We made the Dallas News and Bleacher Report...

[Cowboy06]

I love it, perhaps Jerry will read it, stop being involved with football decisions, sell the team to an owner that wants a GM and staff that can coach the team. Man I hope that's not too negative because I love Jerry as an owner that wants to win and does wonderful things for ex players and the community, but I would rather see more involvement from the life long football people.......wait...if you've been involved with the Cowboys since 1989...does that make you a football guy by default?

 

[jazzcat22]

Rather be a true fan that gets sick to their stomach when our team loses than a homer cheerleader that just waves pom poms no matter what they do. THAT would be embarrassing. That is a "casual fan". I do envy it to a point because it has to be a way less stressful existence. Just don't have that in me.

All fans rather casual or homer or haters or true fans as you put it, should feel sick to their stomachs after a loss.
So a homer can't be a "true fan"?. There are many haters that call themselves true fans....they may be fans, but they hate the team and everything it does or does not do.

 

[Jarv]

Lol...Our in fighting has made the national news! Comments were funny too!

 

[Zordon]

LOL at Floaty's comment.

 

[jazzcat22]

I love it, perhaps Jerry will read it, stop being involved with football decisions, sell the team to an owner that wants a GM and staff that can coach the team. Man I hope that's not too negative because I love Jerry as an owner that wants to win and does wonderful things for ex players and the community, but I would rather see more involvement from the life long football people.......wait...if you've been involved with the Cowboys since 1989...does that make you a football guy by default?

Jerry has forgot more about football than anyone on here...and I mean that in a positive way...as to what he still knows is still more than what most knows...
I would challenge anyone on here to have a sit down talk / debate with Jerry about football....my bet is on Jerry that wins it....
We have many of "experts" on "everything" so I bet Jerry would hang right there on salary cap, X's & O's, player positions and what it means, and how they are used.

 

[skinsscalper]

All fans rather casual or homer or haters or true fans as you put it, should feel sick to their stomachs after a loss.
So a homer can't be a "true fan"?. There are many haters that call themselves true fans....they may be fans, but they hate the team and everything it does or does not do.

The thing that cracks me up is how silent that group is when we have any measure of success. You won't hear a peep from 90% of those people when we are on a win streak. Without losing they have absolutely no reason to post.

Who in the hell likes to be 4-12? No one. It doesn't take a homer or a realist to hate that situation.

 

[Cowboy06]

Jerry has forgot more about football than anyone on here...and I mean that in a positive way...as to what he still knows is still more than what most knows...
I would challenge anyone on here to have a sit down talk / debate with Jerry about football....my bet is on Jerry that wins it....
We have many of "experts" on "everything" so I bet Jerry would hang right there on salary cap, X's & O's, player positions and what it means, and how they are used.

That's my point. He knows more than I or the general public, but what about life long football people? I don't want to debate the merits of his knowledge, but I would like to see nothing more for the Cowboys to win a Super Bowl with Jerry running the team. I just have my doubts if that will happen. Lord knows I hope I'm wrong.

 

[daveferr33]

Yikes. Not a good look.

The problem with the overt censorship and threats of benching (and actual benching), as I see it (I'm a First Amendment lawyer) is that it creates what are called "chilling effects" in the first amendment lexicon. In an open debate, you don't want people "pulling punches" so to speak. But that I believe is exactly what happens routinely in situations where people believe they can be punished for speech, whether that happens in the universities, or on Cowboys' message boards. The solution, as I see it, is something Justice Brandeis said in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence [emphasis added].”

Heavens knows we have the time to expose the fallacies through more speech here. That would be my suggested approach.

 

[Junglist]

That's hilarious yet kind of sad at the same time

What's worse are the perfectly acceptable words, used in textbooks, that are censored because they're "offensive."

 

[skinsscalper]

Yikes. Not a good look.

The problem with the overt censorship and threats of benching (and actual benching), as I see it (I'm a First Amendment lawyer) is that it creates what are called "chilling effects" in the first amendment lexicon. In an open debate, you don't want people "pulling punches" so to speak. But that I believe is exactly what happens routinely in situations where people believe they can be punished for speech, whether that happens in the universities, or on Cowboys' message boards. The solution, as I see it, is something Justice Brandeis said in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence [emphasis added].”

Agreed with the quote. However, what can you glean from "Jerry/Jason/Cowboys suck" that you didn't learn the first 173,932 times you read it?

I don't think the administration has any problem with debate. In fact, they encourage it. What is being discouraged, here, is the repetitive "drive by" posts that glean no actual knowledge or debate but merely regurgitation of content that the targeted poster of this policy proudly spews on a daily basis often times devoid of any factual substance or the intention of creating any meaningful dialogue.

I'm not innocent of that at times, myself (for the sake of honesty).

 

[Idgit]

Rather be a true fan that gets sick to their stomach when our team loses than a homer cheerleader that just waves pom poms no matter what they do. THAT would be embarrassing. That is a "casual fan". I do envy it to a point because it has to be a way less stressful existence. Just don't have that in me.

That's a twisted definition of what a fan is. Excuse me, a 'true' fan. Lol.

If you're in the group that needs to complain so bad, so often, that they literally cannot keep it from derail discussions where the incursions are expressly unwanted and are contrary to the forum guidelines, take your victory lap, I guess. There's nothing noble about complaining on the internet in my book.

And don't presume that you take losses harder than the rest of us just because you can't contain yourself. That makes no sense.

This isn't really 'news.' It's a forum that sets a very specific standard for the community enforcing that standard. Other Cowboys forums have different standards and may handle these things differently. It's not because we're Cowboys fans, though. It's because the administration of this site knows the type of community it wants and is willing to enforce it's own guidelines to make sure that happens.

