The Big Lead gives me a good excuse to bring up the travashamockery that is the Bucs Official Message Board. For those who don’t read The Big Lead daily (and if you follow sports I would recommend doing so) they recently reported that the message board on Buccaneers.com has threatened to ban people who mentioned Jerramy Stevens checkered past. This comes as no surprise to people who have visited the Bucs message board in the past, calling that board’s moderators Nazis is an insult to Hitler.
The Buccaneers.com moderators use the excuse that they are a family-oriented site and can’t allow words like “sexual assault” and “date-rape drug” offend their readers delicate sensibilities. The board’s mods have frequently used this excuse to ban people, I was banned some two years ago for mentioning the reason Michael Vick was called Ron Mexico. Citizens in China have more freedom of expression than fans on the Buccaneers.com message board.
In response to fans discussing the Seattle Times article about Jerramy Stevens, Convicted of assault and accused of rape, star player received raft of second chances, TBB Mod V wants you to Please read re: The Stevens article
The article is not allowed to be discussed on these boards.
The only reasons for this are:
1. If linked to, it will contains words which are censored here, and will thus be consided by-passing the censors.
2. The article brings up, to paraphrase, forcing someone into sexual activities. That topic is not allowed here.
Anyone posting the article, or linking to it, will be suspended. This does not mean you are not allowed to disuss Stevens, however, let’s keep 1 and 2 out of it, shall we?
This is a warning as much as a favor.
__________________
TBB Mod V,
TBB BBS Staff
Let’s call this shameful behavior for what it is, a power trip by a couple of message board moderators with the combined common sense of Hulk Hogan’s son. If the Bucs are going to re-sign Stevens, then they should be prepared to deal with the backlash of that decision, not find ways to silence their critics.
If you are looking for a Bucs message board I suggest stopping by the Pewter Report Forum, which features ten times the intelligence with none of the censorship.
Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
– Justice Potter Stewart
(By the by, if you are unfamiliar with the allegations leveled against Stevens, you may want to read that Seattle Times article from early this year.)
John F
2 years ago
Ski —
I’m in a unique position as a former and current message board administrator to talk about censorship on teh web on message boards. I’ve managed what was once a community of 45,000 members but is now scarely populated after another overzealous ownership SNAFU that destroyed the community. The site name is FanHome.
There is a line to be drawn — a line that was crossed by moderators and by the Buccaneer web powers-that-be when it comes to censorship. The Bucs — as this is their message forum — are smothering the conversation and the free flow of information about things happening with the organization. This mirrors propaganda.
Now, when you have a private forum owned by a party — they really can do as they see fit with the content of their web site and teh conversation going on, at their web site. This would explain why certain words are banned, why free-for-all posts aren’t allowed on a forum about a specific topic and why action might be taken against users. But in teh Bucs case –they being a public entity that goes beyond a web presence… this reflects so much on their organization as a whole. There are too many instances where you see false information making it out into the public sphere — deliberate deceptions (like the season ticket waiting list or other franchise moves that are questionable.
Managing an online community is not easy because everyone wants rules their own way. At the same time — what you cited is so oppressive that it’s hard to fathom they think they can get away with it without it reflecting negatively on the franchise.
It’s tough to keep thing decent and on topic sometimes — but the Stevens stuff is neither unfit for readers eyes nor a bannable offense.
And here’s an open invitation to sport fans to check out the FanHome
Jeff
2 years ago
I left that forum years ago because unless you worshiped Dungy and despised Gruden any and all conversations would be drowned out by the few “true” (their words) fans of the Bucs. These “true” fans only wanted to hear how bad Gruden is and how wonderful the previous regime was. Of course, if you read enough of the board you found that most of these “true” fans had started following the Bucs around 1996-7. True fans indeed says this fan who jumped on the bandwagon around 1980.
ski
2 years ago
the mods comments on the stevens thread are pretty scary. the dude prob has a hard on while he’s banning people for things as trivial as quoting other comments.
Anon
2 years ago
The Bucs are no more a public entity than Coca Cola. If Coca Cola had a message board and it was flooded with posts that said “Coke sucks” or any variation thereof, you’d better believe they’d be removed post haste. I know we like to think of our sports teams as municipal entities, but just because we choose to shower them in tax money doesn’t make it so.
David Jenkins
2 years ago
This isn’t just about the Stevens flap. That board has had very strict rules about content, a stress on the fact that it’s a “family board” and rules in place for a long time saying that even linking inappropriate material will result in a suspension.
I’m not defending what they are doing, I’m simply saying the rules were not made for this incident and I’ve seen people getting booted for either inappropriate content or for linking inappropriate content since 2000.
John F
2 years ago
Anon —
Here’s the thing: where and when is that lien crossed? The public entity / private entity. A sports team direly needs to connect with the community to survive.
I get your point and I really cannot create a counter point knowing that it’s true that the Bucs are a privately held company and a privately owned franchise of a privately owned national brand (NFL). That being said, they rely on the local consumers and if they are going to provide an official forum for their consumers/enthusiasts, they sure as hell shouldn’t be stifling the flow of information from / abou the team to the Fans / among the fans. That’’s bad business.
Of coruse, all privately held companies don’t allow discussion of their trade screts publicly — but the signing is not a trade secret. The players offense is public knowledge and bad PR for the team.
Alienating the fanbase is somthing that helped the Devil Rays tank for years. Privately held company or not — you don’t alienate the fanbase.
Anon
2 years ago
John, you’ve basically answered your own question. It’s all a matter of how much effort and resources must be spent on community good will to maintain profitability. The answer in this particular community at this particular time with this particular product is not that much. The consumers are buying the product. If that changes, so will the equation.
crack ho
2 years ago
nobody’s gonna call this guy out for the outrageously offensive Hitler reference? “calling that board’s moderators Nazis is an insult to Hitler.” that’s the most ignorant remark i’ve ever read on Sticks of Fire.
WP
2 years ago
No crack ho, oppressive moderation of an Internet message board is far more reprehensible than the wholesale torture and slaughter conducted during the genocidae perpetrated by the Nazi party. Where are your priorities?
The post was Godwinned in the first paragraph and by the rules of the ‘net Ski loses. Thread closed.
joejlk
1 year ago
these stupid bloggers don’t know CRAP!
tommy
1 year ago
Crack ho,
The remark you reference was a stupid one and certainly offensive to many. I judged the phrase to be in reference to Nazi Germany’s police state and censorship, rather than pertaining to the Holocaust (perhaps you feel there is no difference). However, there are many other phrases that could have been used to get the point across, and we should have found another way.
As many of these things go, I believe the reference was included because of thoughtlessness, rather than any intention in being insulting or offensive to you or any of our readers. The phrase doesn’t suggest “rooting” for anyone or condoning any hellish actions. And I certainly don’t believe that the comment can be construed in any way as supportive of exonerating Hitler.