FanDuel - WFBC

September 25, 2006

Legit Discussion Shut Down -- Why?:

In the spirit of texasred, who asked 9/18/06 in a Locker Room post what was up when his NASCAR posts were deleted, I am addressing the Michelle Wie issue here.

My post from Friday 9/22/06 entitled "Masters? Michelle Wie Should Master LPGA First, says Female Sportswriter" fit the FPP. Admittedly, it is about Wie and her heretofore futile quest to make a PGA cut, a subject that always sets this forum on fire. But previous discussions have included unfounded accusations that those who are critical of Wie must be 'male chauvinists.' The column I posted was written by longtime San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion, someone whose opinion obviously couldn't be motivated by agreement that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. On top of that, Killion cited LPGA pros (including LPGA legend Nancy Lopez) who agree that Wie is disrespectful of female professionals by acting as if the women's tour isn't important.

None of those differentiations seemed to matter when some made note that it was I who posted the column. Immediately, some alleged that I have a hateful, politically motivated anti-Wie "agenda," but there were others who wrote that even if that was the truth (which it isn't), it was not a reason to stop posting legitimate items about Wie.

The burgeoning discussion of both Wie's choices and whether or not people who are annoyed by the topic should ignore it came to a screeching halt when justgary made his first and only post on the thread. He simply wrote "Sorry, been out." Then, it appears, his next act was to shut the thread down with the words "This discussion has been closed by the admins."

Seeing that not only I but others agreed that it was a legitimate post that fit the standards of the FPP, I think I am entitled to an explanation of why closing this thread within hours of its creation wasn't an arbitrary variance of SpoFi policy.

posted by L.N. Smithee to editorial policy at 01:22 AM - 71 comments

By the time I saw the post there were 29 comments. Most were discussing why the link sucked, a few were commenting on why the link didn't suck, a few were throw away comments. How many were actually discussing the link? 2? 3? Not to say that I deleted the link because of the comments, but the comments are there for the same reason I deleted the link. It's been discussed many, many times on sportsfilter. Every time she enters a pga tournament you can find that same article. There's nothing new to discuss. The burgeoning discussion of both Wie's choices and whether or not people who are annoyed by the topic should ignore it came to a screeching halt That burgeoning discussion doesn't belong on sportsfilter's front page. But previous discussions have included unfounded accusations that those who are critical of Wie must be 'male chauvinists.' The column I posted was written by longtime San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion, someone whose opinion obviously couldn't be motivated by agreement that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Sportsfilter isn't one continuing discussion. The link stands on it's own or doesn't. Posting something to prove a point you debated in a previous discussion doesn't hold water. I think I am entitled to an explanation of why closing this thread within hours of its creation wasn't an arbitrary variance of SpoFi policy. Link Why was my post deleted? Did it break the guidelines? Was the link posted already? Is it a minor change in a story already linked recently? Is the topic banned?. If you can answer no to all these questions, feel free to email an admin.

posted by justgary at 02:37 AM on September 25

By the way, this isn't a special case just for this topic. Other over done topics have also been trimmed.

posted by justgary at 02:55 AM on September 25

Hey, keep me out of this one!! :))

posted by texasred at 05:26 AM on September 25

Motion to close/delete this thread too, before it becomes a clusterfuck of attacks on Smithee and/or an actual continuance of the thread that was actually deleted (with merit and good reason) in the first place.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:32 AM on September 25

I'll tentatively vote against closing this thread, but I'd suggest some guidelines for how it should proceed, if it does. Specifically, Smithee, if you want to have this discussion, you need to move beyond simply saying "I am not and you are too", which is what you did with this post. justgary replied to you, so answer his points -- again, without resorting to "is not! is so!" Same goes for anyone else who's minded to contribute here: address the point you disagree with using evidence or logic, not just saying it ain't so.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:50 AM on September 25

address the point you disagree with using evidence or logic, not just saying it ain't so You're totally missing the point about the Internet.

posted by qbert72 at 08:05 AM on September 25

I'm sorry, qbert. It's Monday. I'll snap out of it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:20 AM on September 25

I agree with justgary. The discussion was overwhelmingly about Smithee posting the link, not about Michelle Wie. That's a good reason to shut it down, whether or not it's fair to give him so much flak for posting the link. When a topic's overplayed and gets people really fired up, there are times it's a good idea to shut it down for a while. We've done it on T.O., Bonds, Wie, racial sports mascots at different times. If people had new things to offer on Wie, Smithee's link would have been about that rather than about him.

posted by rcade at 09:38 AM on September 25

Since I was one of the individuals who called for the measure... Here are the earth shattering points you were able to raise outside of the "do we have to do this again" variety.

