DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Fan Feedback Forum Sources

I understand this site frowns upon postings not having sources so answer me one question please: How can that poster known a "b" keep posting about having inside information but yet doesn't provide the proper link. Seriously the rule is a rule no matter how much the poster thinks of themselves but let's be real he is posting "rumors" no matter how you look at it.

Point is if one can "claim" then let other sites who actually pay let there info be placed on this site, if not then you we'll have a bunch of so called sources posting without backup and I do not think that was the attempt of the board.

Basically keep the rules for all, and stop the people I mentioned above stop acting like they have special info ind if they do make them prove it like the rest of us. Please do us all this favor and stop the nonsense, your giving this person free space to speak for the organization and it is hurting this board because eventually more and more of "him" will appear. Do us all a favor and make him prove his sources, since that is the playing field and stop letting him spew his word as Browns facts.

Thanks

Then again there are many of us that appreciate the info he provides. If anything he's posted has proven false or unfounded after a few days, I've not seen it. He's given a very valid reason why he can't reveal his sources. I honestly don't understand the uproar over this, unless it's an ego thing or a personal vendetta.

A rumor is a rumor period. No vendetta or anything like that but when you state a source back it up, we all have to, so NO ONE should have special privileges as this guy and anyone else. I only mentioned him since he is the constant abuser but hell anybody can say they have a source and run with it but we don't. If he wants to give his opinion fine, but when he makes it the "Browns Org rule" then stop it, if not this cold can be caught and let's stop the virus and stop it now.

Personal? Please not even remote, but the fact is rules are rules.

Why would anyone not appreciate inside info that's proven true unless it were a personal issue with the poster?

Spare me the "I'm just concerned about the integrity of the rules" bit. There's no slippery slope here.

No, I can see Fletch's point. Unless a person can CITE the source, or unless the person IS the source (i.e. an employee of the Browns), then it must be considered a rumor and nothing more.

If not, then any Joe Shmoe could register for this board and say that they have "insider information"and post whatever kind of nonsense that they want....any you wouldn't want that to happen, would you?

And I'm not saying that this particular person is posting nonsense either....all I'm saying is that the rule would need to apply to everybody.

I enjoy reading what B posts, but I do see Fletch's point. I mean, if I posted some of the same stuff that B posts, it'd get deleted. Then if I posted it again... well I'd be in the banned camp.

I see your point, but IMO the difference is how often B and others have been proven right. If it was just some n00b coming on here and posting crap that was proven to be false, it should be deleted.

This isn't about being right or wrong and quite frankly it is easy for someone to be right after the fact like B does, but that isn't the point, I think Christyk explained the point clearly. When you can't provide sources to information that is supposed to be from the Browns organization then it shouldn't be posted because it is a rumor. This isn't a personal issue about the poster who frequently plays these cards it's about keeping this board rumor free, and do not understand why one person can go around and claim they have inside information when no one else does or is allowed to post in this form. Who knows if what B says is true or false, we don't, but the fact is no one else can post such rumors and I don't feel it is right he can, it's a double standard.

People can give their opinions on this board and that's cool but once one person starts "claiming" to know more then others without legit proof, then more people will do the same. No rumors means no rumors and one person shouldn't have the right to post in a manner none of us would get away with.

Well, personally, I enjoy the "inside" stuff from time to time. Vers used to give us some good information once in a while also.

I can decipher what and who I believe and what I don't on my own.

But, it's not fair as you said because people who have not shown themselves to have some knowledge in the past would have their posts deleted.

It may be fair not to allow the "insider" stuff, but at the same time it takes away from the board if it's not allowed at all. That's just my personal opinion.

I understand what your saying, and can decipher fact from fiction too but I don't think the so called inside info brings too much to the board when the so called information is mentioned without a source the thread normally has many posts questioning what is stated, so true some of us can tell the difference between truth and BS, but one person shouldn't be allowed to post in that manner when no one else can.

Maybe I should start using the "my sources" when I post since I do know players and organization members from the past and present, and at times I have known things before they happened, that is a fact but I wouldn't go that route since if those people wanted to state the information they can if they want to, but for reasons they don't. I just find it amusing that one person can get away with posting in this manner when others can not. A rumor is a rumor and the rules should be equal for everyone on this board and I see one person who gets away with posting rumors regularly. Every poster on this board can use the I have sources to back up their points and if that happened this place would turn to crap fast, since allot of posters only care about being right instead of discussing topics. I just think the rules should be equal for everyone and since rumors are not allowed to be posted then posters shouldn't be allowed to post rumors without a source.

