MUScoop

Marquette's PR Nightmare

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Alan Bykowski)

It seems like a lifetime ago, but I used to work in television news here in Milwaukee. I was a huge fan of Alderman Michael McGee, not because I agreed with him, but because every time he stepped in front of a microphone, he gave us a story. McGee was constantly making controversial, borderline racist, or simply stupid comments that made him a newsman's dream. Then he was arrested for racketeering and sent to prison (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/33453704.html), which was great for his constituents but disappointing for the media.

The reason I mention this is because over the past few months, Marquette's handling of the October sexual harassment/assault case has felt like this. Every time the University has proverbially gotten in front of a microphone, they've kept the story alive and ended up with more egg on their face. The admission of a history of law-breaking (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/121320529.html), the resignation of Cottingham being directly linked to the incident (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6723894), and Buzz being put into an interview about the topic (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/124829839.html) while being handcuffed as to what he could say.

At the same time, Marquette was being lambasted in the media by District Attorney John Chisholm (http://wislawjournal.com/2011/05/27/milwaukee-county-da-no-charges-in-marquette-cases/), the Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation), and Journal-Sentinel writer Michael Hunt (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/124827184.html). I don't intend this article to kick Marquette while they are down. The situation was handled poorly, I don't think even Marquette would deny that right now. But there are lessons to be learned here, both in terms of the past and the future.

Marquette's error was not getting out in front of the story. Here's how they could have better handled it:

• Come out with a statement in March when the story was first breaking online announcing that DPS made a thorough investigation but that it has now been forwarded to MPD and all future inquiries should go there.
• If the policy needed to be revised, so be it, but do it under the auspices of helping students rather than admitting a history of law-breaking, especially as it doesn't seem to be illegal to not report a crime you don't believe happened.
• Ask Cottingham to stay around until the end of the year so he can assist in the search for a replacement and to distance his departure from the incident.
• Don't have anyone speak on the incident if they aren't adding to the discussion.
• When criticism comes, weather the storm. Cottingham's resignation in light of the Tribune article and Buzz's interview right after the Hunt editorial only led to further criticism.

Going forward, two things have become evident. First, Marquette needs to improve their ability to manage crises. Whether they create an internal department to handle situations like this or hire an outside public relations firm, Marquette can't simply get by with good intentions because in the age of a 24/7 news cycle, their intentions will be twisted and interpreted in a way that makes for the best (read: worst) headline.

Second, Marquette needs to conduct a thorough nationwide search for Cottingham's replacement. With the media scrutiny major programs are under, negative publicity will come again. In addition, conference realignment, television contracts, and growth of the Marquette brand are all things that have to be considered in the coming years. The ideal candidate should have experience in PR, law, media, and sports. It won't be an easy process, and it shouldn't be a quick one. That doesn't mean the hire can't ultimately be someone with Marquette  ties, or even in-house, but the impression given has to be that there is  a new sheriff in town.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/07/marquettes-pr-nightmare.html

Damn, I clicked on this hopin' to read about my good friend, Rican.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 15, 2011, 11:35:07 AM
Damn, I clicked on this hopin' to read about my good friend, Rican.

+1 :D

I didn't even think of that when writing the title.

Two responses:

1) Without a doubt, the new AD has to be comfortable in front of the media.  Someone who hides behind PR guys or secretaries isn't going to cut it for an institution that is will be walking on eggshells in front of the media for the foreseeable future.

2) Is it commonplace for a university of MU's stature to have a separate PR department for the athletic program?  I'm not just talking a different PR team, but one that is completely autonomous from the University's PR dept.

In any event, it just doesn't seem like MU has it together when it comes to PR... I get the impression that everything's in disarray, i.e. a fractured hierarchy with no oversight and a bunch of people - who are better suited for marketing or media relations as opposed to crisis management/damage control - making critical decisions independently that don't reflect any input or direction from the rest of the team or University.

Or maybe the PR dept is well-organized, but the people just suck.  Who knows?

Thanks for writing this up, Alan.

Is Marquette's problem just a PR problem?

What circumstances are giving rise to these PR incidents?  Seems the real problem lies one level deeper, and the PR fiasco is a symptom of that problem.  A remedy for the PR mess is like trimming tree branches instead of striking at the root. 

Given the lack of info, I don't expect anybody on this board will be able to offer an informed guess as to what the deeper problem is or why our school, students, and atheletes have found themselves in these unfortunate circumstances 2x's.  Pin down that problem and propose a solution and there's no PR fires to put out (easier said than done).

Quote from: MUMBA on July 15, 2011, 01:12:47 PM
Given the lack of info, I don't expect anybody on this board will be able to offer an informed guess as to what the deeper problem is or why our school, students, and atheletes have found themselves in these unfortunate circumstances 2x's.  Pin down that problem and propose a solution and there's no PR fires to put out (easier said than done).

Well, MU's leadership has always been a little tone deaf and secretive. 

Nickname... relocation of Wisconsin Avenue... the lesbian dean candidate... this issue...  In many ways it mirrors the PR of the Catholic Church during the sex abuse scandal.  Their initial reaction is to be quiet and defensive.  They don't really seek out advice.  They don't float trail balloons. 

Word to the wise, Buzz is the problem not the solution.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 15, 2011, 01:23:34 PM

Well, MU's leadership has always been a little tone deaf and secretive. 

Nickname... relocation of Wisconsin Avenue... the lesbian dean candidate... this issue...  In many ways it mirrors the PR of the Catholic Church during the sex abuse scandal.  Their initial reaction is to be quiet and defensive.  They don't really seek out advice.  They don't float trail balloons. 
[/quote

Agree completely

Quote from: MUMBA on July 15, 2011, 01:12:47 PM
Is Marquette's problem just a PR problem?

What circumstances are giving rise to these PR incidents?  Seems the real problem lies one level deeper, and the PR fiasco is a symptom of that problem.  A remedy for the PR mess is like trimming tree branches instead of striking at the root. 

Given the lack of info, I don't expect anybody on this board will be able to offer an informed guess as to what the deeper problem is or why our school, students, and atheletes have found themselves in these unfortunate circumstances 2x's.  Pin down that problem and propose a solution and there's no PR fires to put out (easier said than done).

There is no deeper problem. Or at least not one that Marquette is uniquely capable of addressing.
As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances." Particularly when you toss alcohol into the mix, which studies show plays a part in as many as 90 percent of all reported sex assaults on campuses. Not to be overly fatalistc, particularly about a terrible crime, but it seems the only way to truly avoid this on a college campus is not to have a college campus.
Marquette is far from alone in dealing with these issues and, as much as we all want to believe MU is a special place filled with only special people, realistically there's no reason to believe there's anything unique or unusual - good or bad - happening at Marquette the past nine months. All that's happened is that a couple of these cases a) involved athletes and b) were made public.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
There is no deeper problem. Or at least not one that Marquette is uniquely capable of addressing.
As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances." Particularly when you toss alcohol into the mix, which studies show plays a part in as many as 90 percent of all reported sex assaults on campuses. Not to be overly fatalistc, particularly about a terrible crime, but it seems the only way to truly avoid this on a college campus is not to have a college campus.
Marquette is far from alone in dealing with these issues and, as much as we all want to believe MU is a special place filled with only special people, realistically there's no reason to believe there's anything unique or unusual - good or bad - happening at Marquette the past nine months. All that's happened is that a couple of these cases a) involved athletes and b) were made public.

You can't get more informed than this.  Well said.

Quote from: LCDutchman on July 15, 2011, 01:29:17 PM
Word to the wise, Buzz is the problem not the solution.

I also blame Buzz Williams for a university policy enacted six years before he set foot on campus.

For what it's worth, the vast majority of the PR hit is only in Wisconsin.  I realize it was in the Chicago Tribune but no one here even gave it a second thought it unless they are an alum or possibly a parent sending their child.

The rest of the country doesn't really care about Marquette news.  This isn't even a 1/1000 of the PR hit Notre Dame took in its case just because of the Notre Dame name.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
There is no deeper problem. Or at least not one that Marquette is uniquely capable of addressing.
As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances." Particularly when you toss alcohol into the mix, which studies show plays a part in as many as 90 percent of all reported sex assaults on campuses. Not to be overly fatalistc, particularly about a terrible crime, but it seems the only way to truly avoid this on a college campus is not to have a college campus.
Marquette is far from alone in dealing with these issues and, as much as we all want to believe MU is a special place filled with only special people, realistically there's no reason to believe there's anything unique or unusual - good or bad - happening at Marquette the past nine months. All that's happened is that a couple of these cases a) involved athletes and b) were made public.

I agree with most of this. Problems are going to happen, Marquette just needs to improve how they manage those problems. I don't think anything that happened in this incident is likely any worse than anything going on elsewhere, but the way it was dealt with after the fact was.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
There is no deeper problem....As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances."

I understand what you are saying, and the thought has occurred to me as well.  But I think the fact that so many of us quickly resign ourselves to this train of thought is promblematic in itself.  

Take the all-to-willing dismissiveness of some fans (self included) and stir it up with hero worship of maturing 19-20yo's, BMOC entitlement issues, binge drinking, big $'s, and lessons in relationship dynamics learned from reality TV and you have the makings of a problem.  I'm not saying this combo of factors is unique to Marquette or a simple black-and-white issue to isolate and solve.  But I don't think we should resign ourselves to "assault happens" so quickly.  

Quote from: LCDutchman on July 15, 2011, 01:29:17 PM
Word to the wise, Buzz is the problem not the solution.

I find it very hard to believe that Buzz is the cause of this.  It is just totally out of character based on his background, his family situation, his Christian commitment and everything he has done on campus up until now (giving his cell phone number out to any student) to then suddenly turn into Richard Nixon, leaning on people to cover stuff up, giving athletes free passes on moral issues.  I can see Buzz being a little naive and maybe speaking what he thinks is the truth when he should have been more politically correct but if you are saying he is running a dirty program to advance his agenda sorry you're going to have to show a lot more proof.  I think a few kids got out of line and the incidents happened to bunch up.  Probably there wasn't enough moral guidance from upper classmen on the team after Lazar left.   If so that is kind of a consequence the "missing recruiting class" when Crean left.(although based on what T Taylor did at Kansas maybe having him as an upper classman here might not have helped).   I'm prepared to withhold judgement for at least another year.  If the incidents keep on coming maybe you have to look at Buzz but if so I think it will be more about him not being prepared to handle this part of the head coaches job then some kind of calculated "Win at any cost" agenda.  

Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

I know, devil's advocate position, but there sure are a lot of question marks as to whether this was as serious as the Mike Hunts of the world make it out to be.

Quote from: MUMBA on July 15, 2011, 03:33:53 PM
I understand what you are saying, and the thought has occurred to me as well.  But I think the fact that so many of us quickly resign ourselves to this train of thought is promblematic in itself.  

Take the all-to-willing dismissiveness of some fans (self included) and stir it up with hero worship of maturing 19-20yo's, BMOC entitlement issues, binge drinking, big $'s, and lessons in relationship dynamics learned from reality TV and you have the makings of a problem.  I'm not saying this combo of factors is unique to Marquette or a simple black-and-white issue to isolate and solve.  But I don't think we should resign ourselves to "assault happens" so quickly.  

I intentionally avoided using the word "assault" or anything similar - choosing instead your "unfortunate circumstances" - because, as Brew points out, we have no idea whether any assault took place. What we do know tends to indicate it either didn't or at the very there's no strong indication that it did.
Regardless, as much as I hope MU does everything in its power to prevent any kind of crime on or around campus, I'm also enough of a realist to know that it's going to happen despite the university's best efforts.
Don't mistake that for acceptance and/or tolerance of bad acts. But Marquette - or any other school - lacks the wherewithal to govern the behavior of several thousand young adults.

Part of Marquette's issue is being hamstrung by rules.    DPS did an investigation.    They found violations worthy of sanctioning within the university system, but not that rose (in their opinion) to the level of crime.    Twice.   And twice the victim was made aware of the option of going to MPD directly and immediately.   Twice, they chose not to.    Once those decisions were made, within the rules as they were at the time, MU was out of options.      They cannot name names.    They cannot make known exculpatory information.       It spun out of control in how they handled changing their rules regarding reporting these incidents and in the timing of Cottingham leaving.   Don't we still have PR majors hanging around?    

What tower says really highlights the problems behind Buzz's ill-timed interview with Don Walker. He was put out there to speak for Marquette, but what could he say? He can't identify the individuals or even the sport they played. All he could do was condemn sexual assault, and saying you're against sexual assault, especially for a man in Buzz's place and possessed of his faith, is self-evident. So the JS blasted him again, even though there was nothing else he could say. Just a bad idea to allow those topics to be on the table.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 15, 2011, 03:39:34 PM
Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

I know, devil's advocate position, but there sure are a lot of question marks as to whether this was as serious as the Mike Hunts of the world make it out to be.

I said it before, I'll say it again... 50% of sexual assault claims are complete b.s. & 50% of actual sexual assaults are never reported.

[Unless you live in Iran or Syria where all sexual assault claims are completely bogus and 0% of actual victims live to see the accused brought to justice.  <--- Not meant to be an optimistic perspective, but in the grand scheme, it's hard to argue against the concept that while not perfect, MU still remains at the opposite end of the spectrum from "evil."]

I'm all for going online & anonymously trashing someone or something that deserves it, but lest we forget that Marquette - on the whole - does do a lot of things "right," I think 'guilty until proven innocent' should be taken into account here, especially since we are, in fact, dealing with criminal allegations.  There's irony to be found in how the Journal-Sentinel will omit race/ethnicity of minority suspects from police APB's, but they won't hesitate to accuse the Marquette basketball team, the entirety which is made up of minorities, of criminal activity before the case even gets to trial.  But when you understand that the J-S is a business and controversy - real or fabricated - sells papers, such irony is not surprising (perhaps should be expected) considering that today's media is rife with hypocrisy.

Regardless, something needs to be set straight here: contrary to what some people believe, Marquette has not been "breaking the law" for the last ten years.. the policy simply hasn't been compliant.  "Non-compliance" is not synonymous with "illegal."  Granted, they usually go hand in hand, but in this case, as Brew pointed out, you can't be in violation of the law for not reporting a crime that you didn't believe occurred.  I'm sure that I'm non-compliant with the law because I've had a policy for ten years to bitch-slap (for no less than 15 seconds) aboriginal Canadians who piss me off... but I've never been pissed off by an aboriginal Canadian in the last ten years, so guess what --- I've never broken the law.

