Is there a smack double-standard?

[Bigdog42]

Honestly, why are we even having this conversation on ss.com? You don't see other schools message boards being run down by their rivals fans because the moderator puts their foot down right away to send a message to everyone.

I believe the intent of this message board is to discuss Sioux sports not to have a discussion on whether we should let other fans come in and bash us all the time. Look at almost every post, instead of information passed being passed along about Sioux SPORTS it ends up being a pissing match because of some idiots who the moderator does nothing too comes in and stirs the pot. Sorry for taking a cheap shot at the moderator but this chould have been nipped in the butt a long time ago.

Just my thoughts!

[Sioux-cia]

Is there a double standard? Sure there is, as, IMHO, there should be. As I stated earlier, this is a SIOUX FAN sports forum. If we want to indulge in a little smack talk about our rivals, what better place? Don't the Bison fans have a sports forum where they can indulge in the same about their rivals?? They should keep it there and not come on this forum with the only intent being to post smack.

I also think that a little back and forth insults are ok if posted in the appropriate thread/topic and relevant to the subject at hand. As much as IowaBison talks around and aroung the issue, coming into a thread where the question at hand is clearly and seriously stated, to post smack should not be allowed. Had I had more time at work, I, like my fellow Sioux fans, would have posted a Bison insulting, reply to Bison Dan and Iowa Bison's posts.

I don't envy the Moderator's job. This is a tough one.

[IowaBison]

I agree wholeheartedly with your post. (With the exception of me talking around the issue?)

[PCM]

And exactly what type of response did diggler, dlsiouxfan, and siouxfb expect? (A little double standard there, eh PCM? . And what kind of contribution was your punctuation comment to Bison Dan yesterday? hmmmmm?)

No, it's not a double standard. It's you being hypocritical by claiming that it's perfectly fine for Bison fans to post unprovoked smack talk and then claim a "double standard" when Sioux fans to respond to it.

[IowaBison]

No, it's not a double standard. It's you being hypocritical by claiming that it's perfectly fine for Bison fans to post unprovoked smack talk and then claim a "double standard" when Sioux fans to respond to it.

Please let me know where I posted that.

[PCM]

Please let me know where I posted that.

Go back and read your posts in this thread.

[IowaBison]

I have a couple of times and don't see it.

[CoteauRinkRat]

I didn't see why the smack had to start in a thread like a football tickets thread, so that is why I posted initially. This has nothing to do with Bison fans posting here. Dissent and a spirited discussion on various topics between rivals is healthy, informative, and sometimes entertaining. However, when stuff is posted just to get reactions out of fans and adds nothing to an innocent thread, I have a problem with it and it is obvious others do as well.

[PCM]

I have a couple of times and don't see it.

Okay. I'll draw you a picture.

In this post, you admit that you and Bison Dan have posted smack talk, but you point out that three other Sioux fans have done the same thing in the thread. You don't mention the fact that they wouldn't have posted what they did and you wouldn't have posted what you if Bison Dan, the person who provoked the smack, hadn't posted what he did.

In this post you claim that there's a "smack double standard."

In this post, CoteauRinkRat correctly notes that the person responsible for initiating the smack was Bison Dan.

You respond in this post by implying that Sioux fans bear equal responsiblity for the smack talk because they repsonded to Bison Dan's provocation. You offer the lame excuse that you and Bison Dan just couldn't help yourselves because the topic of when UND football season tickets would be available was such a big, inviting target.

That's hypocritical. It's like saying that when a person opens fire on a group of people minding their own business, there's a double standard when some in the crowd return fire in response. In other words, it's okay for Bison fans get to take potshots at Sioux fans, but Sioux fans who respond in kind are engaging in a "double standard."

[IowaBison]

And draw a picture is precisely what you did.

Nowhere did I post that Bison Dan was justified in his initial post nor was I (or the others involved).

////

The posts, including mine. have no place on ss.com.

/////

I think there needs to be some room for criticism and levity.

Unfortunately, I don't think that many posters can handle it (including myself earlier today).

////

A little repartee is fine, but it seems like perfectly mundane threads, like the season ticket thread, get hijacked and ruined.

////

In my recollection, Bison Dan only comes to stir the pot.