Stop!! She great to look at, but please.... PGA officals are as much to blame as Michelle Wie. She is good, but not great and if she continues to play on the mens tour - the effects could be pschycological. She may never get her "A" game at this pace. Comment icon posted by jzonker at 4:04 PM CDT on September 22
Let her Tee off after 2PM, like the good old days. Comment icon posted by JRWittig at 5:14 PM CDT on September 22
Bear in mind, she's not yet eligible to be a member of the LPGA, and can only get a handful of sponsor exemptions. It's not as though she's turning her back on them. Comment icon posted by themightyjobu at 5:33 PM CDT on September 22
She's not even the best female in the world so why does she think she can compete with the men? Comment icon posted by LaKeR4LiFe at 6:45 PM CDT on September 22
One out of the four (the mightyjbou) made a relevant point. A point that the original columnist throws in to her article to somehow validate the fact that she's writing a completely off-topic opinion. So, my advice is if you'd really like to discuss the topic further maybe try writing your own column. I think you'd possibly find a warmer reception and more honest discussion. Even that may be difficult though since Miss Wie is obviously one of "those" topics. I'd also think a time when the discussion is more topical would help.

posted by YukonGold at 12:13 PM on September 25

I beleive the link added something new in that Wie's peers don't seem to appreciate her joining PGA tournaments and that in itself is interesting to me. I wouldn't have minded a conversation on that particular facet of the story. Weedy started down that path but everyone was too busy piling on smithee. My point being, I think the link was fine but I agree to deleting the thread because it had obviousely got out of hand.

posted by tron7 at 02:23 PM on September 25

Fair enough, but that viewpoint wasn't how it was positioned in the FPP. I read it as "woman sportswriter says Wie should stop trying to participate in men's tournaments".

posted by YukonGold at 02:40 PM on September 25

link good. post bad.

posted by garfield at 03:08 PM on September 25

I can live with that I guess, though I think the wording of the post could have been overlooked. Is, "Wie axe grinding" the same as, "hatchet sharpening"?

posted by tron7 at 03:23 PM on September 25

Like garfield said the link was fine, it was just the resulting posts were not ideal. One thing about it was some users who have been here quite long enough to know the posting guidelines didn't bother to post anything relevant to the link, choosing rather to post on Smithee's apparent hatred of Michelle Wie or the topic being posted on too many times. After those posts were made, the posting went downhill.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:58 PM on September 25

Dude, it's not apparent hatred. Look at his posting history. The posting results were not ideal. They weren't ideal because we've gone over it, especially with this member, an infinite amount of time. The only saving grace is the thread got canned before Atheist got to it. ...topic being posted on too many times. After those posts were made, the posting went downhill. Do you have any idea how many threads have gone downhill or been killed by cries of "This again?" or "Can we stop talking about _________ nonstop?" It's happened to a thread or two of mine, it's happen to lots of us. You make it sound like we forced him to post yet another Michelle Wie link and then beat him about the eyes, nose and throat after he did it just for the sheer fun of it.

posted by jerseygirl at 04:20 PM on September 25

I can't see how the Wie issue has been vastly overdone when after looking through the archives, the last FPP about Michelle Wie seems to have been back on July 15th. Having a discussion about a topic that was last mentioned almost two and a half months ago harldy seems nonstop. and then beat him about the eyes, nose and throat after he did it just for the sheer fun of it. To put it simply, you did. Its true that smithee is obviously very passionate about the Wie issue, but that doesn't give liscense to posts only made to mention how the FPP was a stupid post such as Someone, please! We don't need to go through this again. or Not quite done grinding the Wie axe, Smithee? His FPP fit the guidelines. It was a valid link and shouldn't have recieved the reception it did. However, it was rightfully deleted only because of the poor quality of posts that followed it.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:45 PM on September 25

To put it simply, you did. Did I? Back to the part you conveniently cut out: I made him post the thread? Did I? His FPP fit the guidelines. It was a valid link and shouldn't have recieved the reception it did. I guess that depends on how you want to read: Fandom is encouraged (we're all fans here), but this is not a place to see who can yell go birds!!1! louder and more often than anyone else. You could say that applies to any anti-fandom too. I don't like Ozzie Guillen, but I don't keep beating it over the god damn head. And if I did, I'd get cut down too. Lots of us do not care for Bonds, and as Gary linked, BALCO stuff regularly gets deleted. And yeah, the Wie story? Mundane. We've gone over it. Like rcade said, we've covered it and there was nothing new in the actual story. The only real difference this time is that a woman wrote the story, thus somehow giving it a new reason to regurgitate it and chew it again. a subject that always sets this forum on fire doesn't always mean it should make the front page. We generally know how we react and behave to certain triggers and sometimes, its better to just cut it off at the pass.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:59 PM on September 25