 

[Idgit]

Agreed with the quote. However, what can you glean from "Jerry/Jason/Cowboys suck" that you didn't learn the first 173,932 times you read it?

I don't think the administration has any problem with debate. In fact, they encourage it. What is being discouraged, here, is the repetitive "drive by" posts that glean no actual knowledge or debate but merely regurgitation of content that the targeted poster of this policy proudly spews on a daily basis often times devoid of any factual substance or the intention of creating any meaningful dialogue.

I'm not innocent of that at times, myself (for the sake of honesty).

Exactly. It's not a free speech issue, in any event. This is a private forum, and people simply don't have the right to say whatever it is they want. It's a content curation issue. If you cultivate weeds in every garden, you get weeds in every garden. If you want very specific types of conversations in some places and allow what occurs naturally to happen in other places, you have to actively cultivate that.

People will complain about their 'rights' to say 'blarrrggh! Jerry Sucks!' in every thread whether it's relevant or not, but the reality is, unless you want a couple dozen threads about 'Jerry sucks' at the top of every board in every forum, you have to provide direction for the discussions.

Similar things happen with the content on every single successful community on the internet, everywhere.

 

[skinsscalper]

Exactly. It's not a free speech issue, in any event. This is a private forum, and people simply don't have the right to say whatever it is they want. It's a content curation issue. If you cultivate weeds in every garden, you get weeds in every garden. If you want very specific types of conversations in some places and allow what occurs naturally to happen in other places, you have to actively cultivate that.

People will complain about their 'rights' to say 'blarrrggh! Jerry Sucks!' in every thread whether it's relevant or not, but the reality is, unless you want a couple dozen threads about 'Jerry sucks' at the top of every board in every forum, you have to provide direction for the discussions.

Similar things happen with the content on every single successful community on the internet, everywhere.

On the nosey.

 

[8FOR!3]

It's a pretty family friendly website that lacks the negativity and vulgarism that other sites have. I don't mind it. I say when I don't disagree with what my team is doing but I keep most negativity to myself.

 

[Vinnie2u]

When it's good I say it's good. When it's bad I say it's bad. Problem is some posters see the Cowboys thru rose colored glasses. So if you say something negative about Romo, Garrett or Jerry.. They power up like a superhero and get all uptight.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Reality must be making deals under the table to get more publicity. There are only three ways I can imagine a news story like this getting published at a large news site that isn't a fan based writing crew. (ala BleacherReport, and like sites)

1. Paided new story.
2. The writer is a incognito member here and got slammed by a moderator for being negative. (though a editor should still have squashed this story before it was ever published on a real news site)
3. Finally, news is so freaking slow that they have nothing better to post which would speak heavily to how crappy their writers actually are.

Either way, the fact that this story was published is a huge blackeye for the Dallas Morning News. and a major boon for CBZ. If you also notice, no credit was given for this story.

 

[skinsscalper]

Exactly. It's not a free speech issue, in any event. This is a private forum, and people simply don't have the right to say whatever it is they want. It's a content curation issue. If you cultivate weeds in every garden, you get weeds in every garden. If you want very specific types of conversations in some places and allow what occurs naturally to happen in other places, you have to actively cultivate that.

People will complain about their 'rights' to say 'blarrrggh! Jerry Sucks!' in every thread whether it's relevant or not, but the reality is, unless you want a couple dozen threads about 'Jerry sucks' at the top of every board in every forum, you have to provide direction for the discussions.

Similar things happen with the content on every single successful community on the internet, everywhere.

There's a guitar and amp forum that I post on once in a while which the community proudly call themselves the "den of scum". Needless to say, they are pretty loose with what they'll allow to be posted there. But, they do have guidelines that must be adhered to. If your post doesn't fall within those guidelines it's moved. If your content is nothing but a string of troll content, you're banned. One warning, no exceptions.

The result? Exactly the forum that they want.

 

[The Natural]

lmaoo

 

[daveferr33]

Exactly. It's not a free speech issue, in any event. This is a private forum, and people simply don't have the right to say whatever it is they want. It's a content curation issue. If you cultivate weeds in every garden, you get weeds in every garden. If you want very specific types of conversations in some places and allow what occurs naturally to happen in other places, you have to actively cultivate that.

People will complain about their 'rights' to say 'blarrrggh! Jerry Sucks!' in every thread whether it's relevant or not, but the reality is, unless you want a couple dozen threads about 'Jerry sucks' at the top of every board in every forum, you have to provide direction for the discussions.

Similar things happen with the content on every single successful community on the internet, everywhere.

Obviously, its not a First Amendment issue (there is no state action on this forum). No one is saying rights have been violated. What has been said is that if your goal is to foster open debate, censorship or the threat of censorship is not the best policy, more speech is.

Let me use your analogy. The point of the Brandeis approach--more speech not enforced silence--is that it is actually more effective in getting rid of the weeds, than the censorship approach. Under that approach, the more favored speech exposes the fallacies of the disfavored speech. There is no need to cultivate anything; it happens organically. As Milton put it in the Areopagitca:

Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?

Your fear of the organic approach, I suspect, is that you believe that the speech you favor will simply lose out in the course of the debate; that your favored speech will be the one exposed as the fallacy. Its that, or you simply don't believe in the principals behind free speech and self-governance. That's fine. You are not alone. Many have always felt the need to put their finger on the scales of debate, or as you put it, cultivate the perfect garden.

 

[skinsscalper]

One of the comments


Anybody here post at Cowboys Universe? I'd be interested in hearing your perspective

It's a **** hole. Visited once, took a shower and some antibiotics. BBgun (if you remember him) is a mod there. Tells you all you need to know. A couple of the "all stars" here are members, also. I'll let you guess who they are.