MUScoop moderation angst thread

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I support the moderators.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

So for the people who are claiming libel - what libelous statements were made?

If you think the speculation about painkiller addiction is libelous, you clearly don't understand mental illness...and the fact that painkiller addiction is simply one of the possible manifestations of depression or other mental illnesses.

To put it in proper perspective - if we call it libel when a guy has depression and people speculate that he has painkiller addiction, it would also be libel if he had a low ankle sprain and people speculated that he had a high ankle sprain.  If we treated the situations differently, we would be acting as though mental illness is "different" from other health issues.  That kind of thinking is what got mental illness the stigma that we're trying to transcend.

Painkiller addiction is an illness, not a character flaw.  Depression is an illness, not a character flaw.  And speculating (even wrongly) about them is not libelous.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=45965.msg685745#msg685745

That isn't a speculative statement.  

[rocky_warrior]

They aren't angry at NN.  They are angry that you are allowing lies about him to be displayed on your message board.  And then you say people should take it up with the individual poster?  So you have basically abstained from all moderation responsibilities?

I was talking about anger at me, at letting them vent.

[GooooMarquette]

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=45965.msg685745#msg685745

That isn't a speculative statement.  

Disagree.  It's a poster speculating about a drug issue.

[brewcity77]

Disagree.  It's a poster speculating about a drug issue.

Speculation is voicing an opinion or theory. That statement is unequivocally declarative.

So...could that be libelous? Let's see:

1) Is it a false and defamatory statement? Seems to be yes. The poster's own statements indicate this was at best inaccurate information.

2) Did Nick give BCHoopster permission to write this, thus avoiding potential libel? Possible, but seems highly unlikely that the kid said "hey, lie about my condition on Scoop."

3) Did the publisher act negligently? Yes, he admitted as much.

4) Were there damages? That's debatable. If it gets out to the MU community that Nick is addicted to painkillers I'd say yes. This is usually the hardest part of libel to prove.

This is at the least a viable case for libel, if the kid wanted to pursue. And the publisher is just as guilty as the poster for providing the forum. But of course the post from a libel lawyer in the thread addressing that was deleted, apparently because the libel expert was one of the real people ruining the thread 

[MUfan12]

Been a member on here a long time. 95% of the time, I appreciate the laissez-faire style the mods take. This situation was one of the 5%. No one is asking you guys to be mouthpieces for the program, but allowing speculation about drug use, addiction, etc about one of our own commits is unacceptable. Then, doubling down on it just fans the flames even more.

We might not think this site has much reach, but it's the most visited and easily accessible MU board. We're talking about a 17  or 18 yr old kid involved here. The last thing he would need at this point is to somehow end up reading some of the crap on here.

[rocky_warrior]

You might ask that lawyer if he was giving legal advice?

You might want to also get him to sign NN as a client and request a retraction if they think there have been libelous statements.

However, unless Nick or anyone here are his clients he probably shouldn't be offering unsolicited legal advice.

Hint: He should probably thank me for deleting his post

[GooooMarquette]

Speculation is voicing an opinion or theory. That statement is unequivocally declarative.

Disagree.  He simply said "Drug issue, a pain medication."  That could mean "My guess is that it's a drug issue" (speculation)...or "I happen to know he has a drug issue" (declaration).

I read it as the former.  And in the context of a message board - where most people just shoot from the hip - that would be the case more often than not.

The guy who talked about libel in the original thread isn't the only lawyer on this board who has familiarity with the issue.  

[jesmu84]

Been a member on here a long time. 95% of the time, I appreciate the laissez-faire style the mods take. This situation was one of the 5%. No one is asking you guys to be mouthpieces for the program, but allowing speculation about drug use, addiction, etc about one of our own commits is unacceptable. Then, doubling down on it just fans the flames even more.

We might not think this site has much reach, but it's the most visited and easily accessible MU board. We're talking about a 17  or 18 yr old kid involved here. The last thing he would need at this point is to somehow end up reading some of the crap on here.