I don't hear people feeling deprived because PFT info isn't permitted (outside of the poster of the rumors). There are quite a few here that want Coach's information. Why anyone wouldn't is baffling to me. That's a huge difference.

I think the biggest problem is that CoachB's abrasive personality has offended some people and they have taken this to a personal level, or are jealous because he has the info. Look beyond these personal conflicts and appreciate what is offered.

You people are saying, "reveal your sources or don't post the info". I don't see how anyone can not understand the valid reasons for not being able to reveal the sources.

The fact is that what he has posted has proven true, he's been here a long time and is trustworthy. He's not some newbie falsely claiming to have insider sources. This does not open the floodgates for a rumor laden BS factory as some of you are implying. It's a private board run by sensible administrators who exercise their judgement to make this a great forum.

LOL, this coming from you, why am I not surprised? This IS personal. You are mad because I have refuted your assertions with things I heard from within the organization and they were later verified in the media. There are only a few of you that have a problem with it because the information, always verified later in the media, goes against your rants against the organization.

It's easy to be right "after the fact"? LOL, like when I posted about WInslow being on the trading block 2 days before the story broke? How I posted Savage would be handcuffed by HIPPA and he said the same thing almost word for word the next day? How I stated when Frye was traded that the deal was in the works for some time before opening day and Savage came out in the press confernce and confrimed it?

LOL, keep trying, Fletch. I know what this is about and anyone that's followed your rants at me in the past do too. Good to see YOUR "sources" have been upgraded from a HS coach/ref to former players in the organization.

As I have said before, this is Purp's board. If he doesn't want me to post it, I won't. You bringing it up is nothing more than a personal issue, no matter how you try to paint it. As others have said, everything I have posted has been verified later on. It's not opinion, it's not rumor, it's informatoin from within the organization. It's verified later on in the media. Whatever Purp wants is fine with me since he owns the board and pays the bills.

Here's an idea, Fletch. Why don't you talk to these sources you have before you post your inaccurate statements from now on. Then I won't have to refute them with facts from inside the organizations and your feelings will be spared.

First of all, this isn't a government run everyone is equal board. You don't have rights here, just as I don't. This board is hosted by, and paid for by, an individual. He, and he alone, determines what is okay and what is not okay. Yes, he may consult with the refs, but the board is run by one person.

Next - when coachb is proven wrong when he states something pertaining to the Browns, please let us know. So far he has not been proven wrong........in fact, he's been proven right time after time after time. Now, I don't understand how you could not appreciate proven insider info, but if you can't, fine. Read it and disregard it.

Since you know former and current players or personnel, please tell us your insider info. Oh, and please post the names of the players or personnel you got that info from.

Wait. You can't. You don't have inside info. And if you did, you'd be an idiot to post their names. Yet you want someone else to post their sources so that no more info would come............stupid.

Oh, by the way, I have inside info.....I know a bunch of the players, current and former. See how easy that is to say? I just said it, like you did. However, and here's the catch - you and I can't back up squat. Coach tells us things, good or bad........and know what? A day, 3 days, 8 days later we find out it was true.

Now, if coaches track record was less than 100%, we could all doubt him. But it's not.

I'm sorry your ego is getting bruised, but deal with it. Some of us like to hear the real scoop..............and if you think by coach naming his sources it will validate his posts, you just don't pay attention. As soon as he names them, they'll be done. And, oops, there goes our info as well.

If and when coach starts posting untruths, he will be outed, and no one will believe him.

Until then, put your ego aside, or post your inside info, since you know players/personnel. Oh, and post the names of your inside informer, since you demand that from others.

If Joe Blow comes on here and says he has inside info, and posts it, and it's wrong, Joe has no credibility in the future.. Coach runs that same risk. Guess what? He's been right every time. Can't deal with it? Then stick a pin in your ego, cause its inflated.

Oh, coach..........you could do 3 things. 1. continue as you have, as it appears to be okay with the board owner. or 2, change your posts to "it's my opinion...." as opposed to I have sources - seems like that would satisfy fletch, or 3 - quit posting the info you have because a few whiners don't get the same respect you do.............and they don't get that respect because they don't have the info you do.

