Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Message from a soon-to-be former Hardcore Poster.
Passion
Member Posts: 4,622
Just received this message from a guy (who shall remain anonymous) that I've interacted with over the years on DM and HH: "Just a quick personal note to say thanks for your perspectives on UW football over the years. I haven't always agreed with you, but I've appreciated your passion for the program. I had hoped this site would be a place to have fun discussing football, but even the few promising threads ultimately devolve into insults and name calling. While I certainly don't always agree with Kim, after hanging out here for a while, he has a point: some of the shtick gets old after a while. The older I get, the more I judge activities by whether I enjoy them, and I simply don't enjoy having my intelligence questioned by a bunch of internet idiots. Perhaps I will catch you in the future at another site somewhere between DM and HH. Anyway, carry on the good fight and feel free to drop an email if you want to discuss Dawgs."
The guy that sent me this note is NO fan of kim or any of the other jerks over at DM.
Look, I'm not going to advocate for people to be censored (like the d-bags that ruined DM), nor am I going to lecture anybody. I will only say that this website has the opportunity to become a REAL and UNFILTERED alternative to DM. The problem is that a few folks on here insist on turning threads into name-calling and 8th-grade-level cursing contests, or just an opportunity to 'zing' other people.
I'll be the first to say that at times I've been guilty of that BS as well.
I guess my only suggestion is that some folks should decide if they want this to become the website that ALL OF US have described at one time or another - a place of INTELLIGENT analysis where INTENSE criticism and UNSCRIPTED opinion is welcome - or do we want HH to be just a place of one-liners, biting insults, and contests to tear down others. I realize that it's often both, but I tend to agree with this guy that it tilts a little too much toward the latter.
Just a thought. Peace. Now fire away.
The guy that sent me this note is NO fan of kim or any of the other jerks over at DM.
Look, I'm not going to advocate for people to be censored (like the d-bags that ruined DM), nor am I going to lecture anybody. I will only say that this website has the opportunity to become a REAL and UNFILTERED alternative to DM. The problem is that a few folks on here insist on turning threads into name-calling and 8th-grade-level cursing contests, or just an opportunity to 'zing' other people.
I'll be the first to say that at times I've been guilty of that BS as well.
I guess my only suggestion is that some folks should decide if they want this to become the website that ALL OF US have described at one time or another - a place of INTELLIGENT analysis where INTENSE criticism and UNSCRIPTED opinion is welcome - or do we want HH to be just a place of one-liners, biting insults, and contests to tear down others. I realize that it's often both, but I tend to agree with this guy that it tilts a little too much toward the latter.
Just a thought. Peace. Now fire away.
Comments
-
MAy e we need a special higher discussion board and a lower insult board.
-
Well, here's the thing. For it to be unscripted and unfiltered, we must allow 99% of what transpires to remain without deleting or banning. People here can post about virtually anything they like. In 11 months I've deleted less than 10 posts.
Overall I love the jokes and barbs, but there are some things that I find juvenile, distasteful or worn out. I read some of these threads and we're hammering the same points over and over and it can get monotonous, especially if you're not getting the humor.
Recently I was concerned about the overall content of the boards. I asked a friend about it, who has many more years of message board experience than I do. He said that a football message board is always going to reflect how the season is going. And he's right. If we hadn't screwed the pooch against Stanford, and/or had beaten Oregon, do you think the tone on here would be bitter and negative? No it wouldn't. As Race Bannon said in his podcast, we would be changing our handles and doogin' it up right now.
You and I see the world very differently, and yet we both have major issues with Sark. And that's the whole point: This is an unfiltered board and it is reflecting the season and people's current thoughts.
If anybody wants to come post football topics, there are plenty people here who will discuss them. But our board isn't for everybody, especially those easily offended. -
Auburndawg just needs to get thicker skin.
-
There's nothing intelligent to discuss about Husky football.
Hope this helps. -
Seems ironic to complain about people on the Internet questioning your intelligence while also calling them idiots via the Internet.
I'm also not sure why he's so interested in talking football with people that he considers idiots.
In conclusion, if he'd like to jerk off to X's and O's talk he can email you. If he'd like to take the sand out of his vagina, start acting like a man and post here again then fuck off. We don't want him anyways. -
FIRST!!!"
-
Just because dawgman moderated itself to death, doesn't mean all moderation is bad.
This will strike a lot of people as hearsay, but the sexy avatars and threads about banging coeds might be be a good thing to axe. They don't scream intelligent husky football conversation. However, I do have a soft spot in my heart for lemon party jokes. -
He appreciated your passion for the program.
Did you see what he did there? -
-
the inside jokes are probably the biggest challenge for many who come over here. to DJ's point (I call him DJ... I like to do that), after the Stanford game the board was full of actual football discourse. as the Black Out program that Pool Boy built like a phoenix from a pile of purple and gold ashes flies back up to the altitude of a Duck for the annual clownstomp, then yes people get frustrated and need to remind each other that programs like Oregon can have 3 coaches in 6 years yet be in the national conversation while we seem to need a guy for at least 6 years to be given a chance to develop consistency... oh, and that guy was actually called out by our non-resident big data sage indirectly with reference to coaching probabilities by year 3 (Hi Hugh!)... anyways, this post is now officially TL;DR so I forgot what I was talking about.