I guess the reason I'm okay with how the situation was handled is because the mods deal with posters making similar accusations/statements about other programs/players/coaches/recruits/commits/etc. Just because this time it was our own backyard, I don't think they should make a change.

[pbiflyer]

So, since speculation is okay.

Is Rocky's obsession with little boys due to his own small penis or is it a result of a major meth addiction?

Just speculating.

[Benny B]

Heh.... I saw Matt V's blog entry today, and my personal feelings about depression aside, I'm actually somewhat thankful that I never bothered to open the Noskowiak thread.

[GooooMarquette]

So, since speculation is okay.

Is Rocky's obsession with little boys due to his own small penis or is it a result of a major meth addiction?

Just speculating.

Thanks for providing fodder for illustrating the difference.

Rocky has an obsession with little boys - declaration.

Rocky's stated obsession is due either to a small penis or a major meth addiction - speculation.

Thanks!

[rocky_warrior]

I would like to clarify that I am NOT a Catholic priest.

[brewcity77]

Disagree.  He simply said "Drug issue, a pain medication."  That could mean "My guess is that it's a drug issue" (speculation)...or "I happen to know he has a drug issue" (declaration).

I read it as the former.  And in the context of a message board - where most people just shoot from the hip - that would be the case more often than not.

The guy who talked about libel in the original thread isn't the only lawyer on this board who has familiarity with the issue.  

Then you read it wrong. Look at his next post:

I heard that bit did not want to put it on a blog so I just put pain medication which he is taking to control the depression, hope he feels better, much like Gault at Wisky, 

That is an unquestioned declarative statement, backing up the previous declarative statement.

All this is now is a bunch of Scoopers patting themselves on the back about how they are supporting Nick, which might have a point if he was here and active. But as he's not, it's just a bunch of middle aged men trying to fellate themselves about how maturely they are handling this. Until of course it gets off topic and they start talking about Frozen again.

[GooooMarquette]

Then you read it wrong. Look at his next post:

That is an unquestioned declarative statement, backing up the previous declarative statement.

All this is now is a bunch of Scoopers patting themselves on the back about how they are supporting Nick, which might have a point if he was here and active. But as he's not, it's just a bunch of middle aged men trying to fellate themselves about how maturely they are handling this. Until of course it gets off topic and they start talking about Frozen again.

He said he "heard that".  He didn't say he knew it as a fact.

I'm done.  Teaching people how to read isn't my job.

Good work, Rocky!

[RJax55]

I guess the reason I'm okay with how the situation was handled is because the mods deal with posters making similar accusations/statements about other programs/players/coaches/recruits/commits/etc. Just because this time it was our own backyard, I don't think they should make a change.

While true, that in itself should make you think. Is it appropriate for people to speculate on the medical and academic issues that a high-school student has?

[brewcity77]

He said he "heard that".  He didn't say he knew it as a fact.

I'm done.  Teaching people how to read isn't my job.

Good work, Rocky!

No. You are the one misreading. When he says he "heard that" he was referring to the depression. The part after that about pain meds is unquestionably declarative.

Good thing teaching people how to read isn't your job, since you so blatantly misread two  posts

[jesmu84]

While true, that in itself should make you think. Is it appropriate for people to speculate on the medical and academic issues that a high-school student has?

I agree with your statement. And, I guess in terms of moderating a board, I'm just glad they're consistent. Should we be dragging ANY high school or college student through the mud? No.

[GooooMarquette]

No. You are the one misreading. When he says he "heard that" he was referring to the depression. The part after that about pain meds is unquestionably declarative.

Good thing teaching people how to read isn't your job, since you so blatantly misread two  posts

I didn't misread anything.  I read them both, in sequence and context.

I'll wait for the verdict in the "libel" case....

[StillAWarrior]

I guess it's a fundamental difference of standards at issue here.  Rocky's view as moderator is that as long as it's not actionable liable, it's OK.  I'd like to think that we have slightly higher standards than that...especially when dealing with kids.  It's his board.

