Kristo incident discussion

[jimdahl]

There still seems to be some angst (e.g. 1, 2), about why we closed the first thread about the Kristo incident.

I'm personally a little surprised by it, in that the majority of the criticism at the time was that we let too much potentially harmful speculation occur (it's almost impossible to real-time moderate speculation and opinion out of an active discussion about a timely news story).

Once all was said and done, the thread went on for over 400 posts and was open from before the incident even hit the news until after he was released from the hospital. We thought everyone had said their bit, there was going to be no additional news, and the thread devolved in the way such controversial threads usually do into people complaining about the existence of the thread itself and taking shots at each other, so we closed it down.

What am I missing? There's been a lot of Kristo-related discussion since then that stayed open. Is there actually some discussion to be had there that we're stifling by closing that one thread that had clearly run its course?

[Mr. Boombastic]

The media fall out is definitely discussion worthy. The fact an immensne amount of skepticism is still out there to the validity of the story published by the Herald is noteworthy in and of itself. The fact that stories like this tend to lead people to think we may have a "dirty" program of sorts with our continuous after midnight follies. There is a lot of meat to the discussion and it's much more than whether 7 was intoxicated or not.

[jodcon]

Hasn't this dead horse been beat enough? Is there anything NEW to report other than what's been said 100 times in both related and unrelated threads?

Some people believe his version, some people don't...end of story.

It's not likely any new information will surface, but if it does down the road feel free to bring it up in whatever the most current Sioux hockey thread is, and it can be discussed in a decent matter then.

If you're just rehashing it for no other reason than to troll on here, then go away.

[siouxperseven]

Please remove...this has been rehashed to many times for it to be constructive.....it was a while ago and everyone has formed their opinion.....is the Herald version true or not true??? Doesn't matter anymore.

[tho0505]

Not again, this thread! I agreed with closing it.

[Ray77]

Hasn't this dead horse been beat enough? Is there anything NEW to report other than what's been said 100 times in both related and unrelated threads?

Some people believe his version, some people don't...end of story.

It's not likely any new information will surface, but if it does down the road feel free to bring it up in whatever the most current Sioux hockey thread is, and it can be discussed in a decent matter then.

If you're just rehashing it for no other reason than to troll on here, then go away.

Did you just insinuate that Jim is trolling on his own site?

[jimdahl]

Did you just insinuate that Jim is trolling on his own site?

Yeah, I'm a little confused, too. Maybe my post was a little unclear -- I'm not trying to start any further discussion about the incident, I'm trying to discuss the decision the moderators made to close that thread.

I personally think that people have had plenty of opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say about the incident, I'm just trying to give people who want to criticize our decision to close the thread a place to do so, because they were doing so in the middle of other threads in a way that was somewhat disruptive.

[Rick]

It's all been said. Anyone who feels they need more information on this topic needs to get a life.

[MoSiouxFan]

Close it. Please. Pretty please.

[Let'sGoHawks!]

Crap! Now a thread about closing and not closing threads, will have to be closed! Is this real life?

[krangodance]

Crap! Now a thread about closing and not closing threads, will have to be closed! Is this real life?

ha! i've always kind of wondered why any thread gets closed. i understand doing what's possible to deal with people who are posting insulting remarks, whether they be toward another poster or toward a group of people, but closing a thread over that or anything else is strange in my opinion.

i mean, let's be honest, nothing written here really matters. we're just a bunch of people with a lot of opinions. if somebody wants to conjecture that kristo was drunk then so be it. i certainly don't care what that person thinks.

every time a thread is closed i wonder why. usually it's something along the lines of the reasoning behind closing the kristo thread: a few people are saying things that others find unfounded and it leads to a moral debate on whether such things should be said without facts to support those things being said. but i have to ask, who really cares? if somebody posts something you don't like then maybe you'll feel moved to challenge it but if it continues and it is your belief that the original poster is simply making statements that cannot be substantiated by anything we know about the situation, such as was the case with the kristo incident, then why give them anymore than one post's worth of challenge?

i personally think anybody should be able to voice their opinion as long as they're not personally insulting others in an intentional manner. now if you get offended by some fool stating that kristo was drunk when we all know darn well that the individual posting that has no clue what the truth of that night was then perhaps you should simply ignore that person rather than pushing for the thread to be closed.

in the end it seems as long as enough people cry about what somebody else is saying then the thread gets closed. but why? if somebody wants to conjecture that kristo was drunk then that is his / her option. i don't have to agree with that person and i can certainly challenge their assertion by asking for proof. if that person wants to continue with their ignorant posts then that is his / her decision and i'll just ignore that person should i deem his / her posts worthless, as was the case with many of the kristo posters. to close the thread though? i just don't get it.

[luckynodak]

ha! i've always kind of wondered why any thread gets closed. i understand doing what's possible to deal with people who are posting insulting remarks, whether they be toward another poster or toward a group of people, but closing a thread over that or anything else is strange in my opinion.

i mean, let's be honest, nothing written here really matters. we're just a bunch of people with a lot of opinions. if somebody wants to conjecture that kristo was drunk then so be it. i certainly don't care what that person thinks.

every time a thread is closed i wonder why. usually it's something along the lines of the reasoning behind closing the kristo thread: a few people are saying things that others find unfounded and it leads to a moral debate on whether such things should be said without facts to support those things being said. but i have to ask, who really cares? if somebody posts something you don't like then maybe you'll feel moved to challenge it but if it continues and it is your belief that the original poster is simply making statements that cannot be substantiated by anything we know about the situation, such as was the case with the kristo incident, then why give them anymore than one post's worth of challenge?

i personally think anybody should be able to voice their opinion as long as they're not personally insulting others in an intentional manner. now if you get offended by some fool stating that kristo was drunk when we all know darn well that the individual posting that has no clue what the truth of that night was then perhaps you should simply ignore that person rather than pushing for the thread to be closed.

in the end it seems as long as enough people cry about what somebody else is saying then the thread gets closed. but why? if somebody wants to conjecture that kristo was drunk then that is his / her option. i don't have to agree with that person and i can certainly challenge their assertion by asking for proof. if that person wants to continue with their ignorant posts then that is his / her decision and i'll just ignore that person should i deem his / her posts worthless, as was the case with many of the kristo posters. to close the thread though? i just don't get it.