I don't know why but it's one of those topics that goes nowhere. I feel like we know what Smithee's points will be, he made them back in June with the U.S. Open. My question and reasoning behind stating... We don't need to go through this again. ...was that there's been very little to change between then and now. Maybe I jumped the gun on it. Post it again and see how the thread goes (minus the dogpile). I think it's troll fodder and is just rehashing an old topic that will produce similar results.

posted by YukonGold at 06:06 PM on September 25

I'm with YYM. I went back through Smithee's comments a bit. A discussion in June and then you have to go back to February for anything more. Is that obsessive? Not to mention that he has only posted about Wie this one time. I don't see hate in any of Smithee's comments on Wie. His big issue it seems to me is that Wie gets too much attention from the media. If your reading hatred of Wie in his comments I'm not seeing it(at least in the June comments).

posted by tron7 at 06:09 PM on September 25

You guys do realize comments in deleted threads don't show in the posting history any longer, right? I think Smithee's MO is pretty well established and it's what's so frustrating: he drops bombs and then walks away to let people fight amongst themselves. If this issue is so important he can pump out three paragraphs about it, where is he in the discussion? It comes across, to me, like he doesn't want to mix with the hoi polloi.

posted by yerfatma at 07:53 PM on September 25

To put it simply, you did. Did I? Back to the part you conveniently cut out: I made him post the thread? Did I? You didn't make him post the thread. You did beat him about the eyes, nose, and throat.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:41 PM on September 25

Bit of hyperbole on your part, I'd say.

posted by jerseygirl at 09:16 PM on September 25

Is it just me, or are these editorial policy discussions becoming more interesting than a lot of the sport-type stuff on here?

posted by SummersEve at 06:19 AM on September 26

Not just you. Sometimes I spend more time reading these, on a slow day for the front page.

posted by jojomfd1 at 07:16 AM on September 26

Like garfield said the link was fine, it was just the resulting posts were not ideal. The link was fine, if we leave aside the not-so-minor consideration that there was nothing new in it. The FPP was not fine. Do you see the distinction between the link and the FPP? Remember that bit about editorializing?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:30 AM on September 26

are these editorial policy discussions becoming more interesting than a lot of the sport-type stuff on here This is not a good sign.

posted by qbert72 at 08:09 AM on September 26

indeed.

posted by garfield at 08:59 AM on September 26

I can't see how he editorialized when the only non link text in the FPP was a quote from the article.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:41 AM on September 26

The link was fine, if we leave aside the not-so-minor consideration that there was nothing new in it. What LBB said. This had nothing to do with LNS's posting history. It would have been deleted regardless. The link taken by itself is fine. In the big picture it's not. There's nothing new in it. A quote from an athlete, the fact that it's written by a female sports writer doesn't qualify as new, and even in our basic guidelines it uses the word 'new'. It gives us nothing new to discuss, and the result is what happened in the thread. So I strongly disagree with those who claim it was only the comments that ruined the link. LNS posted the link to continue a debate from a while back. That's pretty obvious. Not to mention that he has only posted about Wie this one time. He's posted about wie before but it was deleted and doesn't show up in his posting history, as yerfatma said. Is it just me, or are these editorial policy discussions becoming more interesting than a lot of the sport-type stuff on here? Hopefully this isn't a common thing. What makes it worse is L.N. Smithee starting the debate and then bailing out. I'd say that's a hint to his motivation.

posted by justgary at 10:54 AM on September 26

I can't see how he editorialized when the only non link text in the FPP was a quote from the article. You're forgetting the link title: "Masters? Michelle Wie Should Master LPGA First, says Female Sportswriter :" Q: What were Charles Stuart's last words? A: "A black man pushed me."