If there's any deeper issue to be found here, it's that there is no shortage of anti-Catholic and anti-private school bias in Wisconsin (not to mention that most residents are still afraid of minorities unless they play for the Packers).  Accordingly, Marquette is always going to be fighting an uphill battle, more so when a negative situation involves the basketball program.  Marquette's systemic fault here is that they simply do not do a good job of defending themselves - part of that by design, part of that probably just plain incompetence - which allows these accusations to become a media circus and tried court of public opinion.

Nonetheless, I do not for a moment believe that Marquette is doing anything sinister, and I don't believe anything is being covered-up.  Sure, there may be idiots somewhere in the ranks, but show me a university, business, government, etc. that has never hired (or elected) a f#$!-up, and I'll give you $1.00.

Could Marquette have done a better job in this fiasco?  Absolutely, but action should be judged based upon intent, not the public opinion of the result.  Unfortunately, the latter is all too common these days.

You nailed the weak area of MU in the handling-PR crisis response. In other posts I reviewed the criminal and civil legal responses.

1-There appears to be no criminal cases==A

2-By volunteering to meet with DA, have procedures reviewed, and making a good minor reporting procedure tweak ,the school showed responsiveness, and cure...which goes a long way in their civil defense == B (the prior reporting flaw loses them a grade. here).

3-Early on I posted the suspicion the plaintiff would go media leaking, in prep for the civil suit, as its great for settlment leverage, and to taint your jury pool(--many of whom will recall hearing something on this). It happened...I'll wager at least one of the early reports will eventually be shown to be sourceable to a plaintiff, or her atty (much of the rest of the reporting is just follow the story--so, many subsequent stories may well be independent pile ons--plaintiffs plan/hope for the snowball, like the one here). So.....

even though MU handled 1 and 2 OK, and it should have fully expected 3, it seemed confused, and almost amatuerish in handling/coordinating their counter in the media. They didnt/dont even need a permanent PR staffer...either the school or its counsel shouldve engaged a media crisis consultant for a few hours ---yes there are many of them...(just google it-lol)...SEE:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-08-28-college-consultants_x.htm

..any experienced pro would have had them saying and doing the right things, at the right time, through the right sources (regret, concern, proactive review and cure, ongoing commitment to the safety and welfare of students, etc....weve all seen and heard it done).

I'm sorry but the MU handling of their side of the coin, in area 3 == D plus

....D plus!....For you Tommy Boy fans.....:

.."Sorry, Pardon Me. Can I just check this out? D-plus? Oh, my god. I passed! I passed! Oh, man! I got a D-Plus! I'm going to graduate!...
...and..
."Apparently they (MU)give a lot fewer D-pluses than D-minuses. ...It's not a grade they like to give out. I'll tell you that right now...."
-Tommy Boy


But seriously, ..Wouldnt our admin., at least bring in a Comm Dept person to help/advise on this?  Even I as a shmo idiot lawyer, have learned to adopt the original thread points, and we incorporate such, as part of an overall defense plan for clients.

It sure seems...More than a few share blame in the MU shortcomings in this area., 3.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 15, 2011, 03:39:34 PM
Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

I know, devil's advocate position, but there sure are a lot of question marks as to whether this was as serious as the Mike Hunts of the world make it out to be.

Worldly Mike Hunts.................nice!

+1 4ever...I struggle to call him "Michael" ;D

Back on topic, I just wanted to thank everyone for keeping this on-topic. This article took 4-5 drafts and about a week of discussion back and forth between the CS staff. Ultimately, we wanted something that would be more constructive on the topic than much of what's been written on message boards like this one, the Scout sites, or JS Online. I think this thread has done a great job of doing that. I hesitated to even publish this simply because I wasn't sure the can of worms needed to be reopened, but I'm glad we went ahead.

Quote from: Benny B on July 15, 2011, 05:00:47 PM

Regardless, something needs to be set straight here: contrary to what some people believe, Marquette has not been "breaking the law" for the last ten years.. the policy simply hasn't been compliant.  "Non-compliance" is not synonymous with "illegal."  Granted, they usually go hand in hand, but in this case, as Brew pointed out, you can't be in violation of the law for not reporting a crime that you didn't believe occurred. 

Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf)
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

And after they investigated it, in their opinion, they did not have reasonable grounds to think a crime had been committed.   

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 08:08:46 PMObviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Okay, so here's a scenario. Say one of my neighbors comes to me and accuses Mr. Smith across the street of being a terrorist. They tell me that he had what appeared to be a heavy box delivered to him out of the back of a van labeled "TNT". Obviously concerned, I go to investigate further, striking up some conversation with Mr. Smith that evening. As we talk, he tells me that he is opening an AC/DC tribute museum and he ordered 1,000 copies of their hit single "TNT" on CD to give to his first 1,000 patrons.

Am I still obligated to call the Department of Homeland Security? Or is it possible that after my investigation turned up nothing, it would be more prudent to simply drop it?

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 15, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
+1 4ever...I struggle to call him "Michael" ;D

Back on topic, I just wanted to thank everyone for keeping this on-topic. This article took 4-5 drafts and about a week of discussion back and forth between the CS staff. Ultimately, we wanted something that would be more constructive on the topic than much of what's been written on message boards like this one, the Scout sites, or JS Online. I think this thread has done a great job of doing that. I hesitated to even publish this simply because I wasn't sure the can of worms needed to be reopened, but I'm glad we went ahead.

The problem with the article is that it starts with the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem.  

In reality, there were three flawed root causes even before the first PR person thought about trying to "fix" the situation.

1) an athlete was stupid enough to put himself in a position to be accused of sexual assault.  

2) the university operated under a flawed policy that was not only against the law, but also had the effect of preventing the legitimate investigation that could have actually proven the charges or exonerated the athlete

3) the internal investigation that did occur was conducted by a party that wouldn't be considered impartial in the best of circumstances.

Given those three underlying issues, no amount of PR could have undone the situation.

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf)
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Ummm ... how would they determine whether there was reasonable ground to believe a crime had been determined?
Oh yeah, they'd investigate. That's the entire point of an investigation ... to determine whether there was a crime and, if so, who committed it. You don't determine there was a crime and then investigate it.
Horse. Cart.

Nice try, though.

Quote from: tower912 on July 15, 2011, 08:21:55 PM
And after they investigated it, in their opinion, they did not have reasonable grounds to think a crime had been committed.   

And why did they investigate it in the first place?

Answer:  They had reasonable grounds to think a crime had been committed.  

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 15, 2011, 08:53:29 PM
Okay, so here's a scenario. Say one of my neighbors comes to me and accuses Mr. Smith across the street of being a terrorist. They tell me that he had what appeared to be a heavy box delivered to him out of the back of a van labeled "TNT". Obviously concerned, I go to investigate further, striking up some conversation with Mr. Smith that evening. As we talk, he tells me that he is opening an AC/DC tribute museum and he ordered 1,000 copies of their hit single "TNT" on CD to give to his first 1,000 patrons.

Let's extend your scenario.  Three hours later, there is a huge explosion at Miller Park.  It turns out that Mr. Smith actually was a terrorist, that van actually was the delivery vehicle, and the heavy black box actually did contain TNT.  When it explodes, hundreds are killed, thousands injured.  The "AC/DC tribute museum" was nothing but a ruse.

Still think you made the right call by not reporting him?

Not as easy anymore, is it?

Let's be realistic here--the MU Department of Public Safety is not qualified or trained to investigate sex crimes.  Nor could they be considered impartial in this case.

Let's not ignore the fact that both DPS and the Athletic department reported to the same guy at MU--

MU and DPS mucked this up and left us not knowing whether a guilty rapist got off because of an improperly conducted investigation, or an innocent athlete lives under a cloud because the impartial investigation that could have exonerated him was not conducted.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2011, 09:21:37 PM
Ummm ... how would they determine whether there was reasonable ground to believe a crime had been determined?
Oh yeah, they'd investigate. That's the entire point of an investigation ... to determine whether there was a crime and, if so, who committed it. You don't determine there was a crime and then investigate it.
Horse. Cart.

Nice try, though.

Ummm... did you forget that the girl reported a sexual assault?  

If the girl's story was credible enough to get DPS to open up their own investigation, then DPS most certainly had reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed.

Nice try, yourself.

Marquette84, I try. I really do. But you simply go for the negative as much as you can and try to derail every conversation with attacks and inane insults. Did you suffer some abuse by Marquette in a previous life? Or are you just that angry and frustrated that you have to lash out and try to belittle others every time you have a chance?

Seriously, I consider myself pretty patient, and I think I've shown that in past discussions we've had. But I just don't get your incessant need to turn everything into an argument.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 15, 2011, 09:47:37 PM
Marquette84, I try. I really do. But you simply go for the negative as much as you can and try to derail every conversation with attacks and inane insults. Did you suffer some abuse by Marquette in a previous life? Or are you just that angry and frustrated that you have to lash out and try to belittle others every time you have a chance?

Seriously, I consider myself pretty patient, and I think I've shown that in past discussions we've had. But I just don't get your incessant need to turn everything into an argument.

First, I would have been content to simply correct the erroneous statement that MU did not violate Wisconsin law.  This should be a non-controversial issue.  Marquette believes they were violating the law.  The DA believes it.  The MPD believes it.   Nobody (other than a small handful here) believe otherwise.   Someone made a false statement--it warranted a correction.

You could have just agreed with me. Instead, I had to fend off attacks and inane insults from you, Pakuni and Tower.

Second, wouldn't you admit that your hypothetical story about "Mr Smith" and his "AC/DC Tribute Museum" was far more inane the my linking the actual state law and pointing out that since MU had reasonable grounds to believe a crime occurred, they were obligated to report it?

Third, I've been consistent from day one in my statement that a full investigation would have had just as much chance at exonerating the athlete if he was truly innocent.   Again, this shouldn't be a controversial issue

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 10:30:03 PMAgain, this shouldn't be a controversial issue

And it wasn't, until you came into the thread. I just can't be bothered to waste my time explaining the rest. You'll just piss and moan until everyone else gets bored and goes away. Never mind legitimate, logical arguments, as soon as you post in the thread, it has to be your way or no way.

Well done ruining what was a good and fruitful discussion.

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf)
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Actually, as others pointed out, in reality it's not as obvious as you would like to believe... but gosh, if only every statute could be one sentence long, maybe we'd put 90% of the lawyers in this country out of work.

Your implication that reasonable grounds exist on the basis that there was an investigation implies that an investigation would only take place if there were reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed.  Try to make that argument in a courtroom, and the serial killer who's next on the docket is going to fall out of his chair laughing at you.

All that said, please provide a link or quote where Marquette, the DA, and MPD all said that MU violated the law.

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 09:46:01 PM
Ummm... did you forget that the girl reported a sexual assault?  

If the girl's story was credible enough to get DPS to open up their own investigation, then DPS most certainly had reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed.

Nice try, yourself.

What I like about you, SJS, is that you'll defend whatever inane statement you make to the bitter end, no matter how obviously incorrect it happens to be.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and chalk this statement up to simple ignorance. You obviously have no clue how these things work.
A complaint is not reasonable grounds that a crime occurred. Seriously, try going before a judge sometime at a probable cause hearing and say "well, your honor, this person says Mr. Smith robbed him, therefore that's probably what happened."
In the long history of American jurisprudence, you may be the first person to suggest such a ridiculous premise. Fortunately, the people who've written our laws over the past couple centuries didn't believe such nonsense.
I'll explain it to you one more time ... a complaint is merely the vehicle for an investigation to begin. It is not the determination that a crime probably occurred. It is the investigation that leads to that determination, not the other way around. Why bother to conduct an investigation if all one needs to determine whether a crime occurred is a complaint?

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf)
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Not to go all Rusty Hardin on yall, but the cited statute requiring reporting is not triggered on the mere act of security guys investigating. Thats just checking the facts, posing questions....their job to do,regardless. They can investigate facts and claims for years without reporting, if no incident's facts give rise to probable cause.Finding an unlocked door in empty offices, and an eployye in the breakroom is not probable cause. Same unlocked door , with pick scratches on the lock, and no reasonable story for being in the breakroom is probable. In between  these two...if his story is my attorney ran accross the street to pick us up a sandwich...then its wait, for his return a few minutes--no return= probable vs not back in half an hour...likely a probable...vs hes is back in five...no probable, and have a nice day sir. (This example is why you have guest sign in sheets)
What is probable cause? Its right there in the statute you cite. The  definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime"

The statute has a reasonableness standard...which is objective, not subjective. No street cop gut feel, or profiling, is allowed. The standard means after they have done their job of investigating....would a reasonable man in the same circumstances, and on the facts found then believe that a crime has been committed?  

So, if after doing his job, just like a cop does, the security guy does not believe, acting objectively, on what he knows or has learned,  that there was probable cause of a crime...there is no reporting requirement triggered.

The best assesment here is ....we simply dont know, in the public,  if there was,ever, any probable cause. We know charges werent filed by the DA...but charges are filed on a higher evidence standard than probable cause...so not filing charges or seeking an indictment just tells you the evidence did not reach that level.

We dont think cops arrested anyone when they did their work. If there is a record of the cops going to a judge and seeking a warrant, to search, or test, and its granted...de facto, probable cause was sworn to by a cop, and was found by the court when the warrant issued. If however, the cops interviewed everyone voluntarily, and there were no warrants...we dont know even if any of the cops, found probable cause. They talk every day to witnesses, voluntariy, and dont find what  amounts to probable cause. Moving on.

Well wait....84 I want to grant/concede something readily....because very strong public policy protects women in victim crimes like assault...a woman just saying she said no, and, say, the accused admitting copulation, but claimed consent--such would support a probable cause....the law totally errs on the side of probable cause and the accused, in this area. If she claimed sex and saying no, but every witness said she was glued all night to one chair, and everyone backs the guy as not even talking to her well maybe not....but if you go into a private room, and she says anything--...in this area, only probable cause is leniently supported. Now, moving on..