Take option 1 and ignore the people who's ego gets in the way of common sense.

Quote:

---

The only "difference" is one posts their info on their own website, and the other on a visited message board. That's all. Coach gets info from a source, just like they guys at these sites like PFT do. Are you telling me that's different?

---

It's different because it's third hand info by the time it gets here, and there's no way to keep the origin of the info in check. If one of PFT's writers with inside info would establish himself here as a poster and give nothing but information that proves true, then I think that would be permitted.

Quote:

---

I just understand what Fletch is trying to say. I think that things should be "loosened up a bit" around here, but it's not my place to say so. I don't run the place, so after getting banned for a week, I just follow the rules. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with people being jealous. Come on man, that's just stupid.

---

I could be wrong, but I took Fletch's post as saying either Coach ID's his sources or he shouldn't be able to post....not that things should be loosened up here. I also don't think it's stupid to surmise there are some underlying personal issues prompting this thread. As far as being banned, I've been there and taken my medicine.

Personal issues, possibly. But jealous that he has the info is kinda stupid.

Quote:

---

I could be wrong, but I took Fletch's post as saying either Coach ID's his sources or he shouldn't be able to post....not that things should be loosened up here.

---

Yeah, that's what he's saying. I was just giving you my personal meaningless opinion.

J/C,

I see both sides to this discussion.
Fletch is right, rules are rules.
CoachB and others are right, Understood why he can't/won't cite his sources.

Possible solution:

Make CoachB the "Insider Info Admin", not a ref or half the board would be banned , then under his "Insider Info Admin" screen name he can divulge all the inside info he wants as a member of admin. Then the CoachB name can abide by all the rules the rest of the board must follow.

Just an idea.

I can't say that I care either way.

And I don't think it has any detrimental effect on the board.

So I take it for what it is and move on. Its simple speculation, and many of us do it.

Part of what makes a message board fun is a little inside info once in a while, whether is be right or end up proven wrong... Coach has historically been pretty solid on his info, which has already been stated like a zillion times..

Aren't there bigger things in your life to worry about than Coach B's inside info?

You always find a reason to bitch about everyone/everything on this board

J/C

I asked a question that I feel warrants an answer. I am not going to rehash what I already stated, but this isn't personal or anything like that, I have agreed or disagreed with just about every poster on this board and I don't lose sleep over it. I am in no way, shape or form asking for the guy to losing his posting privileges or anything like that, I just want clarification if we all can use 3rd person information or if it is only accepted by this poster. If some of you want to be all dramatic and act like this is some sort of vendetta, get a hobby and stop taking posting on a message board so seriously. Sometimes I think many posters would rather be right then have the Browns succeeding and that is the main reason we are here, being fans of the Cleveland Browns. I asked the question and am not going to keep repeating myself. I asked a valid question and I am sorry some of you can't handle it. Have a nice evening all!

I understand what Fletch is saying and agree to a certain extent. It is against board rules to say " I heard" or something like that. OK Coachs inside info has been correct on many occasions but there are times the info he gives is his opinion and he attempts to support his opinion by citing inside knowledge. Sometimes, not always, it becomes a " my opinion means more than yours because I have inside information". Coach and I have discussed this and we are both fine with it, so please nobody think this is anything personal against Coach.


KING

Are the refs thinking long and hard on this one (did I just say that?), or are they just avoiding this one altogether?

I wouldn't mind if we allowed rumors, as long as they weren't vicious personal attacks like the stuff that was swirling about Winslow's condition. On the other hand, if someone posts that Bill Cowher bought a house in Strongsville ... thats interesting to me, and basically harmless (although Romeo might disagree). As long as something is posted without malice (intended or unintended), then its just fodder for conversation which I think is why we're all here. The posters that are FOS will be found out soon enough.

The rule:

"RUMORS
If you cannot cite a source when posting information to the board, please do not post it at all. Saying that you saw something on television or heard it on the radio is not sufficient as a valid source. Rumors do not lend to valid discussion and will be removed when seen by a moderator."


When we judge by the rules, or laws in everyday society, we must allow for the concept of intent.