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:59 AM on September 26

He's totally not going to get that reference, lbb.

posted by jerseygirl at 11:12 AM on September 26

Well I didn't get it either, but google saved me.

posted by Amateur at 11:19 AM on September 26

He sure is good at starting discussions. 32 comments here, folks on both sides. Smithee? No where to be found.

posted by YukonGold at 11:50 AM on September 26

Great idea. You know what SpoFi needs for Festivus this year?
Airing of grievances!
It'll be great. I just (jokingly) called out chicobangs on his Eli Manning thing. So for festivus we can get a list of anyone who wants to air it out and have at it. We can do the Michelle Wie thing, the insensitive mascot thing, a Burning Man-esque version of the Barry Bonds thing. It'll be a festivus miracle.

posted by YukonGold at 12:05 PM on September 26

He sure is good at starting discussions. 32 comments here, folks on both sides. Smithee? No where to be found. It's kind of like that "if a tree falls in the forest" question. Does a shit-disturber even need to stay and watch the mess, much less continue disturbing...or is it enough to set the process going and then go away and chuckle?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:11 PM on September 26

Should have just deleted this thread.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:19 PM on September 26

Of course that's what you think, racist.

posted by yerfatma at 12:34 PM on September 26

WRANING!! this thryd is teh roX0r. l337.

posted by YukonGold at 01:01 PM on September 26

Let me quote the late, great, Colonel Sanders. He said, "I'm too drunk...to taste this chicken."

posted by jerseygirl at 01:10 PM on September 26

This is my first Locker Room post and don't make a habit of cruising the Locker Room. I usually check the Front Page and if there are only links for things that don't interest me (such as English football or cricket), I ignore them and surf somewhere else. Regarding my "bailing out": At work, I have had tasks that have allowed me enough down time to post lengthy responses to SpoFi. I currently am taking on a task that doesn't allow that -- if I am on the web, it has to do with business with few exceptions. I made a special effort to post the Killion column because I have been waiting for a female scribe to admit the Wie-dia circus is getting old. I will respond to the things written here tonight, but one thing I want to say right now is that jerseygirl is full of crap. I have never said I hate Wie because I don't, and no amount of repeating unfounded assertions that I do hate Wie will make it so anywhere other than in her narrow little mind.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:09 PM on September 26

Ok I'm leaving this up to you two.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:21 PM on September 26

I made a special effort to post the Killion column because I have been waiting for a female scribe to admit the Wie-dia circus is getting old. As I was saying.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:39 PM on September 26

Eight or nine members in the thread also thought the thread was axe grinding, useless and/or not FPP worthy. And then Gary, and rcade for that matter, agree there was nothing really new/worthwhile about the FPP. Gary, citing the guidelines definition of new, continues LNS posted the link to continue a debate from a while back. That's pretty obvious and confirms that yes, some of Smithee's previous Wie commentary had to be deleted. After it was all said and done, Pantheon/Gary had their/his own thoughts and didn't think your FPP was worthwhile. There it is. If they thought it was worthwhile, they could have deleted the comments by the 8 or 9 people who opposed, not to mention the few snarky assholes who were already starting in on the sexist comments, and let it try to float as a legit FPP. Was that thread heading anywhere that wasn't going to require constant tidying and sexist-comment-deleting by the mods? Me, I don't think so. I think you hate Michelle Wie. So? I’ve been reading your comments for a bit over year now. I've seen things before they were deleted and that’s my thought on it. Similarly, you don’t like what I have to say , think I'm full of crap and narrow minded. And? Somehow we'll both survive. But hey, if you want to argue over me saying that I think you hate Michelle Wie, if syntax is all you have to address instead of your position that the FPP was valid topic fostering a productive discussion and wasn't going to end up in a fiery inflammatory argument, you're better off just sending me an email to my junk account (listed in profile). I can check it in between the requests from Nigerian diplomats who need $2500 wired to them urgently and the “Work at Home Make $5000 a Week!” emails. If I could just get the Work at Home emails to the Nigerians, they wouldn't need my help. Look, my first comment in this lockerroom thread is, in part, a plea to close it so you don't get slammed or attacked by everyone, Smithee. I guess that means I am out to get you? Do what you have to, addressing the comments in the thread and putting us all in our places tonight. You might want to read the guidelines about personal attacks and name calling, though. There’s also a section on What Makes a Good FPP, too.

posted by jerseygirl at 04:42 PM on September 26

The column I posted was written by longtime San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion, someone whose opinion obviously couldn't be motivated by agreement that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Never heard of old Phyllis, eh?