////

QUOTE(redwing77 @ Aug 24 2006, 11:20 AM) *

Is it ok to come to SS.com with the sole purpose of smack talking UND fans provided that there is something in the post that connects the smack talk to the topic of the thread?

(IAB) In my opinion, no.

////

QUOTE(redwing77 @ Aug 24 2006, 11:20 AM) *

Sure, you've smack talked in the past, I have too, but I really think that if there is nothing constructive to add to a conversation, then perhaps it shouldn't be added?

(IAB) Here on ss.com, I agree completely.

////

(Sioux-cia)

coming into a thread where the question at hand is clearly and seriously stated, to post smack should not be allowed.

I don't envy the Moderator's job. This is a tough one.

(IAB) I agree wholeheartedly with your post. (With the exception of me talking around the issue?)

////

I don't know how hard you had to squint to take my message out of context, but that's precisely what you did.

[PCM]

I don't know how hard you had to squint to take my message out of context, but that's precisely what you did.

I provided direct links to the posts you wrote. I don't know how to be any more "in context" than that.

[IowaBison]

I provided direct links to the posts you wrote. I don't know how to be any more "in context" than that.

apparently not, sorry you don't see it.

[PCM]

apparently not, sorry you don't see it.

Then help me see it. Instead of quoting posts you wrote that have nothing to do with what I wrote, explain to me how it's a double standard for a Sioux fan to respond to a provacative smack talk posting initiated by a Bison fan.

You're the one who leveled the double standard charge. All I'm doing is asking you to please explain what the double standard is within in the context of this thread.

[IowaBison]

Then help me see it. Instead of quoting posts you wrote that have nothing to do with what I wrote, explain to me how it's a double standard for a Sioux fan to respond to a provacative smack talk posting initiated by a Bison fan.

You're the one who leveled the double standard charge. All I'm doing is asking you to please explain what the double standard is within in the context of this thread.

Each tears apart your premise that I felt it was okay for Bison Dan and I to post what we did.

With that premise gone your entire argument falls apart.

[PCM]

Each tears apart your premise that I felt it was okay for Bison Dan and I to post what we did.

With that premise gone your entire argument falls apart.

And this explains your "double standard" accusation how...?

[The Sicatoka]

What ever happened to being a humble and respectful guest in someone else's house?

[IowaBison]

And this explains your "double standard" accusation how...?

this refutes your hypothesis that I had a double standard.

the double standard accusation was explained on the first page of the post.

I'll summarize for you.

Bison Dan started some smack, others including myself joined in.

Coteaurinkrat stated Bison go home. If had meant Bison Dan he could have certainly posted it. He could have also posted that the smack needs to stop, which would have been a signal to all involved.

I pointed out that sioux posters had also participated and started the conversation about a double standard.

[PCM]

the double standard accusation was explained on the first page of the post.

Which is what I attacked. I don't care about all the irrelevant garbage you wrote after that.

[IowaBison]

Which is what I attacked. I don't care about all the irrelevant garbage you wrote after that.

Well I certainly cared when posted this:

It's you being hypocritical by claiming that it's perfectly fine for Bison fans to post unprovoked smack talk and then claim a "double standard" when Sioux fans to respond to it.

Apparently you don't think it's a big deal when someone calls you a hypocrit, hypocrit.

(And did you quite caring about your claim after I provided seven points that refuted it?)

[The Sicatoka]

Pardon me for stepping in, but, for there to be a "double standard" mustn't there have been a firstly imposed standard that was not equally applied?

Did I miss the news that someone was suspended or banned and others not?

[PCM]

IowaBison, did you or did you not write the following?

just pointing out the smack double standard.

and it's equally easy to see that three sioux fans contributed to it.

however, you didn't bring that up. instead you state that bison fans should leave, including me, when my role was no different than dlsiouxfan, diggler, or siouxfb.

it also ignores the issue that Bison Dan's comment was quite funny and shouldn't have been unexpected given the topic of the thread.

In these posts, you:

A. You excused Bison Dan's original smack post as being funny and something that should have been expected.

B. You claimed that Sioux fans were equally culpable in contributing to the smack talk initiated by a Bison fan.

C. You claimed that your role in expanding the smack talk in a direction that had nothing whatsover to do with the original topic (athletic department financing) or Bison Dan's provacative post was no different from the Sioux fans who responded to Bison Dan.