To shift liabilty away from it, MU is going to now uber report all facts and incidents learned of---(likely only not reporting when the security guy is is positive a crime did not occur), and leave it to the authorites to take over investigating, and determine probable cause--they are trained better to make the determination, anyway.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2011, 10:58:14 PM
What I like about you, SJS, is that you'll defend whatever inane statement you make to the bitter end, no matter how obviously incorrect it happens to be.

Post of the Year.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2011, 10:58:14 PM
What I like about you, SJS, is that you'll defend whatever inane statement you make to the bitter end, no matter how obviously incorrect it happens to be.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and chalk this statement up to simple ignorance. You obviously have no clue how these things work.
A complaint is not reasonable grounds that a crime occurred. Seriously, try going before a judge sometime at a probable cause hearing and say "well, your honor, this person says Mr. Smith robbed him, therefore that's probably what happened."

In the long history of American jurisprudence, you may be the first person to suggest such a ridiculous premise.

Well, I'm actually not the first person to suggest such a ridiculous premise.  You are.  Because you invented it here tonight.

But I suspect you knew that.

It would be nice if just once you'd argue the point I actually made, rather than invent one more convenient for you. 

Nice try, though.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2011, 10:58:14 PM
I'll explain it to you one more time ... a complaint is merely the vehicle for an investigation to begin. It is not the determination that a crime probably occurred. It is the investigation that leads to that determination, not the other way around. Why bother to conduct an investigation if all one needs to determine whether a crime occurred is a complaint?

Why would MU have conducted the investigation in the first place if they didn't at least start out with reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed?

The fact that MU acted on the complaint is an indication that they believed that it may be true, which by definition means they had grounds to believe a crime may have been committed.

Quote from: Benny B on July 15, 2011, 10:46:31 PM
Actually, as others pointed out, in reality it's not as obvious as you would like to believe... but gosh, if only every statute could be one sentence long, maybe we'd put 90% of the lawyers in this country out of work.

Your implication that reasonable grounds exist on the basis that there was an investigation implies that an investigation would only take place if there were reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed.  Try to make that argument in a courtroom, and the serial killer who's next on the docket is going to fall out of his chair laughing at you.

Are you saying that this investigation took place, even though there was no reasonable expectation a crime had been committed? 

Quote from: Benny B on July 15, 2011, 10:46:31 PM
All that said, please provide a link or quote where Marquette, the DA, and MPD all said that MU violated the law.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Chisholm_Marquette_letter.pdf (http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Chisholm_Marquette_letter.pdf)
"Marquette University has acknowledged its failure to comply with its statutory duty to report these incidents" 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation)
"Once they have reason to believe that a crime like a sexual assault has occurred, they have a mandatory obligation to report that to police, and that didn't happen," Chisholm said. "Everyone acknowledges that."

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 16, 2011, 12:35:52 AM
Are you saying that this investigation took place, even though there was no reasonable expectation a crime had been committed?  

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Chisholm_Marquette_letter.pdf (http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Chisholm_Marquette_letter.pdf)
"Marquette University has acknowledged its failure to comply with its statutory duty to report these incidents"  

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation)
"Once they have reason to believe that a crime like a sexual assault has occurred, they have a mandatory obligation to report that to police, and that didn't happen," Chisholm said. "Everyone acknowledges that."

I find it odd that the Chicago Tribune, the Huffington Post, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, WISN, WTMJ, etc, etc all came to the same conclusion that MU broke the law but those that keep saying MU didn't must be saying all these entities are wrong.  Furthermore, wouldn't MU want to say "NO WE DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW" since news source after news source keep getting it wrong?  Shouldn't they be setting the record straight?

A few examples in addition to Marquette84's

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/college-campus-sexual-assault-midwest_n_883362.html    "Just this week, the Tribune reported that a Marquette University student's sexual assault claim was virtually ignored by campus police, even though the school was required by law to report the crime to Milwaukee police. The school admitted that it hasn't been reporting these crimes to local authorities for the past 10 years. "


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation   "In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years. And in at least the two most recent cases, the lapse played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges."   (So were those MU administrators lying to the Chicago Tribune?)


http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/124379168.html   "In early May, Marquette acknowledged its policies didn't comply with the state law and said it would change its reporting policies."


I find it incredible that some continue to suggest we didn't break state law when MU ADMITTED TO IT to multiple media sources. 

Let me give some support to the security guys in the trenches. My lifetime best friend and I went through our grade/high school years with a guy who then married his baby sister, and he was a cop for many many years in a Wisc.city.  The brother in law and wife moved back to Milw area a few years ago, and he has been on the MU security force during the entire time all this went down.

I am certain he knows, and likely applied proper police procedures in his work, and that he fully knows probable cause when he sees it. I dont fault our MUers in uniform. In fact I'd guess their investigative work may well have been very professional and thourough...but, what was done with the results was subject to the control of higher ups...not to theirs.

I'd guess the non reporting wasnt their idea, but rather a very flawed school policy they followed, because all good cops are slaves to following departmental policy and procedure. Ensuring that the policy and procedure complies with the law is the job of those making the policy, not of those following and applying it.

Sure, I know him, and I wished now, in hindsight, he'd have questioned/challenged the reporting policy...but effective law enforcement guys just arent wired for that. They are bred for the chain of command stuff--which deserves our respect.  The MU general counsel, compliance officers, and political/sports higher ups clusterf%^ked, and let the school down for slipping up on the flawed policy, for so very long of a time.

The school and some people may be under fire to the consequences, and for some settlement $$, but I hope no one throws the security guys under the same bus...my best instinct is they dont deserve that.

I'll probably regret posting this, but am I to believe that Marquette DPS is to report every incident reported to them to police? Yes, Chisholm went nuts on us during his pouting rant that he couldn't press charges. But the law seems to specifically state that you must report when you have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed.

First, any insinuation that investigating indicates a reasonable belief is simply asinine. If I see flickering light through a neighbor's curtains and smell smoke in the middle of winter, it might be prudent to investigate and make sure it isn't just their fireplace before I call it in as a structure fire. Marquette can't possibly be expected to call the police for every report that's made any more than they'll call 911 for every stubbed toe.

As houwarrior has pointed out, there are former police professionals in DPS. And while Chisholm has said Marquette was non-compliant, and Marquette sheepishly admitted to breaking the law in reaction to Chisholm's rant, no charges seem to have been filed against Marquette. If Marquette is breaking the law repeatedly for 10 years, would MPD and Chisholm be content with "sorry, but we changed our policies so it won't happen again."

Finally, isn't there more to evidence than just punctuality? What about medical records?What about the doctor's report from the night of the assault? I know some people like Chisholm and some posters are taking great joy in pointing the finger. But maybe like those flickering lights, there's nothing here. Marquette has botched the handling of this, there's no doubt in that. But considering how much they've screwed up the media relations part, isn't is possible that they didn't even check the law, just taking Chisholm's word for it even when lawyers are saying he wasn't exactly right?

I'm sure it was a mistake posting that. It's clear that the cooler heads that made this such a good discussion thread for 20 or so posts have not prevailed. Set the agenda of attacking Marquette, boys, it seems to be the thing to do.

I said that the DPS conducted an investigation and in their opinion a crime did not occur.    To construe that statement as a personal attack ......wow.    Character revealed.   (BTW, as opposed to my original statement, their IS some imaginable way to feel insulted.   Hope this helps)

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 11:45:23 PMWhy would MU have conducted the investigation in the first place if they didn't at least start out with reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed?

The fact that MU acted on the complaint is an indication that they believed that it may be true, which by definition means they had grounds to believe a crime may have been committed.

This is just ridiculous. It would be like me quitting my job today because I may win the lottery tonight. But of course, that example's probably too extreme for you. Let's try this:

About 15 blocks from my engine house is a building that has a horrible fire alarm system. We are called there 2-5 times a week for false alarms. If this place went up, it would be disastrous. Potentially hundreds if casualties and damages in the billions. It would make Pizza Man look like a backyard barbecue. The entire city and possibly surrounding communities would be needed to fight that fire. But when the alarm for that place sounds, we only send one engine and one truck, as we do for any other alarm sounding. Why? Because we're investigating before we declare it to be a disaster. Two rigs check it out, enough to start operations if needed, but not more because it'd be a waste of resources to send the 24 rigs we'd need to really make an effective attack every time their constantly faulty alarm system goes off. In probably a dozen or mire trips over there, I've only seen evidence of fire once, and it was out before we arrived thanks to the sprinkler system. Otherwise, it's been burnt food, jackasses at the pull-stations, or just faulty wiring.

What DPS did was what we do. Investigate the claim before calling in more resources (MPD) if it does turn out to be serious. Believe me, if they reported every incident they investigated to MPD, you'd see a never-ending parade of squad lights on campus.

I want to know, when did the PR team and the lawyers replace the Jesuits and Jesuit Christian philosophy when dealing with young adults that need to be protected and nutured.  Marquette has gotten away from its key Christian principles that they should use to guide them....not the fear of being sued.  Embarrassed to say I went to MU right now !

Uh....mcderjim, what exactly would you have done here that is consistent with "Jesuit Christian philosophy?"  The only thing MU seems to have done wrong is not contacting MPD.  And exercising bad PR.  The allegations have a complete lack of evidence and have broken down to a he said/she said scenario so who knows who is to blame?

Quote from: mcderjim on July 16, 2011, 10:18:07 AM
I want to know, when did the PR team and the lawyers replace the Jesuits and Jesuit Christian philosophy when dealing with young adults that need to be protected and nutured.  Marquette has gotten away from its key Christian principles that they should use to guide them....not the fear of being sued.  Embarrassed to say I went to MU right now !

The Jesuits and their philosophy are fine, but going about with good intentions alone won't work when schlock journalists want to smear you. They'll find something wrong with the best of intentions, which is why you need good PR management, so that your good intentions are viewed that way by the public.

How about Marquette taking the lead on dealing with sexual assaults on campus, better communication to students....anything but simply silence. MU should be a role model for response and action instead of duds

1. We don't know if sexual assaults actually did happen in this case.

2. They have student support services available for potential victims of sexual assualt.  They have for a long time.

3. DPS and MPD will now have a closer relationship when such accusations occur.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 16, 2011, 06:33:54 AM


What DPS did was what we do. Investigate the claim before calling in more resources (MPD) if it does turn out to be serious. Believe me, if they reported every incident they investigated to MPD, you'd see a never-ending parade of squad lights on campus.

I want to jump in, because it's what I do.   ;)

I like your analogy but would question one part.  In your example, you are still sending one truck of qualified, MFD to investigate if the fire is a serious deal.  In the MU example, you're still relying on DPS and not MPD which seems to be the disconnect to me. MU was not doing that.  They were still utilizing DPS and not MPD, which is different than you sending out MFD to ascertain how big the fire is before sending in MORE MPD, not an entirely new entity.

DPS are fine people, good at what they do, but it doesn't make them experts in this area or at the very least, puts them in a difficult situation.  DPS are EMPLOYEES of MU.  Thus, there is conflict of interest potentially that DPS could determine certain people didn't commit a crime and others might have.  Take that decision out of their hands, which is what the new policy does now.  Let MPD and their resources view it from an independent point of view without any conflict of interest.  I think everyone benefits from that...the victims...the accused...certainly the university.

There was a MJS editorial that I think hit is on the nail for me.   http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/124681863.html    "All allegations of sexual assault on a college campus should be immediately reported to police. Period."    "Marquette has about 90 public safety officers, but they are not sworn law enforcement officers. Crimes such as sexual assaults require far more expertise and training than MU's officers have."   "The change in policy protects victims, but it also protects the university - especially in cases involving student-athletes. Under the old policy, Marquette left itself open to the charge that the university was trying to protect a suspect in a sexual assault."

I do wish the students would be trained to NOT call DPS for most things.

As a stupid 20 year old, I called DPS twice and neither time were they the right people to call, both times I should have called 911.  One of those calls, the delay could have had a tragic ending.

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 09:10:35 PMThe problem with the article is that it starts with the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem.

Guys, I'd like to focus on this. It isn't the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem, it's that since the incident, Marquette has demonstrated a lack of acumen in terms of crises management. Can we please return this discussion to that topic? I understand everyone wants to talk about the incident itself, but I'm pretty sure we have about a dozen other threads where that is the topic at hand. If we need another one, someone can feel free to start it, or maybe this thread could be split for that discussion, but this is about "Marquette's PR Nightmare". Not referring to PuertoRicanNightmare, not referring to the incident itself, but referring to the mishandling of the crisis management after the incident had already occurred.

The assumption the article makes is that there was an incident. It seems a pretty safe assumption. The topic the article addresses is how that incident was managed after it happened, how it could have been better handled after it happened, and what Marquette can do for the future to make sure that we are better prepared after any similar future incidents happen.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 16, 2011, 05:31:56 AM
I'll probably regret posting this, but am I to believe that Marquette DPS is to report every incident reported to them to police? Yes, Chisholm went nuts on us during his pouting rant that he couldn't press charges. But the law seems to specifically state that you must report when you have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed.

And when a woman comes in claiming that she was sexually assaulted, supported by hospital records of injuries consistent with such a claim--that to me seems to be sufficient enough to support a belief that a crime may have been committed.  

I am extremely curious as to what else you would require from this girl before you would believe that she may have been a crime victim.  

Her story (coupled with the hospital record) was obviously credible enough that DPS launched an internal investigation.

I believe that because it was sufficiently credible that DPS would launch their own investigation, it also rises to the level of being credible enough to get the MPD involved.  

What should bother everyone in the Marquette community is that MU's handling of this matter  precluded the MPD from gathering sufficient evidence to bring this matter to justice.  

And please note that I've consistently said that justice may well have taken the form of exoneration of the athlete following an impartial police investigation.

Short of a confession from the girl (that she made the whole story up) or the athlete (confessing that that he indeed did assault her) we will never know what happened--and that is at least partially (if not mostly) the result of Marquette's handling of this matter.  

In the end, Marquette's handling was inconsistent with the law--and both the DA and Marquette agree with me on this.

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 16, 2011, 01:49:04 PMAnd...

Please note the previous post and save this for an appropriate thread, which this isn't.

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 15, 2011, 11:45:23 PM
Why would MU have conducted the investigation in the first place if they didn't at least start out with reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed?