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:46 PM on September 26

At the risk of stepping in between the flying pies here, I'd like to thank YukonGold for throwing down on my Baby Manning hatred in what was otherwise a waning thread, and making me accidentally quote Dirty Dancing in my response. Point to you, Goldie. Thanks for that. I'll let myself out.

posted by chicobangs at 05:33 PM on September 26

Tell me you didn't say "No one puts Baby in the corner" and then busted out an uptempo dance number.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:58 PM on September 26

At work, I have had tasks that have allowed me enough down time to post lengthy responses to SpoFi. I currently am taking on a task that doesn't allow that Absolutely fair, except . . . This is my first Locker Room post and don't make a habit of cruising the Locker Room. Did you not think you'd need to be involved in the discussion after you posted an interrogative to the discussion side of things? I appreciate you being too busy to respond during the workday, but don't expect us to all see the light and come around without you defending your position. And I think you have the wrong idea about jg. If not, then you're standing on semantics: you may not hate Michelle Wie, but the general circus around here clearly twists your panties in an untoward fashion.

posted by yerfatma at 06:02 PM on September 26

accidentally quote Dirty Dancing in my response Puleeze. Any excuse to start blasting Hungry Eyes. Point to you You've got 49 on me in EPL so I need all I can.

posted by YukonGold at 07:52 PM on September 26

Sorry...I thought I was going to be able to complete a comprehensive response last night. I'm still editing it for brevity.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 09:11 AM on September 27

Must be pretty long . . .

posted by yerfatma at 05:52 PM on September 27

my goodness. this should top everything.

posted by YukonGold at 07:58 PM on September 27

I'm still editing it for brevity. Dude, life is way too short for brevity.

posted by tselson at 11:03 PM on September 27

The suspense is killing me. On a semi-related note, we got T.O. yesterday so aren't we due for a new Barbaro post?

posted by SummersEve at 05:22 AM on September 28

Dude...when you mention T.O. and Barbaro in the same sentence, the terrorists win. Smithee, I won't go so far as to say that you hate Michelle Wie, since I'm guessing you don't know her personally, and to hate her without actually knowing her would mark you as a serious asshole; having said that, there is a certain quality to the tone of some of your posts and/or comments that could lead one to think you're a bit of a neanderthal in re: women's rights, especially as it pertains to what they should and shouldn't be able to do in the sports world. I don't know you personally, so I can't say either way how you feel on the subject. I'm just sayin', I can see how some people would arrive at the conclusion that you're not fond of women stepping out of their "traditional" roles and place in society. Brevity is sooo last year.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:59 AM on September 28

Brevity is sooo last year. Kinda like this thread by the time we see the edited manuscript.

posted by YukonGold at 09:13 AM on September 28

I can't say for certain, but I hear the first line is: Eh bien, mon prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now no more than family estates of the Bonapartes.

posted by SummersEve at 09:42 AM on September 28

Whanne that April with his shoures sote The droughte of March hath perced to the rote...

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:59 AM on September 28

Here I sit, cheeks a flexin' . . .

posted by yerfatma at 10:21 AM on September 28

WOW! A Chaucer quote on this site. I had a high school flash back. And it's not the good kind of flash back with the colourful trails and melting faces.

posted by HATER 187 at 10:44 AM on September 28

Whanne that April with his shoures sote The droughte of March hath perced to the rote... How about a little spellcheck? I'm not gonna watch you destroy Old English all over again. Let's see that done correctly in the future.

posted by YukonGold at 11:07 AM on September 28

I don't know if you got the memo. We care about grammar here, lbb. I'm going to go ahead and send you another copy of the memo on the TPS Reports grammar.

posted by jerseygirl at 11:12 AM on September 28

That's what I get for using the internet to do my research.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:51 AM on September 28

Which Chaucer character said, "Here I sit, cheeks a flexin'"? I gotta say, I don't think that was Chaucer.

posted by SummersEve at 12:58 PM on September 28

Those who read these words of wit . . .

posted by yerfatma at 02:07 PM on September 28

Here I sit, broken hearted.

posted by chicobangs at 04:57 PM on September 28

Either Smithee's really letting the tension build before he drops this tome on us, or he's gotten disgusted with the whole process and decided to skip it.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:48 AM on September 29

Three days later... is it worth it?

posted by jerseygirl at 08:06 AM on September 29

I'm thinking Michelle Wie will be playing in the seniors before we hear the comeback. As certain persons in positions of power are wont to say, it's a problem for the next generation...

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:12 AM on September 29

Are we talking about Vince McMahon?

posted by yerfatma at 09:53 AM on September 29

Wow, first Keats, now Tolstoy and Chaucer. And then Vince McMahon. Is this the odd-one-out round?

posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:28 AM on September 29

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:00 PM on September 29

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.