And the fact the fact that BCHoopster hasn't done anything about his initial post, even though admitting he was incorrect, is pretty pathetic.

[GooooMarquette]

And the fact the fact that BCHoopster hasn't done anything about his initial post, even though admitting he was incorrect, is pretty pathetic.

So when a MU player is seen on campus with a walking boot and someone speculates that the player has a stress fracture, is the poster supposed to delete his or her initial post if it turns out that the boot was just a precaution?

Drug abuse is a symptom of mental illness - a legitimate medical condition - just like a stress fracture is a medical condition.  If we treat mental illness differently from other medical conditions, it just feeds into an old stigma.

[mu03eng]

I'll offer a different perspective.  How many of us have now had either more thought given to or more conversations around depression?  Is that a bad thing?  As far as I can tell, trying to remain emotionally uninvolved, there was one poster who was irresponsible and generally not a good person in the NN thread.  However, prior to BC's accusations the thread was no different than any other Scoop thread.  After NN revealed his struggle, the thread was no different than any other Scoop thread and was especially uplifting in letting people tell their stories and have a discussion around depression.

I understand there are those who are rubbed the wrong way by the thread and I would encourage you to voice your opinions, that's part of what this board is.  But do give a little consideration to what Scoop is as a community and the tightrope that the moderators have to walk to keep it open to all and foster open communication.  I honestly believe we are all better people and fans because of Scoop(in that order), the NN thread does nothing to change my opinion.  Learning opportunity for all to be better the next time a thread like that comes around.

[StillAWarrior]

So when a MU player is seen on campus with a walking boot and someone speculates that the player has a stress fracture, is the poster supposed to delete his or her initial post if it turns out that the boot was just a precaution?

Drug abuse is a symptom of mental illness - a legitimate medical condition - just like a stress fracture is a medical condition.  If we treat mental illness differently from other medical conditions, it just feeds into an old stigma.

There is no evidence of drug abuse whatsoever.  Even BCHoopster later indicated that he should have just said "medication" that he was taking for depression, and not pain meds.  While I'm all for de-stigmatizing depression (for my own personal reasons), I disagree with your suggestion that erroneously saying that someone has a problem with pain killers is the same as saying they have a stress fracture.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

So when a MU player is seen on campus with a walking boot and someone speculates that the player has a stress fracture, is the poster supposed to delete his or her initial post if it turns out that the boot was just a precaution?

Seeing them in a walking boot = Nick saying he is suffering with depression = observable fact.  No problem with that.

Saying they have a stress fracture = Nick has problem with pain meds = speculation.  Big problem with that.

[StillAWarrior]

I'll offer a different perspective.  How many of us have now had either more thought given to or more conversations around depression?  Is that a bad thing?  As far as I can tell, trying to remain emotionally uninvolved, there was one poster who was irresponsible and generally not a good person in the NN thread.  However, prior to BC's accusations the thread was no different than any other Scoop thread.  After NN revealed his struggle, the thread was no different than any other Scoop thread and was especially uplifting in letting people tell their stories and have a discussion around depression.

I understand there are those who are rubbed the wrong way by the thread and I would encourage you to voice your opinions, that's part of what this board is.  But do give a little consideration to what Scoop is as a community and the tightrope that the moderators have to walk to keep it open to all and foster open communication.  I honestly believe we are all better people and fans because of Scoop(in that order), the NN thread does nothing to change my opinion.  Learning opportunity for all to be better the next time a thread like that comes around.

I agree with you completely.  I have told several people outside the thread that I really like what it became -- it's a good discussion of an important issue and is supportive of NN.  My issue with the thread is really related to a single, unsubstantiated post.  I'm surprised and disappointed that it is still there.  Even if the mods elect to not remove it, I think it's unfortunate that BC didn't go back and edit his post after admitting that he should have said something different.