Yes, that's exactly what happened. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The only way to make a determination of whether there's reasonable grounds a crime was committed in such an instance (i.e. a person walking into the office and claiming it's so) is to investigate.
You are consistently and ignorantly putting the cart ahead of the horse. Law enforcement doesn't determine there was an offense and then investigate it. They investigate it to determine whether there was an offense.

p.s, Regarding your later fact-deficient post, the accuser in this case went to the hospital after making her report to public safety, not before, so that played no part in their decision. And, frankly, without getting too graphic, what was found in her hospital evaluation is not necessarily evidence of a crime.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 16, 2011, 01:57:17 PM
Please note the previous post and save this for an appropriate thread, which this isn't.

My post was in direct response to one of your comments.  If you wanted me to reply in a different thread, your comment should have been in a different thread.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 16, 2011, 01:48:21 PM
Guys, I'd like to focus on this. It isn't the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem, it's that since the incident, Marquette has demonstrated a lack of acumen in terms of crises management.
Can we please return this discussion to that topic? I understand everyone wants to talk about the incident itself, but I'm pretty sure we have about a dozen other threads where that is the topic at hand. If we need another one, someone can feel free to start it, or maybe this thread could be split for that discussion, but this is about "Marquette's PR Nightmare". Not referring to PuertoRicanNightmare, not referring to the incident itself, but referring to the mishandling of the crisis management after the incident had already occurred.

I think your suggested improvements might actually make things worse.  For example:

Quote from: brewcity77

• Come out with a statement in March when the story was first breaking online announcing that DPS made a thorough investigation but that it has now been forwarded to MPD and all future inquiries should go there.

Three problems.

One, the incident happened in February. Coming out when the story was first breaking at the end of March still leaves you with the problem of explaining why you weren't forthcoming when they occurred.

Second, MU did not forward the incident to the MPD.  The victim did.  Claiming that they forwarded the matter to police when they didn't would cause even more problems for MU.

Third, there is no way that a reporter would ever buy such a ham-handed approach of washing ones hands by referring all future inquiries to the MPD.  You can't take a five weeks to conduct your own investigation, then claim you're not going to answer any questions about it and refer everything to MPD.  You're asking for someone to believe you're trying to hide something.

Quote from: brewcity77

• If the policy needed to be revised, so be it, but do it under the auspices of helping students rather than admitting a history of law-breaking, especially as it doesn't seem to be illegal to not report a crime you don't believe happened.

First, That's pretty hard, since your prior non-complaint policy was explained under the auspices of helping students.

Second, DA was already on record saying that MU was required to report the incident to police.  So claiming otherwise would immediately put Marquette on the defensive in direct opposition to the DA. 

And I made a mistake (and have no problem admitting it) by continuing your completely off-topic discussion. I've asked the mods to split the threads from the point where you first failed to address the initial PR topic. I'd prefer this thread dealing with the topic at hand, which is not what you brought up nor what I continued.

The initial incident Chisholm was talking about, and the reason he cited Marquette's lapse in reporting, occurred in October. And it doesn't matter at that point who forwarded it to MPD. The bottom line is Marquette should have said something in March rather than waiting until May for Chisholm to blast them publicly. And Marquette needed to make it clear they weren't releasing names and that any release of names was in MPD's hands. We've been lambasted publicly for not "clearing the air" when that would have been the worst thing possible. Had we immediately made it clear that any "clearing of the air" would have to go through the (now) investigating authority it would have stemmed Hunt's article before it was written.

And why is it hard? You create one policy under the auspices of helping students. You decide to revise it to better help students. Not that complicated. Second, the DA was posturing and what he said does not go in accordance with the law. Marquette was responsible for reporting a crime if they had reasonable grounds to believe one had been committed. Despite your insinuation that every incident worth investigating is worth reporting (a rather inane statement), that's not he case. If Marquette had violated the law, they would have been liable to face charges. However...

Quote from: WTMJ 4The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing, Division of Enforcement, reviewed the matter and decided not to take any action against the college.

If Marquette was guilty of violating the law as Chisholm insinuated and the University essentially admitted, action would have been taken against them. It wasn't. This is a PR issue. They made a mistake by admitting to breaking the law when the law was not broken. Regardless of what Chisholm said and what you continue to say, that wasn't the case, and the state's inaction in regards to taking action against Marquette is evidence of that.

Link: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/122682479.html

Quote from: Pakuni on July 16, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
Yes, that's exactly what happened. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The only way to make a determination of whether there's reasonable grounds a crime was committed in such an instance (i.e. a person walking into the office and claiming it's so) is to investigate.

And when a woman comes in claiming that she was sexually assaulted, supported by hospital records of injuries consistent with such a claim--that to me seems to be sufficient enough to support a belief that a crime may have been committed. 

And despite the fact that you don't agree with me, l I can say is that Marquette University, the Milwaukee County DA's office do--MU was in violation of the law on this one.

I'd love to know what additional evidence would you need before you would agree that a private security force should reasonably conclude that a crime had been committed and refer this incident to the police for a proper investigation?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the only reason MU DPS investigated is because they thought the woman was telling the truth.  Which by definition means they thought a crime may have occurred.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 16, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
You are consistently and ignorantly putting the cart ahead of the horse. Law enforcement doesn't determine there was an offense and then investigate it. They investigate it to determine whether there was an offense.

This is quite a novel theory:  Without any belief that you violated any law, law enforcement could walk into your house and start investigating you solely to determine if you committed an offense. 

Thats a new one.  I knew Stalin and Mao operated this way, but I was pretty sure in the US we don't start investigating people unless we have a reasonable expectation that they committed a crime.  That whole "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" thing.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 16, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
p.s, Regarding your later fact-deficient post, the accuser in this case went to the hospital after making her report to public safety, not before, so that played no part in their decision.

Who's fact deficient?

Girl went to the hospital, then spoke with DPS the following day:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation
"The woman then went to the hospital at the resident assistant's urging. Medical reports from that visit show the woman had vaginal abrasions, in addition to fresh injuries on her face, hip, foot, knee and both thighs, according to documents obtained by the Tribune.

The following day, a security officer finally contacted her and asked her to come back to the department and give another statement, the woman said. She did, only to be told that police wouldn't want to investigate her case and that the university's internal discipline process would likely cause her more harm than good, she said. The officer did not take an official report, she said."

Quote from: Pakuni on July 16, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
And, frankly, without getting too graphic, what was found in her hospital evaluation is no necessarily evidence of a crime.

And what was found in the hospital evaluation was consistent with her story.

If all of these reported allegations of physical injuries are true, it seems to me that DA John Chisholm should have charged the student-athlete involved. Yet, the critics seem to rely on Chisholm's criticisms of MU to fortify their position. Either Chisholm should be the target of all of this criticism or, perhaps, the Tribune report isn't quite accurate.

The critics have disreagrded a few facts: first, MPD and MU Public Safety have worked together for years. They have always had a cooperative agreement whereby MU handles all sorts of law violations without involving MPD--easiest example is underage drinking. Anyone who suggests there is no discretion on the part of MU Public Safety officers is a fool. Second, the critics seem to forget another premise that invalidates their argument, to wit: MU has counseled and assisted sexual assault victims for decades whether or not the events were reported to MPD. Finally, and as well stated by Melinda Hughes of the Healing Center in her recent piece in the JS, MU's new DA generatred policy will have a chilling effect on victim repoprting. Ms. Hughes suggests, because of this policy change, that students entirely bypass the MU mandatory reporting system and call Aurora Sinai instead of MU where they will have counseling options absent mandatory reporting. The blind criticism of people on this issue has caused the institution of policies that may well actually harm sexual assault victims.

So the critics have contibuted to MU's negative image, without considering the DA's own responsibilty vs. the accuser's credibility, which have together caused the institution of a policy which may well discourage sexual assault victims from getting the assistance they need. Nice work...

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 16, 2011, 04:32:08 PM
And I made a mistake (and have no problem admitting it) by continuing your completely off-topic discussion. I've asked the mods to split the threads from the point where you first failed to address the initial PR topic. I'd prefer this thread dealing with the topic at hand, which is not what you brought up nor what I continued.

I request that you stop insinuating that I took this off topic. It was already off topic when I got involved.  I directly replied to a comment made by Benny B, who posted in response to YOUR off topic comment:

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 15, 2011, 03:39:34 PM
Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

Yours wasn't a comment about Public Relations, was it?  And you posted it long before I got involved in the thread.  So please stop saying I took this off topic. Look in the mirror.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 16, 2011, 04:32:08 PM
Second, the DA was posturing and what he said does not go in accordance with the law. Marquette was responsible for reporting a crime if they had reasonable grounds to believe one had been committed.

When a woman walks in and says she's been assaulted, and has hospital records that document injuries consistent with her story, I think at that point there are reasonable grounds a crime may have been committed.  Thats the point that MU should have referred this.

I'll ask you again, because you've ignored it so far:  What else would she have had to do before you'd actually think that she MIGHT be telling the truth?

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 16, 2011, 04:32:08 PM
If Marquette was guilty of violating the law as Chisholm insinuated and the University essentially admitted, action would have been taken against them. It wasn't.

More likely, charges were not brought because Marquette publicly acknowledged that their policy violated the law and changed it to comply. 

Had MU dug in their heels, Chisholm would have certainly pushed this case.

Think of it this way--if you're speeding but a cop just gives you a warning--you were still  speeding.  Letting you off is not "evidence" that you weren't violating the law--it was a decision not to charge you.

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 16, 2011, 05:56:15 PM
I request that you stop insinuating that I took this off topic. It was already off topic when I got involved.  I directly replied to a comment made by Benny B, who posted in response to YOUR off topic comment:

Yours wasn't a comment about Public Relations, was it?  And you posted it long before I got involved in the thread.  So please stop saying I took this off topic. Look in the mirror.


When a woman walks in and says she's been assaulted, and has hospital records that document injuries consistent with her story, I think at that point there are reasonable grounds a crime may have been committed.  Thats the point that MU should have referred this.

I'll ask you again, because you've ignored it so far:  What else would she have had to do before you'd actually think that she MIGHT be telling the truth?

More likely, charges were not brought because Marquette publicly acknowledged that their policy violated the law and changed it to comply. 

Had MU dug in their heels, Chisholm would have certainly pushed this case.

Think of it this way--if you're speeding but a cop just gives you a warning--you were still  speeding.  Letting you off is not "evidence" that you weren't violating the law--it was a decision not to charge you.

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 06:16:35 PM

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

+ 1000. The haters won't be moved by your facts, experience or expertise. Their only interest is spinning each and every situation in a direction most harmful to Marquette. For the rest of us, though, thanks.

Brew,

I completely disagree with the premise of this thread. 

You seem to be saying if MU handled this differently that we would have a different perception of this incident.  I would argue that if MU did exactly what you suggest, we would have have the exactly same perception of MU as we do now.  No amount of spinning can change the perceptions of these kind of incidents.

The reason is the same reason you keep asking for the mods to split this thread.  You cannot separate the incident and its specifics from the PR spinning.  People are too smart for that.  So, having a really good BS'er shoveling exactly what you say to the public would change exactly nothing.

I would argue that what you are seeing is the best case scenario.  Like I said in another thread, MU is trying to take a bunch of lemons and make lemonade.   This is bad, and these things do not go away because someone shovels BS to the press.

If this is the best case, what is the worst case?  See Duke Lacrosse.  They were, getting blasted in the national press, multiple 60 Minutes stories and a 20%+ drop in applications for two or three years.  All we have is one bad Chi Tribune story, Michael Hunt writing is 2,437 critical story about MU and Mark Belling take time away from being critical of MU to focus on this story by being critical of MU.  Essentially this amounts to no press at all and will be forgotten when school starts.

Good job MU, this story is essentially old news and forgotten save a few dozens zealots on MU Scoop. 

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 06:16:35 PM

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

Thank you for interceding and bringing some semblance of reality back to this discussion. 

Unfortunately, no surprise 84 is once again "enlightening" the board with his vast knowledge of all things.  Nice to know that there are some folks who come here that really know what they are talking about. 

Warning:  prepare to deal with the repercussions...lot of word twisting and making up of all kinds of things. 

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 06:16:35 PM

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

Which crime are you suggesting that Chisholm refused to prosecute?

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 06:16:35 PM

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

Can you please tell us why Marquette officials ADMITTED to breaking the law yet some here are saying MU broke no law.  I'd like that answered first.  Not with the typical "is is", but a simple explanation why MU admitted to breaking the law and you are implying they didn't...then why did MU admit it?

Chicos you are the smartest guy in the room, as always. Show me the quote and show me the statute. Glad to deconstrust--just like on Doddsy's board.

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 09:40:37 PM
Chicos you are the smartest guy in the room, as always. Show me the quote and show me the statute. Glad to deconstrust--just like on Doddsy's board.

No, I'm not the smartest guy in the room.  People here have been saying that MU broke a law for ten years not reporting this information to MPD.  I'd simply like to know is that true or not?  I'm not asking a difficult question.  By the way, welcome to this board.  Here is the pertinent passage from the Chicago Tribune.

The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law, which requires campus security departments to report any possible crimes to local authorities. School officials also did not tell police about a sexual attack allegation involving four athletes in October.

In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years. And in at least the two most recent cases, the lapse played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges.


Is the Tribune accurate?  Is someone lying to the Tribune?  Was someone misinformed and told the Tribune something incorrectly?  I hear that the law is concrete and only one person has the answer and other lawyers / judges always agree 100% on the law.   ;)

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2011, 09:45:23 PM

No, I'm not the smartest guy in the room.  People here have been saying that MU broke a law for ten years not reporting this information to MPD.  I'd simply like to know is that true or not?  I'm not asking a difficult question.  By the way, welcome to this board.  Here is the pertinent passage from the Chicago Tribune.

The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law, which requires campus security departments to report any possible crimes to local authorities. School officials also did not tell police about a sexual attack allegation involving four athletes in October.

In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years. And in at least the two most recent cases, the lapse played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges.


Is the Tribune accurate?  Is someone lying to the Tribune?  Was someone misinformed and told the Tribune something incorrectly?  I hear that the law is concrete and only one person has the answer and other lawyers / judges always agree 100% on the law.   ;)

As the article is written, not reporting underage drinking violations is a violation of State Law.

So, you tell me, is the article accurate?

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 06:16:35 PM
I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings.