Excellent analysis; now someone with more posts than you or more green jerseys will probably call you an idiot!

[bigskyvikes]

If your Hackstol, the Sioux team, or the Kristo family, how is any of this anyones business? I get a kick out of how people think its their right to opine on, or tell us what they think, like anyone cares! I'm not criticizing any of the people on todays thread! I can't stand the haters that come into a blog that has nothing to do with their chosen team, and make horrible comments about things that are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS and they have NO IDEA what really happened!

[jodcon]

Did you just insinuate that Jim is trolling on his own site?

Ha! It did sound that way didn't it?

No actually I was making broad remarks to the people who keep bringing the Kristo incident up over and over again under every imaginable thread just rehashing what has been said 100 times before.

To them: We heard you the first 99 times, you don't believe what he says, we get it...move on.

[airmail]

krangodance makes some great points about closed threads, and why they shouldn't be closed. I guess I'm on the fence on the subject.

From what I've seen here over the last number of years, threads get closed when the information turns stale. When nothing new is brought to the table for discussion, we generally end up watching a urinating match about some tangent of the original discussion. These, of course, usually end up in a stalemate - in turn leading to more pointless urinating. When real substance is no longer present in the thread, I don't have a problem seeing it shut down.

FWIW - It's Jim's site, and it seems to me that he wants to maintain a certain level of decorum here - and moderates topics accordingly.

Who are we to disagree?

[jimdahl]

From what I've seen here over the last number of years, threads get closed when the information turns stale. When nothing new is brought to the table for discussion, we generally end up watching a urinating match about some tangent of the original discussion. These, of course, usually end up in a stalemate - in turn leading to more pointless urinating. When real substance is no longer present in the thread, I don't have a problem seeing it shut down.

You summed up pretty well when and why threads get closed. When people get in those emotional arguments, they never want to let the other guy get the last word so say the same thing over and over and over. The part that really bothers me is that when we let them go, those "urinating" matches stay at the top of the forum for weeks if not months. I want new or casual readers who visit the forum to see interesting discussions about UND sports, so after a thread like that has lost any redeeming discussion we shut it down.

I still really don't think anyone was denied the opportunity to say whatever they had to say about the Kristo incident. Rather, the debate in this thread now seems to be more about whether moderation/closing a thread is ever appropriate (which is also a good question).

[Cratter]

Who are we to disagree?

The customers and we are always right.

[yababy8]

You summed up pretty well when and why threads get closed. When people get in those emotional arguments, they never want to let the other guy get the last word so say the same thing over and over and over. The part that really bothers me is that when we let them go, those "urinating" matches stay at the top of the forum for weeks if not months. I want new or casual readers who visit the forum to see interesting discussions about UND sports, so after a thread like that has lost any redeeming discussion we shut it down.

I still really don't think anyone was denied the opportunity to say whatever they had to say about the Kristo incident. Rather, the debate in this thread now seems to be more about whether moderation/closing a thread is ever appropriate (which is also a good question).

I think it is very wise to close discussions for the reasons mentioned above.

But without going back to look, didn't the Kristo thread get the door slammed on it right in the middle of a series of posts that were put up by posters who claimed to have inside info on the situation with Kristo?

Just for the record, I for one think it is moronic to make negative judgments about the possibility that Kristo was intoxicated. The fact is that he got very hurt, had to spend almost two weeks in the hospital, had to rehab, and almost lost one of the things he has loved and dedicated his life to, not to mention parts of his body.. That is the big deal. Kristo drinking or not, seems to me to be secondary when a situation gets to that point.

I spent almost a week in the hospital and my wife spent two months in the hospital/rehab hospital, and I will say this, That kind of experience changes a person.

I think given all that Kristo went through, he will become a better man for it and will become a better hockey player from it.I am expecting a Frattin like focus from Kristo this season.

[farce poobah]

... I'm trying to discuss the decision the moderators made to close that thread.

I personally think that people have had plenty of opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say about the incident, I'm just trying to give people who want to criticize our decision to close the thread a place to do so, because they were doing so in the middle of other threads in a way that was somewhat disruptive.

I support the decision to close the thread. Everyone had had the opportunity to make their points, over a 2 month period. (All that was going on was a "rehashing match".)

In terms of board policy, I think most "old threads" should remain open, based on the possibility of new information about old topics ... it happens a couple times a month and it adds to the flavor. So, routinely closing old threads would be a bad idea. But closing crappy threads does improve the tone of the board, a worthy objective.

If we could objectively measure the ratio of "piffing matches" to "solid content", we could set a standard of "when the bulk of discussion is piffing, its time to close it". Until then, making it a judgement call is the next best thing.

[Siouxhockey78]

The horse has already been beaten to death already why start on the second horse. We should be talking about Kristo coming back for next season and how good he's going to be for the chase for #8