One more time, I will explain why your position is hypocritical:

It's like saying that when a person opens fire on a group of people minding their own business, there's a double standard when some in the crowd return fire in response. In other words, it's okay for Bison fans get to take potshots at Sioux fans, but Sioux fans who respond in kind are engaging in a "double standard."

[redwing77]

What ever happened to being a humble and respectful guest in someone else's house?

I'll try to explain this the best way I know how (plus a slight rant):

They don't know how to do that. All they know is that NDSU rules and UND sucks. They can't fathom any other type of response. It's like a Democrat trying to admit that a Republican had a great idea (or vice versa). It just is impossible for that comprehension to dawn on them.

Others, Sioux fans here since that is the main visiting poster here, have stated (and I'm among them) that they don't go to other sites and chat because they don't see that as being a worthwhile endeavour as they may not have anything nice to contribute to that particular board. I don't go to places like bisonville of GPL (UMN's message board) for just that reason. I have nothing to say to those board's posters. Why should a UND fan go to bisonville and say that NDSU sucks? Wouldn't that be redundant? So why should an NDSU fan come here and post that UND sucks?

It's one thing to disagree with a fan or a fan base. It's one thing to disagree with the direction a team/school/league is going. However, it is an entirely different thing to come here and accuse that board's patrons of being just as mean spirited when they respond to a single or a group of fans from another team that come to their board and post demeaning or otherwise mean-spirited things to that board's patrons.

My mother taught me one thing and sometimes even I forget it: "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it." Maybe NDSU posters need to think of that phrase before hitting "Add Reply" on this board.

I will admit that there is somewhat unfair atmosphere in every message board setting. Insomuch that, varying upon the moderator's demeanor, the main patron's rights are broader than the visiting patron's rights. However, that is saying the same thing about bisonville or GPL or USCHO or wherever. I wouldn't expect bisonville to feature a bunch of NDSU fans who think UND is a bunch of "swell guys just out to carve their own niche in the NCAA sports scene." NDSU fans need to remember that they cannot expect us to think the same about NDSU. You post smack on this board, UND fans are going to respond to it. It's just as plain as day as that. If UND fans post smack on bisonville, do not tell me no one there would care because then you'd be lying.

This board is the UND board, not the NDSU board. If you cannot respect UND or UND's posters, then leave. PERIOD. THE END.

[PCM]

Pardon me for stepping in, but, for there to be a "double standard" mustn't there have been a firstly imposed standard that was not equally applied?

My problem is that I don't know which IowaBison to believe. Is it the the one who made the hypocritical "double standard" accusation or the one who made the disingenuous Larry the Cable Guy apology?

[Sioux-cia]

My problem is that I don't know which IowaBison to believe. Is it the the one who made the hypocritical "double standard" accusation or the one who made the disingenuous Larry the Cable Guy apology?

My encounters with IowaBison on this forum have left me with the same 'problem'. Comes into a thread all nice/polite, throws in a few zingers and then follows up with the 'aw shucks, I didn't mean it, I'm sorry' post.

[IowaBison]

A. You excused Bison Dan's original smack post as being funny and something that should have been expected.

I thought it was funny, but inappropriate. Those are not mutually exclusive characteristics.

B. You claimed that Sioux fans were equally culpable in contributing to the smack talk initiated by a Bison fan.

No, I didn't. They were as culpable as I was who also contributed. Nowhere did I state that the comments by Bison Dan were on par with those by others.

C. You claimed that your role in expanding the smack talk in a direction that had nothing whatsover to do with the original topic (athletic department financing) or Bison Dan's provacative post was no different from the Sioux fans who responded to Bison Dan.

On the first part, I agree. The latter is the same point as b and no I never made that comment.

It's like saying that when a person opens fire on a group of people minding their own business, there's a double standard when some in the crowd return fire in response. In other words, it's okay for Bison fans get to take potshots at Sioux fans, but Sioux fans who respond in kind are engaging in a "double standard."

Your analogy is based on b and the latter part of c, which is a point I never made.