Psst, Gato.  Your extensive experience in actual law is no match for a forum full of guys who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 05:32:27 PM
If all of these reported allegations of physical injuries are true, it seems to me that DA John Chisholm should have charged the student-athlete involved. Yet, the critics seem to rely on Chisholm's criticisms of MU to fortify their position. Either Chisholm should be the target of all of this criticism or, perhaps, the Tribune report isn't quite accurate.

If you truly are a former prosecutor, then I'm sure you've personally experienced situations where you were unable to bring a case to trial because of a compromised investigation. 

I'm just curious, since you're quick to blame Chisholm here, did you accept responsibility every time the actions of the police (or a private security force) made errors in the investigation which made it impossible to gather evidence to support a prosecution?

That appears to be the case with Chisholm's decision not to charge the student-athletes.  He specifically said:
"No law enforcement agency was able to adequately investigate this matter at the time it occurred, and the subsequent efforts by the Milwaukee Police Department were inhibited by the fact that it did not receive this information until several months after the incident occurred."

and

"An immediate and thorough police investigation of this incident may have yielded additional compelling evidence.  Unfortunately a police investigation undertaken even four weeks later was not able to produce corroborate evidence that would support a criminal prosecution"


BTW, how many of your successful prosecutions were investigated by a private security force without the involvement of the police?

Quote from: Gato78 on July 16, 2011, 05:32:27 PM
The critics have disreagrded a few facts: first, MPD and MU Public Safety have worked together for years. They have always had a cooperative agreement whereby MU handles all sorts of law violations without involving MPD--easiest example is underage drinking. Anyone who suggests there is no discretion on the part of MU Public Safety officers is a fool.

Just curious, where do you draw the line personally?

You are making the case that MU should handle Underage Drinking investigations?  What about Possession of pot?  Dealing heroin?  Sexual Assault?  Armed Robbery?  Terrorism?  Homicide?

Your argument seems to that because they deal with underage drinking, then they have discretion to investigate sexual assault.

Where you you draw the line?  You seem to be suggesting that there is no line, that because MU  handles underage drinking, they are equally qualified to handle murder investigations.

Quote from: MUMac on July 16, 2011, 10:21:59 PM
As the article is written, not reporting underage drinking violations is a violation of State Law.

So, you tell me, is the article accurate?

Are you equating the two?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on July 16, 2011, 08:40:47 PM


If this is the best case, what is the worst case?  See Duke Lacrosse.  They were, getting blasted in the national press, multiple 60 Minutes stories and a 20%+ drop in applications for two or three years.  All we have is one bad Chi Tribune story, Michael Hunt writing is 2,437 critical story about MU and Mark Belling take time away from being critical of MU to focus on this story by being critical of MU.  Essentially this amounts to no press at all and will be forgotten when school starts.

20% drop in applications for 2 or 3 years?  Source!

In the year after the incident, applications dropped 1.1% and could not be attributed to any particular event. 

Duke Lacrosse should not be mentioned in the same breath as the MU situation.  They are not on the same planet in almost every aspect.  The Duke case was a bunch of liberal professors, an out of control DA and a university professor that couldn't wait to make a socio-political statement and they got their asses kicked in the process when those little things called FACTS came out. 

The irony of ironies....there are some people here on this board that were full up anti-Duke Lacrosse players and ready to lynch these guys that are a 180 on the MU situation.  No one here has said MU players committed rape.  Nor has anyone here called for a coaches head, but some posters here sure did back when that event was going on...oh the irony.  The concern here by MU alums that don't have their heads in the sand is how the university acted and should have acted.  We love the university, despite ridiculous claims by Lenny and others that we don't.  It's all they have left in an argument and so that's what they turn to.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2011, 11:00:47 PM
The irony of ironies....there are some people here on this board that were full up anti-Duke Lacrosse players and ready to lynch these guys

To keep this sane, there weren't many members of this board during the Duke Lacross crap, and I'd like to see evidence off those that were ready to lynch.

In a quick search, I didn't find any conversation on the topic, and while I fully expected to find you as one of the "ready to lynch" crowd, I only found a sarcastic comment you made about Mike Nifong.

But hey, I give you credit for trying to throw white gas into the fire, even though you're only holding a glass of water.

LOL.  With the way posts sometimes "disappear" around here...ghosts in the machine...please.  Just in the last few weeks there are posts that were made that will never appear in any search because the mods took them away.  If you aren't able to find something, does that mean it was never posted or is it because it no longer remains here?  Especially true back in the day with political discussions here (when they were allowed) and knowing all the mods here are certainly not going to be confused for Ronald Reagan, there were posts that some didn't agree with that somehow vanished into the ether. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 17, 2011, 12:08:45 AM
LOL.  With the way posts sometimes "disappear" around here...ghosts in the machine...please.  Just in the last few weeks there are posts that were made that will never appear in any search because the mods took them away.  If you aren't able to find something, does that mean it was never posted or is it because it no longer remains here?  Especially true back in the day with political discussions here (when they were allowed) and knowing all the mods here are certainly not going to be confused for Ronald Reagan, there were posts that some didn't agree with that somehow vanished into the ether. 

Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

first!

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 17, 2011, 12:08:45 AM
LOL.  With the way posts sometimes "disappear" around here...ghosts in the machine...please.  Just in the last few weeks there are posts that were made that will never appear in any search because the mods took them away.  If you aren't able to find something, does that mean it was never posted or is it because it no longer remains here?  Especially true back in the day with political discussions here (when they were allowed) and knowing all the mods here are certainly not going to be confused for Ronald Reagan, there were posts that some didn't agree with that somehow vanished into the ether. 

I'd hate for the mods here to be confused with a no-nothing actor who masqueraded as a politician and set the country back 30 years and counting.

*takes a bow*

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

THANK YOU!!!!

Is 84 next?  He fits the above to a "T" as well although I don't recall him ever being such a douche to the guys that run the site. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 16, 2011, 10:48:24 PM
Are you equating the two?

Yeah, I am equating the two.   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

For you, this comment probably needed teal, for others, no.

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 17, 2011, 06:15:29 AM
THANK YOU!!!!

Is 84 next?  He fits the above to a "T" as well although I don't recall him ever being such a douche to the guys that run the site. 

+1000000

Quote from: Marquette84 on July 16, 2011, 09:20:54 PM
Which crime are you suggesting that Chisholm refused to prosecute?

1. I am only trying to point out that if Chishiolm had all of the evidence the Tribune writer describes, he probably should have prosecuted since he purportedly had physical evidence corroborating the accuser's version of the he said/she said. The point being that if the MU haters are willing to accept the accuser's version, aren't their slings and arrows misdirected? Shouldn't Chisholm be the target if the Trib's version is to be believed?

2. The point about underage drinking is not meant to be an equivalence argument. Rather, as originally stated, an easy example of how MU and Milwaukee's law enforcement agencies work together. MPD prefers MU handles things without MPD's involvement where possible. Think in terms of MU Public Safety staffing levels and having to replace that with MPD cops. MPD is happy to work with MU's cops. They have been doing this for decades.

3. I cannot recall a prosecution or defense of a case in my career where a private security force is involved. However, in most cases there is a social work involvement either before or shortly after the allegations are made--much like MU's procedures before the mandatory reporting. Often police forces will have a female officer who is the sexual assault expert doing the initial interview--some departments rely on outside social workers to do the initial interview especially where children are involved. So MU's prior procedures are not out of the norm. The only question is when does the private agency need to report. It is quite clear there is discretion vested in the private police agency--there is no requirement that everything must be reported. In MU's case, the question is whether MU Public Safety abused that discretion.

4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

Quote from: Gato78 on July 17, 2011, 08:17:58 AM
1. I am only trying to point out that if Chishiolm had all of the evidence the Tribune writer describes, he probably should have prosecuted since he purportedly had physical evidence corroborating the accuser's version of the he said/she said. The point being that if the MU haters are willing to accept the accuser's version, aren't their slings and arrows misdirected? Shouldn't Chisholm be the target if the Trib's version is to be believed?

2. The point about underage drinking is not meant to be an equivalence argument. Rather, as originally stated, an easy example of how MU and Milwaukee's law enforcement agencies work together. MPD prefers MU handles things without MPD's involvement where possible. Think in terms of MU Public Safety staffing levels and having to replace that with MPD cops. MPD is happy to work with MU's cops. They have been doing this for decades.

3. I cannot recall a prosecution or defense of a case in my career where a private security force is involved. However, in most cases there is a social work involvement either before or shortly after the allegations are made--much like MU's procedures before the mandatory reporting. Often police forces will have a female officer who is the sexual assault expert doing the initial interview--some departments rely on outside social workers to do the initial interview especially where children are involved. So MU's prior procedures are not out of the norm. The only question is when does the private agency need to report. It is quite clear there is discretion vested in the private police agency--there is no requirement that everything must be reported. In MU's case, the question is whether MU Public Safety abused that discretion.

4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

Thanks for the expert input, Gato.

Gato, I very much appreciate your expertise and your level-headedness when it came to this discussion.  This is where I am going to end my comments on this topic, and focus on the upcoming season.

Oh, great.
Now how are we going to inject Tom Crean and Indiana into every thread.

(See how I just did that?)

Quote from: Pakuni on July 17, 2011, 09:38:44 AM
Oh, great.
Now how are we going to inject Tom Crean and Indiana into every thread.

(See how I just did that?)

Ban him!

Quote from: Gato78 on July 17, 2011, 08:17:58 AM
1. I am only trying to point out that if Chishiolm had all of the evidence the Tribune writer describes, he probably should have prosecuted since he purportedly had physical evidence corroborating the accuser's version of the he said/she said.

The only question is when does the private agency need to report. It is quite clear there is discretion vested in the private police agency--there is no requirement that everything must be reported. In MU's case, the question is whether MU Public Safety abused that discretion.
4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

Let me try to understand your points, in reverse order to your quoted portions above.
On your point 4...Facing potential civil liability, one would never expect MU to publically acknowledge a law violation...as such would risk/expose it to potential strict negligence liability.

On Point 3...Weighing the "discretion" to report, implies there must be some level when the discretion is abused, or does not exist. Based on those citing the Wisc. statute (to which we're deferring to your jusidictional license)

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."
...it appears the statute is "shall notify" ...meaning no discretion is present when MU security had before it probable cause evidence--right?

As the evidence you first allude to, in your point 1, apparently met the higher than mere probable cause standard required for prosecuting...and that you say (based on the Trib)this was either something that should have been...or was a real close call to prosecution.....

Wouldnt such necessarily imply , and answer (again...if you beleive solely the Trib, as the only source)

...that on scene security found, or should have found on reasonable mans standard...probable cause.

ie,.. If one says the case was prosecutable, or even a close call to prosecution...shouldnt the on scene folks reasonably have found probable cause(at which time discretion ceases,and "shall notify" statutory language requires security reporting of the facts to the police). Your initial premise, in point 1,pre answers the reporting question, as a yes to having to report, by the statute's terms.

Where I diverge is in any animis to Chisolm's non-charging decision, or any belief and reliance, solely on the Trib version.The extraneous, non Trib references run quite counter to any error, or abuse of discretion, in the prosecution decision.
In fact,Chisolm's press quotes say nothing close to them having evidence sufficient to prosecute...I think he was truthful and honest, to that point.

Accordingly,I also reopen the doubts/duty on Security reporting question...believing we dont know if facts supported : i) any prosecution, or even close to one; or even ii) probable cause mandating reporting.

My question back to you then is--We dont know in the two incidents whether on site facts supported probable cause, or whether such still left campus security in the sub probable cause, discretion zone--agreed?

Alternatively, if you believe there should have been prosecution, which very strongly implies on scene probable cause (which, in turn triggers the above statutory, non discretionary, "shall notify"), are you saying judgment/discretion as to the level of crime, allows less than to the letter enforcement of the reporting statute against MU, ie the letter of the statute wasnt met, but due to the minor crime, its related reporting violation by MU is overlooked, at times?

Choose either--they're both reasonable...or tell me where Ive missed something. Thanks Gato

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

Banning after midnight?  Did the power of being an Admin go to your head after a couple drinks or is this permanent?

I'm not trying to make jokes, it's just that I've been known to rescind my own post-midnight bannings more often than not :)

Please don't ban me :(

Quote from: Gato78 on July 17, 2011, 08:17:58 AM


4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

That's lawyer speak in my opinion.  You seem to be saying then that the Chicago Tribune is lying with their story.  As is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  They both stated Marquette admitted to breaking the law to them and they printed it, but you are hiding behind no one officially is mentioned in the article.  Come on.   Shouldn't MU sue the Tribune and MJS for printing such malicious lies?  You know you don't believe that.  MU broke the law, admitted it to the press and you're hiding behind this idea they didn't come out at a podium and say it.  Of course they won't, just as politicians and many business leaders don't.  That doesn't mean they didn't.  The Tribune and MJS got it right.

One could argue Father Wild himself admitted it in his email to university employees.  I invite you to read his email:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search?q=sexual+assault

Quote from: houwarrior on July 17, 2011, 10:04:06 AM
Let me try to understand your points, in reverse order to your quoted portions above.
On your point 4...Facing potential civil liability, one would never expect MU to publically acknowledge a law violation...as such would risk/expose it to potential strict negligence liability.

On Point 3...Weighing the "discretion" to report, implies there must be some level when the discretion is abused, or does not exist. Based on those citing the Wisc. statute (to which we're deferring to your jusidictional license)

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."
...it appears the statute is "shall notify" ...meaning no discretion is present when MU security had before it probable cause evidence--right?

Gato, of course, can answer for himself, but I think the discretion of which he speaks lies in the phrase "has reasonable grounds to believe." The "shall notify" portion of the statute is conditioned upon the DPS officer having "reasonable grounds."
MU has wisely chosen to do away with that discretion, deciding its better to report every sex assault claim, regardless of the officer's determination. But clearly there is some discretion there and that, I think, is what Gato has addressed.

Quoteie,.. If one says the case was prosecutable, or even a close call to prosecution...shouldnt the on scene folks reasonably have found probable cause(at which time discretion ceases,and "shall notify" statutory language requires security reporting of the facts to the police). Your initial premise, in point 1,pre answers the reporting question, as a yes to having to report, by the statute's terms.

