reap the benefits of Dave's labor by having these boards to vent our views on SJU BB and other topics, but our ability to post is at Dave's discretion.  So far, I like how Dave has exercised his discretion in policing this website.  If I didn't, I could find another board, or even create my own website, where I could spew whatever I wanted about SJU with impunity.       

Quote from: Dave on March 04, 2012, 06:29:48 PM

You're the only person who ever has an issue when someone gets the boot.

I also don't like it when peoples views get censored.  I fully recognize that it's your ballfield and you may do as you wish.  However,  if I had my druthers, free speech of any kind, yes even the annoyingly contrarian kind,  would be permitted and protected.

Sometimes have to make decisions for the greater good. I really don't censor anyone's "views". They can have whatever opinion they'd like but theres a difference in stating your opinion and intentionally causing mass uproar habitually.

At the end of the day not one poster makes or ruins this community. I really value making and maintaining this place to be the best possible destination for St. John's basketball fans.

Quote from: simplyred on March 04, 2012, 09:21:40 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on March 04, 2012, 09:15:04 PM

Quote from: boo3 on March 04, 2012, 07:39:31 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on March 04, 2012, 06:17:30 PM

Quote from: Dan on March 04, 2012, 05:57:11 PM

While I disagreed with Lapchick1 this is the same kind of stuff that occurred when everyone was rah rah about Norm Roberts.  This time most of these rm.com'ers won't look foolish since Lavin is a good coach, but keep in mind many of these homers that put down others and their opinions were celebrating the failure of Roberts.

I don't see what Lapchick did wrong.

 Please tell me your joking....

What had he done differently than what has been done the past few years? Posters have been complaining about the players,staff, the AD, a priest and where the program is going since ii can't remember.

So you concede that posters aren't banned just for being negative.  Some people are over the top.  Old Red (one of his many monickers) was over the top in support of the program.  You have to recognize the difference between Lapchick1 and Illwills posts versus others who are critical of the coaching staff.

How many times did we hear how much the previous staff sucked? Years worth of repetition. Was that good  for the program?

I might have to revive BEB again just so you have a place to vent and rile up people. You used to get that all out there and come here to just talk about hoops. Lapchick aka Buki did all that stuff there not here. I gave him a chance here but he wore out his welcome fast.

As for years past, JJ was always a place that saw both viewpoints. Supported the current staff complimenting their accomplishments as well as criticizing their faults fairly and justly. If anything JJ had a rep for being too positive during those days by some and you were conductor of the Norm bandwagon. So I don't get why you always have to go against the grain? You're a good dude, a friend, but its hard to defend you lately.

This is not a free speech or censorship issue.  Its about standards.  Anytime someone really badmouths SJU, and repeatedly, they don't deserve to be part of the 6th man.  Think of it as membership revoked.  If you had a buddy who just ripped on your wife all the time would you stand up for his free speech?  If you heard someone rip on your kid for being a loser would you stand up for their contrarian views?  Why do you think SJU doesn't let any Tom, Dick & Harry speak on campus even though people have lots of different opinions and many are contrarian?  They don't allow it because they don't want to support people who communicate information SJU thinks is wrong/offensive.  Is that clamping down on free speech?  No.  Is it censorship?  No.  Just protecting the house.

It's Dave's site he can do whatever he wants, but if it informs your opinion at all for future situations like this; count me amongst those that would've preferred if Lapchick stayed.   

A line has to be drawn somewhere obviously in terms of decorum,  but I just don't think he crossed it.   And if anything (myself included) others attacked him more personally than he ever did.   His comments were ridiculous, but they were mostly basketball criticism, we responded by calling him a do--he bag and a jerk --f.   

Personally, I'll try to avoid that in the future.   

well said DESCO

well said DESCO

Wish I could express myself similar to desco. Great post

This is not a free speech or censorship issue.  Its about standards.  Anytime someone really badmouths SJU, and repeatedly, they don't deserve to be part of the 6th man.  Think of it as membership revoked.  If you had a buddy who just ripped on your wife all the time would you stand up for his free speech?  If you heard someone rip on your kid for being a loser would you stand up for their contrarian views?  Why do you think SJU doesn't let any Tom, Dick & Harry speak on campus even though people have lots of different opinions and many are contrarian?  They don't allow it because they don't want to support people who communicate information SJU thinks is wrong/offensive.  Is that clamping down on free speech?  No.  Is it censorship?  No.  Just protecting the house.

I think people bad mouthing your wife and kids is very different than what occurs here.  Posts here that criticize the program are more like me bad mouthing my own wife and kids.  Which I do frequently.  And yes I would stand up for the free speech of my buddy ripping my wife and the guy ripping on my kid for being a loser.  Just as I stand for the right of the KKK and al-Qaeda to peaceably assemble, give speeches and publish material.

The facts remain that here you can post positive things about the program till the cows come home.  If you write anything negative about the coach, team or program; you do so at your own peril.

I am extremely appreciative of this fine fansite and all of Dave's efforts in bringing it to us.  I've met Dave on several occasions and know that he's a stand up guy that I consider a friend.  As I posted already,  I recognize his right to include and exclude whomever he wants. But I will never understand why it bothers people so much when people post negatively about the team.  I just don't get it.  What just happened and has happened before is very plainly censorship and is clearly opposite the spirit of the first amendment.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quote from: Dan on March 04, 2012, 05:57:11 PM

While I disagreed with Lapchick1 this is the same kind of stuff that occurred when everyone was rah rah about Norm Roberts.  This time most of these rm.com'ers won't look foolish since Lavin is a good coach, but keep in mind many of these homers that put down others and their opinions were celebrating the failure of Roberts.

Has nothing to do with who's the coach but the continued rants that disrupted every thread he posted in. You're the only person who ever has an issue when someone gets the boot. I have no patience for people who come in here just to cause trouble. Everything always gets better when the bad apples are removed from the tree thats not coincidence

Except for the other people in this thread that question it.  There's a difference between being rude (illwill) and being negative, which I saw out of lapchick1's posts here.  You're entitled to do what you want with this site but I saw how it went on redmen.com when it came to criticizing Norm Roberts.  They banned anyone with a negative view and closed registration to prevent criticism.  People do read these boards and it hurt the program, I think.  I recognize several posters here from rm.com that were dead wrong on Roberts and should think twice before calling for banishment of people who are negative, despite the fact that I actually like Lavin, as opposed to me never liking Roberts as a coach.