When I was a teenager with a driving license I had just finished a job of mowing the yard of an abandoned house. While mowing I found an antique tool used to pound bungs into barrels. A bung is a tapered plug used to plug the hole in the side of a barrel. This old tool was made of an oak handle about 1-1/2" in diameter and about 30" long, and it had on the end a 4" sleeve of 1/4" thick lead that was held on by a pin through the center so it could have a bit of movement when striking the plug.

I was driving home with this newfound tool tucked between the left side of my seat and the car door. I thought nothing of it. At one point I was stopped by a Deputy Sheriff for a reason I don't even remember. When he approached my car I motioned that I couldn't roll down my window and opened the door wide so we could speak. As we were talking he noticed the antique tool in his plain sight and he reached down and picked it up. "What is this?", he asked. I told him as best I knew. "How did you get it?", he wanted to know. I told him, and it wasn't until just that moment that I began to think it could be construed as a concealed weapon.

He stood there swinging the handle and smacking his opposite palm with the weighted lead end as someone would do if they were about to smack you with it. I asked him if it were ok that I had it in my car. It was then that I learned something about intent . He said to me, "That all depends on what you intend to do with it. If you intend to use it as a weapon then it is illegal to carry it in your car. If it's just an interesting object you wish ot keep then it's not." "I just found it", I said, "I know it's real old and I thought it was cool so instead of throwing it away with the rest of the trash I found in the yard, I kept it."

He reached down and replaced it back in my car from where he picked it up.

Intent


The spirit of the RUMOR rule, the intent of the rule, is to stop posters from making up facts to back up their claims in discussions or arguments. If a poster's intent is to mislead, decieve or beguile others, (to influence by trickery), then that is certainly a violation of the rule deserving removal and, in some instances, a warning.

After much discussion among us, the consensus of the moderatiors is that there are certain members of this board who do have "inside" information. At one point we had 5 or 6 such members. Each of them had been either coaches in the Northeast Ohio area or had worked in the media at one time or another so they have friends in the Browns organization or in the media and are sometimes privileged to gain insightful information regarding the team. It must also, in all fairness, be realized that sometimes, often, situations change and informaion that is valid today could be invalid tommorrow because of changes in the organization. In other words, you take the bad with the good.

As is shown by the response of some posters in this thread who have been around here for some years, those afore mentioned members have withstood the test of time regarding their information. As moderators, we have also established their intent has not been to decieve, mislead or beguile. Their intent has been to enlighten the rest of us with information, sometimes advanced information, so that we can be more knowledgeable, informed fans.

It is a tough move to disallow that information that some have described as "gold" simply because there is a rule forbidding it. Keep in mind, it is the intent that matters most in all rule situations.

As in all rule violations we, as moderators, have to discern the intent of each infraction. Someone will violate a rule but it is determined by the moderator to be a slip and that poster will receive a warning or at least a PM alerting the poster to the violation. That is because their intent was deemed to be other than malicious in nature. Many of you have received such warnings or alerts over the years. Others may make the same violation but in a manner that is malignant, (disposed to cause harm, suffering or distress), and that poster will be immediately issued a stern warning or in more extreme cases they may be banned for a period. Some of you have received such a warning or a time-out over the years. Some of the worst of those have suffere a permanent ban.

So intent plays a huge roll in discerning the ramifications of a rule violation.

After a lengthly discussion of this issue the moderators have come to the conclusion that these few members who have the privilege of such information and choose to share it with the rest of us may continue to do so by virtue fo their intent .

I will take this time to alert those members with such information to be extremely careful in the wording of their posts so that they aren't misconstrued by other members as to the intent of their sharing that information. You must always keep in mind that once you have taken on the responsibility of a teacher then you will be judged much more strictly by everyone. Proper wording and careful intoduction of information can go a long way toward curbing animosity from others.


For some of you who disagree with this decision, be it known that this is not a decision based on a "double standard" or by "playing favorites". It's a decision based on a history of accuracy, intent and a little inside information of our own regarding these posters.

Very nicely worded explanantion, but did you say "BUNG"

FWIW I know what a " BUNG" is, I worked in a barrel plant for eight years, it just struck me as funny to hear.


KING

I appreciate your response and clarification, I just hope the standards you took in the explanation are maintained properly. Thank you for your time on this issue. Go Browns!

Quote:

---

A bung is a tapered plug used to plug the hole in the side of a barrel.

---

So that's where the term "bunghole" originated?