Again, Gato will speak for himself, but I think his point here is that there was much more (or perhaps less, in a way) to the evidence in this case than what's been reported by the Tribune, hence Chisholm's decision not to prosecute. Had the totality of the evidence been as reported by the Tribune, then Chisholm should have prosecuted - or at least it would have been a close call. The fact he chose not to prosecute tends to indicate authorities know more about the situation than what's been reported.
I don't believe Gato has any animus toward Chisholm's decision. Rather, he's pointing out that Chisholm very likely made his decision with more information about the incident than has been reported by the Tribune.
FWIW ... I don't necessarily blame the Tribune for that. They're going on what their source - the accuser and (likely) her attorneys - are telling them and seem not be getting the other side of the story from MU and the accused ... both of which have very good reasons not to speak publicly about the evidence.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 17, 2011, 12:33:05 AM
I'd hate for the mods here to be confused with a no-nothing actor who masqueraded as a politician and set the country back 30 years and counting.

*takes a bow*

Wouldn't you be one of the first to b!tch about keeping politics off the board if similar comments were made about Clinton, Obama or Carter?  If those comments are not to be tolerated, why is this?  Keep your political opinions to yourself.  

Houston Warrior, a lawyer had a differing view than Gato, a lawyer.   You two are arguing and should be banned for life, or at least for a half hour.  

Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 17, 2011, 10:25:53 AM
Banning after midnight?  Did the power of being an Admin go to your head after a couple drinks or is this permanent?

It was 11:20 my time.  I did have a couple drinks.  But my decision stands.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 11:04:36 AM
It was 11:20 my time.  I did have a couple drinks.  But my decision stands.

And the board erupts into loud and sustained applause!!!! 

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 11:04:36 AM
It was 11:20 my time.  I did have a couple drinks.  But my decision stands.

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/yes/obama_applause.gif)

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/yes/Chuck_Norris_Approves.gif)

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/yes/kevthumb.gif)

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/yes/Al_Bundy_excited.gif)

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/yes/excited_yes.gif)

Quote from: Pakuni on July 17, 2011, 10:59:40 AM
Gato, of course, can answer for himself, but I think the discretion of which he speaks lies in the phrase "has reasonable grounds to believe." The "shall notify" portion of the statute is conditioned upon the DPS officer having "reasonable grounds."

This part is not discretion...its the common language term used to define probable cause.

Probable cause, defined,  is when one has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed. Thats objective, not subjective.
So, to recast the statute terms...

"Any unlicensed private security person who has probable cause  shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."

Because probable cause is a standard measured objectively, see:
http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2011/2010ap000999.htm

..its existence or absence is measurable, ..its there or its not...and its not subjective, or ever theoretically, discretionary...even though if a cop hadnt looked the other way once on me as a kid, I'd have had an arrest on my record. lol
There, the existence of probable cause objectively exisisted, But the cop "discretionarily" chose not to act on it. Even though this statute isnt discretionary, once probable cause exists, one cant doubt its ignored at times, both by security folks, and in its enforcement against them.
I think you and I agree thats just fine. I think Gato is implying the same in the underage drinking area...also, on which I agree to the enforcement latitude.
Fouls happen in many games which dont get called---they still occur. None of us have an issue with it--I dont either.

CONUNDRUM: Whats problematic is anyone believing a prosecution should have been pursued(a higher evidence standard), almost always defacto implies the on scene folks had probable cause facts before them(the automatically included, lesser evidence standard). If there should have been a prosecution, there was probable cause, and shall notify was violated.
With MUs shift I and you, look forward to the moving on (this gets boring-quickly-lol), but if Gato wants to clarify the conundrum, we'll read. If not. Im off to the watch the WCsoceer.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 17, 2011, 12:33:05 AM
I'd hate for the mods here to be confused with a no-nothing actor who masqueraded as a politician and set the country back 30 years and counting.

*takes a bow*

Hards, you obviously forgot the teal.

Quote from: houwarrior on July 17, 2011, 12:06:48 PM
This part is not discretion...its the common language term used to define probable cause.

Probable cause, defined,  is when one has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed. Thats objective, not subjective.
So, to recast the statute terms...

I'd venture to guess that if the Wisconsin state legislature wanted to use the legal term probable cause when writing the statute, that's exactly what they would have done. They instead chose to use the non-legal phrase "reasonable grounds." I suspect they did this because the law applies to people who are not attorneys or trained in the particulars of probable cause, as would be the case with a licensed police officer.

Also, it seems to me that the probable cause issue you cite below deals with whether a police officer had probable cause to make an arrest. I don't see that as analogous/applicable to a discussion of when or whether a private security officer has "reasonable grounds" to report a complaint to a certified law enforcement agency.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on July 17, 2011, 11:00:38 AM
Houston Warrior, a lawyer had a differing view than Gato, a lawyer.   You two are arguing and should be banned for life, or at least for a half hour.  

lol lol
So right---I am truly sorry for all the word barf...advocacy training makes responding an irresistable impulse...one I should have suppressed, and not bored y'all with. As I said to Pakuni...Im moving on...back to the BB talk.
Basketball is life...nothing else much matters. lol

Quote from: Pakuni on July 17, 2011, 12:21:00 PM
I'd venture to guess that if the Wisconsin state legislature wanted to use the legal term probable cause when writing the statute, that's exactly what they would have done. They instead chose to use the non-legal phrase "reasonable grounds." I suspect they did this because the law applies to people who are not attorneys or trained in the particulars of probable cause, as would be the case with a licensed police officer.

Also, it seems to me that the probable cause issue you cite below deals with whether a police officer had probable cause to make an arrest. I don't see that as analogous/applicable to a discussion of when or whether a private security officer has "reasonable grounds" to report a complaint to a certified law enforcement agency.

I dont agree, and I can walk you through this, and the case cite too....but the digresions wont stop unless I stop. So I am just stopping. Bye

Quote from: houwarrior on July 17, 2011, 12:06:48 PM

Probable cause, defined,  is when one has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed. Thats objective, not subjective.

No.  Probable cause must be looked at objectively in that it should be based on a reasonable, prudent person's view, and not from the subjective perspective of a certain individual(s).  However, ultimately whether probable cause exists in a certain matter becomes subjective.  

That is, the measurement of probable cause is objective, but that is a determination made based on the opinion of what a reasonable, prudent person would think based on the totality of the facts and circumstances - and that determination can differ depending on who you're talking to.  Thus, it's subjective.  It's not "there or it's not".

Quote from: Jay Bee on July 17, 2011, 12:35:51 PM
No.  Probable cause must be looked at objectively in that it should be based on a reasonable, prudent person's view, and not from the subjective perspective of a certain individual(s).  However, ultimately whether probable cause exists in a certain matter becomes subjective.  

That is, the measurement of probable cause is objective, but that is a determination made based on the opinion of what a reasonable, prudent person would think based on the totality of the facts and circumstances - and that determination can differ depending on who you're talking to.  Thus, it's subjective.  It's not "there or it's not".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Quote from: houwarrior on July 17, 2011, 12:39:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Well golly gee, let's consult wikipedia!  yeee haw, that's where I got learned!

::)

HouWarrior: We do not disagree. The legal standard is as you have cited.The question is whether there was PC triggering the reporting requirement. Hard to discern because there are many different versions--though one version of the October incident describes no actual physical contact. The February incident is entirely uncertain because the Trib facts leads one to believe charges should have issued, so I am very skeptical of the Trib version. Chisholm is generally a pretty good prosecutor of solid reputation. I cannot believe he had the Trib facts and decided not to prosecute.

Quote from: Jay Bee on July 17, 2011, 12:58:50 PM
Well golly gee, let's consult wikipedia!  yeee haw, that's where I got learned!

::)

As I posted above...I am trying to move on, this has become far too digressive...I just was thinking it easier to give you someting to read. Obviously you didnt.
Feel free to research better sources on your own... there are cases cited hear you 'll enjoy for self edification.
http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2011/2010ap000999.htm

Quote from: Gato78 on July 17, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
HouWarrior: We do not disagree. The legal standard is as you have cited.The question is whether there was PC triggering the reporting requirement. Hard to discern because there are many different versions--though one version of the October incident describes no actual physical contact. The February incident is entirely uncertain because the Trib facts leads one to believe charges should have issued, so I am very skeptical of the Trib version. Chisholm is generally a pretty good prosecutor of solid reputation. I cannot believe he had the Trib facts and decided not to prosecute.

Thanks, so much for your insights. Regretably, Im now having trouble shaking off the posts of the lay cuadrilla who joined in. As we understand it the same, the cuadrilla points can go on, on their own...off to the WCup.

Quote from: Gato78 on July 17, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
HouWarrior: We do not disagree. The legal standard is as you have cited.The question is whether there was PC triggering the reporting requirement. Hard to discern because there are many different versions--though one version of the October incident describes no actual physical contact. The February incident is entirely uncertain because the Trib facts leads one to believe charges should have issued, so I am very skeptical of the Trib version. Chisholm is generally a pretty good prosecutor of solid reputation. I cannot believe he had the Trib facts and decided not to prosecute.

You may have missed the question earlier.  Are you saying the Chicago Tribune and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel lied about Marquette admitting to them that they broke the law?  You keep stating that there is no official word as if back channel confirmations from the press don't happen all the time, but we know they do. 

Could you please answer for us why the Tribune, MJS and others stated that MU officials admitted to them that the law was broken.  If they didn't, shouldn't the school sue those news outlets?  Why would the Tribune make this up?  Why would the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel make this up?  Or is it possible that officials did admit to breaking the law but you don't want to admit it and you are using lawyerese to say no one officially stated it?   

Thanks so much for your insights as I'd really like to understand the discrepancies in your argument and what was published in multiple news stories.

Neither the JS nor the Tribune quoted anyone from Marquette. Each time that was printed it was either writer's opinion or it was not attributed to a source. I cannot believe anyone from MU would say that. I have laid down the challenge on both boards to show me where anyone from MU said that but no such quote has been produced. This is a real good example of how repating a half truth in the media becomes gospel. Again, show me the quote.

Quote from: Gato78 on July 17, 2011, 03:14:57 PM
Neither the JS nor the Tribune quoted anyone from Marquette. Each time that was printed it was either writer's opinion or it was not attributed to a source. I cannot believe anyone from MU would say that. I have laid down the challenge on both boards to show me where anyone from MU said that but no such quote has been produced. This is a real good example of how repating a half truth in the media becomes gospel. Again, show me the quote.

First off, that is wrong.  It was not the writer's opinion.  The writers stated that Marquette admitted to violating state law.  Where do you believe it was the writer's opinion?  "The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law".  That's a writer's opinion?  Of course it isn't.  They are repeating what they were told.  Now you're going to say it wasn't attributed to a source.  So what.  That means it wasn't stated.  HOLY CRAP.  There are news stories every day about government, businesses, etc that are based on unnamed sources.  You have to be kidding all of us here if you are hanging your legal expertise on a journalist not naming a source.  That is as bizarre an excuse as exists.  How would reporters be able to do their jobs if it weren't for unnamed sources?  They wouldn't.

What you are ultimately saying that the Chicago Tribune and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made it up or lied.  This is why there is so much skepticism with your claims.  This is why Sultan, 84, 07, Chico's, myself and others do not believe what you and others are saying about this as it relates to breaking the law.   It doesn't matter if YOU don't believe anyone from MU said it, someone did and it made it into multiple press stories.  If you truly believe no one at MU said it, you must then believe both those papers, plus WTMJ, WISN and others all lied and made it up.  What other answer do you have? 

Apparently there is a vast conspiracy against Marquette in this and they're now making up comments from MU administrators.  See how insane that sounds, but that is how you are coming across.

Why isn't Marquette suing these news outlets for lying about MU breaking the law?  This idea of a direct quote that you are looking for is preposterous.  Did Timothy Geither come out and admit he didn't pay back taxes?  Therefore it's not true because there is no quote?  Why did he pay the back taxes then?  We could come up with millions of examples where a business, a school, the government doesn't come right out and admit something but through back channels reporters talk to those involved and report it because it's true. 

We all love Marquette, but for you to be hanging on to a direct quote and essentially saying these fine news organizations must be lying (what other conclusion is there?) is really out there.  It is angles, and I do mean angles, like these that you are taking that leave people with an ugly taste about lawyers because they just don't have the ability to give a straight answer when the evidence is overwhelming.

If you want a quote, read Father Wild's own words to faculty and staff in an email:  http://www.jsonline.mobi/topstories/124379168.htm

"The university has publicly acknowledged that we made mistakes in dealing with these incidents. We worked quickly and proactively to correct those procedures, both to be sensitive to victims and to comply with Wisconsin state law. We now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department. We have also added a victim advocate to the staff of our Student Health Service and have more tightly restricted who on campus has access to reports from the Department of Public Safety."

Correcting procedures to comply with state law.  You don't correct procedures to be in compliance with state law UNLESS you were not compliant with state law.

Then he says, "we now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department".  WE NOW REFER.  WE NOW REFER.  WE NOW REFER.  That's because prior, they did NOT REFER and WE NOW REFER is a result of the change of procedures.

Those are your money quotes straight from Father Wild to the faculty and employees of Marquette University.  It's ok Gato, our beloved university is capable of making mistakes and even more capable of fixing them.  Continually covering for them with bizarre excuses like the press is making stuff up or quotes weren't directly attributable to a specific person goes beyond a sense of reality.

Marquette broke the law.  Marquette admitted to breaking the law.  Marquette has changed procedures so they no longer break the law again.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 11:04:36 AM
It was 11:20 my time.  I did have a couple drinks.  But my decision stands.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

Great news!!!!!

Hey Hoopaloop, which law are you referring to?

Quote from: Hoopaloop on July 17, 2011, 05:28:00 PM
Then he says, "we now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department".

I think the key word in that quote is ANY.  As in, we now refer ANY reported incident, as opposed to previously using their judgement and only refering incidents in which they had a reason to believe a crime was committed.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 07:03:02 AM
I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

+1

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 07:03:02 AM
I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.

I agree.

Ya think if we took it to the streets, we can get Chicos back?

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 07:03:02 AM
I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

It's only fair, but I believe those posters have to be on notice as well.

The entire situation needed to be addressed. It's ridiculous when every thread turns into their personal circle jerk.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 07:03:02 AM
I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

I'd agree with you if he wasn't constantly setting himself up to play martyr after provoking those same people.

God gave me a human filter. With the ignore feature, the Mods gave me a radio dial. While this board must be a beatch to police, a variety of topics make it into our community, and are not hidden away. Chicos added a lot of insight on a variety of topics...of his posts, almost 10% were topic starters--he, like others who argued with him, are truly in the industry or field or scene. Do they often go too far?  Yes

While I often disagreed, and more often got tired of the repetition of some of the arguments (and many more I am sure I never saw or was aware of), we all have our own thinking and therefore posting styles. Often times we go over the top, get too emotional, pedantic, geeky, verbose, personal, over analytic, overblown, one-sided, sarcastic, snarky, too humorous, too linear.

One thing Chicos did was lay it out there, for better or worse. Giving him a perm is an overall loss for the board. That said, I do appreciate the owners and mods of this site.  They have volunteered thousands of hours and headaches, and scratch--to feed our addictions.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 07:03:02 AM
I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

I believe the difference is that Chicos spent more time complaining about his unfair treatment by the mods, leading up to the proverbial straw.  The moderators have been pretty damn tolerant on a lot of things, topics, and arguments.  I find their fuse has consistently been a slow burn.

Would I have banned Chicos?  Doesn't really matter, because I don't run the message board.  None of us have to put up with that headache except the mods.

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 18, 2011, 08:28:43 AM
I believe the difference is that Chicos spent more time complaining about his unfair treatment by the mods, leading up to the proverbial straw.  The moderators have been pretty damn tolerant on a lot of things, topics, and arguments.  I find their fuse has consistently been a slow burn.

Would I have banned Chicos?  Doesn't really matter, because I don't run the message board.  None of us have to put up with that headache except the mods.

Bolded part exactly.  He was warned plenty of times, and still wanted to be the pariah.  I understand banning is a fine line, but Chicos still didn't want to play by the rules, so he shall deal with the consequences.

He can still read the board, I'm sure... as a guest?

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on July 18, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
God gave me a human filter. With the ignore feature, the Mods gave me a radio dial. While this board must be a beatch to police, a variety of topics make it into our community, and are not hidden away. Chicos added a lot of insight on a variety of topics...of his posts, almost 10% were topic starters--he, like others who argued with him, are truly in the industry or field or scene. Do they often go too far?  Yes

While I often disagreed, and more often got tired of the repetition of some of the arguments (and many more I am sure I never saw or was aware of), we all have our own thinking and therefore posting styles. Often times we go over the top, get too emotional, pedantic, geeky, verbose, personal, over analytic, overblown, one-sided, sarcastic, snarky, too humorous, too linear.

One thing Chicos did was lay it out there, for better or worse. Giving him a perm is an overall loss for the board. That said, I do appreciate the owners and mods of this site.  They have volunteered thousands of hours and headaches, and scratch--to feed our addictions.

I agree with this entirely.

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 18, 2011, 08:28:43 AM
I believe the difference is that Chicos spent more time complaining about his unfair treatment by the mods, leading up to the proverbial straw.

And my initial post was to point out that the selective bannination suggests that maybe he had a legitimate gripe.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 09:11:50 AM
And my initial post was to point out that the selective bannination suggests that maybe he had a legitimate gripe.

Short of Ners (just recently) how many people have made it their business to constantly antagonize mods?

How many of those have been warned?

How many have been given a 2 week break already?

You only get so many chances.

Man, I'm 100% with Evil Pat on this one. Never met Chicos, always thought it would a neat idea. But, found him to be forthright and honest. Held true to his convictions plus insightful and entertaining. Whenever this board got mundane, you could always count on JD to make a positive contribution. Hell, now that's gone and this community is worse for it.
Really don't want this board to turn into the Gestapo that exists elsewhere concerning MU basketball. Lifetime ban? Sounds serious, don't think this was. Sorry if this sounds like Chicos eulogy.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 18, 2011, 09:17:35 AM
Man, I'm 100% with Evil Pat on this one. Never met Chicos, always thought it would a neat idea. But, found him to be forthright and honest. Held true to his convictions plus insightful and entertaining. Whenever this board got mundane, you could always count on JD to make a positive contribution. Hell, now that's gone and this community is worse for it.
Really don't want this board to turn into the Gestapo that exists elsewhere concerning MU basketball. Lifetime ban? Sounds serious, don't think this was. Sorry if this sounds like Chicos eulogy.

Bring Chicos back.  He is not the problem.  Many here need to look in a mirror.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 18, 2011, 09:14:42 AM
Short of Ners (just recently) how many people have made it their business to constantly antagonize mods?

How many of those have been warned?

How many have been given a 2 week break already?

You only get so many chances.

I never said that anyone made it their business to constantly antagonize the mods.  And I don't think that anyone has made that their business.  But there are several posters on this board who constantly made it their business to antagonize Chicos.  And he antagonized them.  At times it makes this board almost unbearable.  Unless I missed it, they're still here.

For the record, notwithstanding my original post on this subject, I'm not honestly suggesting they should be banned.  But I don't think Chico's should have been either.  But, like others have said, it's not my site.  I appreciate the work that the mods do and it's their prerogative.  I just happen to disagree with this call.  Not the first time I've disagreed with something someone has done or said on this board; probably won't be the last.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on July 18, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
One thing Chicos did was lay it out there, for better or worse. Giving him a perm is an overall loss for the board. That said, I do appreciate the owners and mods of this site.  They have volunteered thousands of hours and headaches, and scratch--to feed our addictions.

It's ultimately the mods' site, and it's they who have to deal with whatever issues there are to deal with here. If they've come to the conclusion that the problems caused by Chicos outweigh the value he brings to the site, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. They, after all, are the ones who have to deal with him, not me. I'd guess none of us are privy to the personal communications that have gone on between Chicos and the mods, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's more to this than we know. Having received unsolicited and unwanted personal messages from him myself (you know, the ones where he shows off his ability to acquire personal information about you), it can be at the very least a little creepy.
Given all that, I don't feel particularly qualified to tell the mods how to run their site.

Personally, I'm neither celebrating or mourning Chicos loss. I really don't care much either way. Nor do I care if he's allowed back. He did offer some insight, but he also instigated a lot of unnecessary arguments around here (some of which I, unfortunately, have allowed myself to participate in), often simply for the sake of starting an argument.

All that said, if you really believe what you said above about appreciating the mods, the thousands of hours, the headaches, etc., their decision to alleviate some of those hours and headaches should, if not supported, at least be respected.
Hinting of a "Gestapo", as another poster has done, seems perhaps a bit out of line.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 09:26:41 AM
I never said that anyone made it their business to constantly antagonize the mods.  And I don't think that anyone has made that their business.  But there are several posters on this board who constantly made it their business to antagonize Chicos.  And he antagonized them.  At times it makes this board almost unbearable.  Unless I missed it, they're still here.

For the record, notwithstanding my original post on this subject, I'm not honestly suggesting they should be banned.  But I don't think Chico's should have been either.  But, like others have said, it's not my site.  I appreciate the work that the mods do and it's their prerogative.  I just happen to disagree with this call.  Not the first time I've disagreed with something someone has done or said on this board; probably won't be the last.

If you don't think that Chicos antagonized the mods, you haven't been paying enough attention.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 18, 2011, 09:41:16 AM
If you don't think that Chicos antagonized the mods, you haven't been paying enough attention.

If you think I said that, you can't read.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 18, 2011, 09:41:16 AM
If you don't think that Chicos antagonized the mods, you haven't been paying enough attention.

And perhaps I owe you a more thoughtful response that my initial knee-jerk response (although I stand by my initial knee-jerk response).

Take a look back through this thread and offer an honest opinion on whether Chicos antagonized Rocky first, or whether Rocky antagonized Chicos first.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 09:54:43 AM
If you think I said that, you can't read.

You said:

QuoteI never said that anyone made it their business to constantly antagonize the mods.  And I don't think that anyone has made that their business.

The problem isn't this thread, SAW.  The perma-ban has been a conglomoration of many posts over many different threads.  I unfortunately have way too much time, and probably have read most of his posts over the last 4 years.

I am only saying that I understand why they banned him.  I tend to agree with Pakuni that I don't think I am happy or sad... I'm indifferent.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 18, 2011, 10:03:01 AM

You said:

The problem isn't this thread, SAW.  The perma-ban has been a conglomoration of many posts over many different threads.  I unfortunately have way too much time, and probably have read most of his posts over the last 4 years.

I am only saying that I understand why they banned him.  I tend to agree with Pakuni that I don't think I am happy or sad... I'm indifferent.

I understand all of that...you said "constantly antagonize" and I disagreed.  Your words, not mine.  I don't believe that anyone has done that (Chicos, Ners or anyone else).  Maybe I'm mistaken.  I absolutely acknowledge that Chicos antagonized the mods.

I understand why they banned him too.  I disagree, but I understand.  My original post was simply to make the point that he's just one of several who have been constantly arguing on here.  I think you would agree (but perhaps not) that there are a handful of posters on this board who frequently antagonize him.  He takes the bait every single time, which is pretty stupid in my opinion, but they keep doing it.  And those people are still here.

Keep in mind, in the post announcing that he was banning him, Rocky said it was "because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue."  My response to Rocky was premised on Rocky's statement that Chicos was banned for arguing, not for bugging the ever-loving crap out of the mods.  If they're going to start banning people for arguing, then I've got a few more suggestions for their list.  If they're banning people for antagonizing the mods...well, that's another issue entirely and they absolutely have that right and, frankly, I don't blame them.  It's a thankless job, and there's only so much they're going to put up with.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 10:17:42 AM
I understand all of that...you said "constantly antagonize" and I disagreed.  Your words, not mine.  I don't believe that anyone has done that (Chicos, Ners or anyone else).  Maybe I'm mistaken.  I absolutely acknowledge that Chicos antagonized the mods.

I understand why they banned him too.  I disagree, but I understand.  My original post was simply to make the point that he's just one of several who have been constantly arguing on here.  I think you would agree (but perhaps not) that there are a handful of posters on this board who frequently antagonize him.  He takes the bait every single time, which is pretty stupid in my opinion, but they keep doing it.  And those people are still here.

Keep in mind, in the post announcing that he was banning him, Rocky said it was "because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue."  My response to Rocky was premised on Rocky's statement that Chicos was banned for arguing, not for bugging the ever-loving crap out of the mods.  If they're going to start banning people for arguing, then I've got a few more suggestions for their list.  If they're banning people for antagonizing the mods...well, that's another issue entirely and they absolutely have that right and, frankly, I don't blame them.  It's a thankless job, and there's only so much they're going to put up with.

I agree with you... I was under the impression that he was poking the mods with a stick.  I reserve the right to be wrong.

Gosh, I don't feel like I should have to weigh in on the "chicos banned" topic any more, but I'll oblige a little bit.

My goal as a moderator (and I think I'm safe in saying "our goal") is to not moderate at all.  We don't want to be a "Gestapo", and in I'd rather just sit back, read, and enjoy the board as all of you do.

Unfortunately, Chicos was a key contributor to making that impossible.  I believe our experience is not so different than Dodds' in that Chicos apparently has far too much time to post, to cross the lines we tried to set, and then apparently needed to publicly complain about the moderation after he had crossed the lines.

I've never met Chico, But I'd probably enjoy having a beer with him.  But when I have to interrupt my summer vacation to moderate him (as I mentioned, for a second summer in a row), it's gotten past the point that I want to deal with him on a message board anymore.

Sorry to those that feel differently, but when we've silently banned him in the past (and thus, hardly anyone noticed or complained), you'd be surprised how smoothly this place runs.

Will he ever be allowed back?  I donno.  At this point the answer is no.

I understand the ban, but agree with several that this Board will be less interesting without Chicos.  Unfortunately, there probably isn't a good or effective way at making Chicos-Ners (there are others but let's face it, this is the main one) rants go straight to private messages.  

I agree with StillAWarrior.  I disagree but I understand.  Hopefully, others who argue for the sake of arguing will get the message and limit their posts to those which are beneficial to MU Hoops.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 07:03:02 AM
I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

I think it's fair to assume that you (and Sultan) would include me among those "posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick a fight with Chicos". I respectfully disagree. We fought because we had fundamental differences on numerous issues. The idea that other posters and the moderators were "picking on" Chicos because of who he was and not what he said was a canard foisted on this board constantly by none other than Chicos himself. The truth is that he finds people to fight with wherever he goes, which has resulted in lifetime bans on other sites.

Not my call, but I hope that something short of that can be the solution here - he has strong opinions and they generate discussion from all "factions" of the MU community.

I have no problem with the decision to ban Chicos. Yes, he brought a lot to the table but he also took a lot off the table. He was like an athlete who had the abilities to contribute but only wanted to play on his own selfish terms and wanted to see what he could get away with. He often criticized the mods and recently he basically dared them to ban him, which they did. Be careful what you wish for. Honestly, I was surprised that he didn't get banned for, on multiple occasions, all but posting the players' names who were involved in the sexual assault accusations.

What are MODs?

Quote from: BUzz Willliams 4 Mayor on July 18, 2011, 11:34:33 AM
What are MODs?

Short for moderators

If the mods lift the ban on Chicos, he will not be able to claim victimization as effectively as if he was permanently banned.

Keep Chicos banned for Chicos benefit. It can only help him in the future when he resurfaces under other names and claims victimization.

1)  The dude was 3/3.  Banned at old ahoya, banned at scout(2 or 3 x's), banned here.  That's hard work.

2)  He'll be back.  Watch for new posters the next few weeks that rapidly climb to the top of the # of posts list.

3) Buy Directv stock.  his productivity will soar the next few weeks, and their earnings should improve as such.

4)  Let Freedom Ring.

Quote from: ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy on July 18, 2011, 12:19:53 PM
1)  The dude was 3/3.  Banned at old ahoya, banned at scout(2 or 3 x's), banned here.  That's hard work.

2)  He'll be back.  Watch for new posters the next few weeks that rapidly climb to the top of the # of posts list.

3) Buy Directv stock.  his productivity will soar the next few weeks, and their earnings should improve as such.

4)  Let Freedom Ring.

5) Feel sorry for his co-workers.  If he wasn't a pain in the rear to work for before, he certainly is going to be now 

I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

Quote from: houwarrior on July 18, 2011, 12:44:03 PM
I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

I realize that as a lawyer there's a penchant for codifying, grading offenses, adding rules, etc., but if you do that people will still fight over nuance and how the rules are applied. Sometimes the answer has to be "because I said so". People are free to not participate if they find the rules too arbitrary for their tastes.

Quote from: houwarrior on July 18, 2011, 12:44:03 PM
I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

It doesn't seem right that someone who takes the time and effort to set up this kind of website for the enjoyment and benefit of mostly complete (but like-minded) strangers would then have to establish some sort of quasi-legal regulations by which to justify his or her decisions regarding the conduct of said site. Much less to govern the conduct of the people who post here.
MU Scoop, after all, is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Quote from: houwarrior on July 18, 2011, 12:44:03 PM
I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

Good points but I don't think it even needs to be that lawyered up 

It could simply say: "The moderators reserve the right to delete posts, lock threads and ban posters. If you don't like it, start your own message board."

This isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship.  Democracy doesn't work on the Internet.

For the system to work you must fear the moderators.  Chicos was merely a citizen chosen at random by the mods as a vehicle to show-off their immense power.  As Machiavelli explained, for a Prince to continue wielding their power after a serious crime they must find someone guilty and it doesn't have to be the actual perpetrator.  Punishing an innocent as a show of force and justice is just as effective to keep the populous in line as it is finding the person that's actually responsible.

I, for one, welcome our new Internet overlords.

5 words: Our Way or the Highway?

Actually, it's more like this:  Our way, or we'll ask you to change your behavior, you'll sulk about it, it'll be OK for a while, then not, we'll warn you again, repeat that about a dozen times, then we'll threaten you with a ban and it'll be OK for a while, we'll beg you to put the other parties on "ignore" .. then after a couple more years, we'll tell you we'll really do it.  Finally .. you're done.

That's how Chicos, et. al., survived for so long.  He/they do often bring a lot of info and insight, but with it, a lot of nit-picking, irritation, and unhappiness. 

Will there be fewer posts/less content on Scoop?    Yep. 

Will there be less vitriol, bitterness, and angst?  Yep.

I don't know what the net/net is, but we'll survive. 

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on July 18, 2011, 02:06:17 PM
5 words: Our Way or the Highway?

Actually, it's more like this:  Our way, or we'll ask you to change your behavior, you'll sulk about it, it'll be OK for a while, then not, we'll warn you again, repeat that about a dozen times, then we'll threaten you with a ban and it'll be OK for a while, we'll beg you to put the other parties on "ignore" .. then after a couple more years, we'll tell you we'll really do it.  Finally .. you're done.

That's how Chicos, et. al., survived for so long.  He/they do often bring a lot of info and insight, but with it, a lot of nit-picking, irritation, and unhappiness. 

Will there be fewer posts/less content on Scoop?    Yep. 

Will there be less vitriol, bitterness, and angst?  Yep.

I don't know what the net/net is, but we'll survive. 

I can tell you as a longtime poster that I am excited about the future of Scoop. My interest has dwindled to say the least after 85% of threads degraded itself into a Chico's machine.

(http://images.nonexiste.net/img/irc/2011/03/15/White_girl_dancing.gif)

That excited.

On a lighter note, Chicos' strangle hold on the title for most prolific poster is over.  Sultan is the current leader, but several of the regulars are in the race.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 05:47:12 PM
On a lighter note, Chicos' strangle hold on the title for most prolific poster is over.  Sultan is the current leader,

Ugh....

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 18, 2011, 06:48:04 PM

Ugh....

So, ya know, you got that going for you

Quote from: marqptm on July 18, 2011, 09:37:55 PM
So, ya know, you got that going for you

Which is nice.

(just padding my post totals, gotta stay on p. 1)

Quote from: ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy on July 18, 2011, 09:53:25 PM
Which is nice.

(just padding my post totals, gotta stay on p. 1)

+1.

(ditto)

Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 18, 2011, 09:17:35 AM
Man, I'm 100% with Evil Pat on this one. Never met Chicos, always thought it would a neat idea. But, found him to be forthright and honest. Held true to his convictions plus insightful and entertaining. Whenever this board got mundane, you could always count on JD to make a positive contribution. Hell, now that's gone and this community is worse for it.
Really don't want this board to turn into the Gestapo that exists elsewhere concerning MU basketball. Lifetime ban? Sounds serious, don't think this was. Sorry if this sounds like Chicos eulogy.

+1

The Dodds board is a disgrace because the characters that make this board go don't participate there.  They are the gustapo.  Too bad this board is going in the same direction.   It will suffer as a result of only yes men, only people that group think.  Not the Marquette I went to where we were taught to challenge the status quo and not just accept answers from authority as the end all be all. 

Quote from: Gato78 on July 17, 2011, 09:33:30 PM
Hey Hoopaloop, which law are you referring to?

Hey Gato, do you believe the Chicago Tribune, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other news outlets were lying?

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 18, 2011, 01:24:54 PM
Good points but I don't think it even needs to be that lawyered up 

It could simply say: "The moderators reserve the right to delete posts, lock threads and ban posters. If you don't like it, start your own message board."

I agree, and think it should say just that, at least

Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 18, 2011, 01:26:43 PM
  Democracy doesn't work on the Internet.

I, for one, welcome our new Internet overlords.

I dont care at all over mods actions on the board, they should be and are appreciated.

The breadth of your hyperbole, however, is interesting.

Some note democratic movements took off in Tunisia and Egypt, specifically due to the internet....and the largest nondemocratic country in the world, China has been known to block and control parts of the web. 

Democracy works, it depends on free speech, and thankfully, the internet protects this well. China has learned restricting sites' access is like herding kittens, ...the words/thoughts move elsewhere. When Egypt tried restrictions...democracy talk just went over to facebook.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 18, 2011, 01:19:30 PM
I realize that as a lawyer there's a penchant for codifying, grading offenses, adding rules, etc., but if you do that people will still fight over nuance and how the rules are applied. Sometimes the answer has to be "because I said so". People are free to not participate if they find the rules too arbitrary for their tastes.

Good point...the point doesnt require all the lawyer barf verbiage...so Merritt proposed, a simpler, effective term, that  it be,

"The moderators reserve the right to delete posts, lock threads and ban posters. If you don't like it, start your own message board."

Just as they're entitled to post a rule on the nature/scope of postings, the mods are equally entitled to say what they'll do, on a violation. 

A stated rule is written, solely for the protection of the enforcers, of it...as MU has recently learned, the hard way.

So safe to say this thread is well off topic. I'd just like to weigh in with a few thoughts...

I'm going to miss Chicos. In many ways, he was a mod's dream. He created numerous topics and when things were slow, he was always the kind of person to perk up discussion. He also truly, genuinely cares about the topic at hand. His knowledge came from a legitimate experience base as he had either worked with or directly knew a number of key and influential people surrounding the Marquette basketball community. And while this might just be me, he was a good person to debate with. Chicos and I often disagreed, but it never got personal or messy. Not sure why that was when it so often did with him and others, but we got along.

I also understand the mods' position. Chicos constantly played the victim, talking about the different rules that existed for him. Even if he was 100% right, when you go out of your way to point out all the injustices, it only makes it look like you are questioning the mods' authority. Considering how much effort they have put into keeping the site going, it's tough to basically do a part-time unpaid job and be constantly criticized for how you do it. Others may be critical at times, but with CBB, it was constant. In addition, while he was someone who perked up discussion, he often pushed it in the wrong direction. I've never known a site where so many threads got dragged light years off topic, and I think many of the constant debates that spilled from thread to thread to thread, often with the same argument going on for months at a time, were at least in part his doing.

And while Chicos cared, it seemed sometimes that he did it in the wrong way. Maybe that's not entirely accurate, but he was often critical of Marquette to the point of negativity. It's important to consider your audience. When you have a heavily pro-Marquette crowd and want to make a negative argument, you need to use the carrot. Take your time and express your disappointment in a constructive way. But Chicos only had one approach, and it wasn't the carrot. Hell, it wasn't even the stick, it was the gigantic spiked steel mace.

I think Chicos did a lot of good, and I liked having him around. But at the same time, I fully understand the position of the moderators. Their "job" should be fun. It should be something where they are relaxing, enjoying discussion, and only occasionally having to step in. Posters like Chicos, the ones that draw you into the discussion more often than not, make that "job" a job, and when you aren't getting a paycheck, it takes a lot of the joy out of it. From me, he'll definitely be missed, but I'm confident the Scoop will go on.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on July 18, 2011, 11:11:34 PM
Hey Gato, do you believe the Chicago Tribune, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other news outlets were lying?

I think there is a difference between lying and perhaps stating inference as fact.

I haven't seen a direct quote from a MU spokesperson, administrator, etc where they say they violated the law.  In addition, I don't think it unreasonable for MU to argue that it followed the law for the past 10 years but now upon further clarity from the judicial system has determined to change the manner in which they follow the law.

From my perspective, MU had a reasonable argument that it followed the law and so never should have alluded to not following the law let alone admitted they didn't if that's what happened.

I don't think any of us are going to agree if MU followed the law or not because it appears there is ambiguity in the statement.  So there was no reason for MU to state it violated the law because its not black and white.  Its just like where I work, we don't fail tests or the test results were negative, its the test results were different than anticipated, etc.

Yes, I do think if MU frames the whole thing different the discussion is different.  If MU doesn't say it violates the law, then the folks like Sultan don't have that leg to stand on.  Certainly can argue around the issues, but there is no trump card of see MU said it did, and MU didn't have to do that.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 18, 2011, 09:08:21 AM
I agree with this entirely.

Chicos seemed to have a real personal ax to grind with MU.  Not sure where it came from.  When I started reading this board, Chicos, (under another name I believe) added insight.  At some point, maybe after he left MU, he became a bitter old man.

He was one of my go to posters, and then, not.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on July 18, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
+1

The Dodds board is a disgrace because the characters that make this board go don't participate there.  They are the gustapo.  Too bad this board is going in the same direction.   It will suffer as a result of only yes men, only people that group think.  Not the Marquette I went to where we were taught to challenge the status quo and not just accept answers from authority as the end all be all. 

This board is going in the wrong direction because one person who was warned dozens of times was banned?

Just checking.

There is a difference between challenging the status quo and being an insufferable jerk.

Well put, Hards. How on earth anyone could long for that boor's passive-aggressive posts against Buzz and his players, is beyond me.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on July 18, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
+1

The Dodds board is a disgrace because the characters that make this board go don't participate there.  They are the gustapo.  Too bad this board is going in the same direction.   It will suffer as a result of only yes men, only people that group think.  Not the Marquette I went to where we were taught to challenge the status quo and not just accept answers from authority as the end all be all. 

Way to stick it to the man, Mr. Anonymnous Internet Message Board Poster.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 19, 2011, 10:26:03 AM
There is a difference between challenging the status quo and being an insufferable jerk.

Very well stated.

As I used to say to an arrogant, out-of-the-box-thinking peer who often got on his DRs nerves, "It's not what you're saying. It's how you're saying it."

Quote from: Hoopaloop on July 18, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
+1

The Dodds board is a disgrace because the characters that make this board go don't participate there.  They are the gustapo.  Too bad this board is going in the same direction.   It will suffer as a result of only yes men, only people that group think.  Not the Marquette I went to where we were taught to challenge the status quo and not just accept answers from authority as the end all be all. 

This is total nonsense. Chicos wasn't banned because his opinions were unpopular. He freely expressed them here for years.

Many of us (myself included) have been warned and disciplined about personal attacks and insults. Chicos was a world class insulter and when he went after the Mods while also whining about being a victim it was curtains. If the cause of "freethinking MU grads" is looking for a martyr it should look elsewhere.

Chicos had some good information, but he made this board unreadable.

I appreciate the free flow of thought on this board and even the temperance to put up with the occassional, ok frequent, crude joke.  

Chicos has been around since I started on MU message boards about 10 years ago,   his need to be adversarial and always get the last word is certainly not adventitious.  He's been at it for quite a number of years now.

If you only read 10% of his posts and joke around with him here and there he's bearable.

 adventitious.  


My Marquette education has failed me!  I had to look that word up.  Nice!

That's what grad school gets you I guess.  I do feel like a learned man these days boys. 

Lord only knows what that means to society.

From brewcity 77
So safe to say this thread is well off topic.

Title should be changed to MU Scoop's PR nightmare.

From stone cold
Chicos has been around since I started on MU message boards about 10 years ago,   his need to be adversarial and always get the last word is certainly not adventitious.

Let the man at least have his last word. Though I disagree with Chicos quite often this is still America. LET THE MAN SPEAK!

Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 17, 2011, 12:20:22 AM
Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

Thanks Rocky!!

I have agreed with Chico's on a lot of stuff over the years, but recently his posts had become uber polarizing for everybody here... which really degenerated a lot of legit discussions and turned them into sh*tty internet debates.

I swear to God, if Chico's said the sky was blue, and handful of posters would disagree because that's what they have trained themselves to do.

I appreciate the moderation of this site, and I think in this situation, they really had 2 options:

#1 Increase moderation and move off-topic posts/threads into the superbar (similar to NL Central thread). This includes: Buzz vs Crean, Chico's vs Ners, Chico's vs the mob, Jay Bee vs Carrie Underwood, etc.

Or

#2 Warn and subsequently ban posters who consistently hijack legit topics and ruin a lot of interesting topics.  

#1 isn't really a great option because it would require more work from the mods. (and ultimately more criticism with phrases like "ghost posts") So, #2 is the obvious choice.

I applaud you mods. I appreciate and respect your decision making here.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 18, 2011, 01:26:43 PM
I, for one, welcome our new Internet overlords.

Well, this reporter was...possibly a little hasty earlier and would like to reaffirm his allegiance to this country and its human president. May not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have.  For now.

The mods do this for fun.   Note the lack of advertising.    If a poster makes it stop being fun....after repeated warnings....bannings are going to happen.    I defended the poster formerly known as chico for years, because I thought he provided valuable insight.    Lately, he had become insufferable and I had him on ignore for weeks.    The opportunity for moral outrage about MU proved to be his downfall.   It was predictable.  I am sure you can find out what he-who-must-not-be-named is thinking over at Cracked Sidewalks.