egriz article

[BWahlberg]

The criticism holds some merit, yes - I did a fact check post this evening that shows these comments she suggests were made, however they consist of about 0.02% of the total amount of posts on egriz - an incredibly tiny sliver. So... yeah they're on there and they are bad. Chris has put out some announcements just in the last few days of an updated banning/warning system and refreshed his code of conduct that I know he was working on for months. So there will be some changes and that should clean up some additional posts as well I'd expect.

The frustrating thing is that outside of a few of Alpha's troll posts and the occasional wack-job and random post most everyone over there does not think/act in that way, but if you read the Florio article... especially how it begins... man, that sounds like the only thing we talk about.

Is that 2 in every 100? I think it's probably quite a bit higher than that when you include negative posts that reinforce that language. For instance when someone call Florio a feminazi and others say "nailed it tokyo_griz" "good post" or "+1", etc. that won't show up when you're searching the specific words that Florio says are being used on the board.

No, 0.02% or 0.002 in every 100 posts

[BWahlberg]

The criticism holds some merit, yes - I did a fact check post this evening that shows these comments she suggests were made, however they consist of about 0.02% of the total amount of posts on egriz - an incredibly tiny sliver. So... yeah they're on there and they are bad. Chris has put out some announcements just in the last few days of an updated banning/warning system and refreshed his code of conduct that I know he was working on for months. So there will be some changes and that should clean up some additional posts as well I'd expect.

The frustrating thing is that outside of a few of Alpha's troll posts and the occasional wack-job and random post most everyone over there does not think/act in that way, but if you read the Florio article... especially how it begins... man, that sounds like the only thing we talk about.

Is that 2 in every 100? I think it's probably quite a bit higher than that when you include negative posts that reinforce that language. For instance when someone call Florio a feminazi and others say "nailed it tokyo_griz" "good post" or "+1", etc. that won't show up when you're searching the specific words that Florio says are being used on the board.

+1

Your are correct on this one. The only person I've ever seen banned, to my knowlege, was 2506 for a comment about lynching when people thought Playerrep was black. Alot goes at egriz. Brint has good posts, but there's alot over there that is rediculous. Alot of posters pretty much proove her point with the "this chick needs to get laid" comments in the topic about this article. Or the Capitalize Words Like This To Spell Out The C Word jeuvenille antics. As far as Chris and his status as a UM employee....notice how he has yet to make a comment....I'm guessing its painfull to type right now as his hands got slapped by the proverbial ruler.

What Florio should have put more emphasis on was the message board bullying making rape victims second guess reporting the assault, and not so much the other stuff. I did giggle as a read the whole article, knowing how much popcorn I would be eating, as Brint said, as I watched this play out of on egriz.

A few things;

- As I just posted it's 0.02% or 0.0002 of the time - not 2%, that would actually be quite high. Also that count I did included quoted posts. So if someone typed "bitch" and then that post was quoted 10 times it would show as 10 posts (edit - it'd actually show as 11 times, orignal plus the 10 quotes). So the counts are actually probably higher than when it's actually used, but it's best to look at the worst case I suppose.

- There's actually a fairly extensive ban list over there, some of the usual suspects have been in and out of banning, PlayerRep, Growler1 (and his many alter-egos), Grizbacker1, Bear Axed, Cats2506, AlphaGriz and a few others who have been given permanant bans such as DJollieballs for those that recall him. Chris's banning policy leans to letting most all back onto the board eventually. Some just decide not to come back.

- Chris added in some content scrubbing fixes where I believe if someone types in the "c-word" it gets edited with a * in it, as it does for some swear words. I believe that's just in the public forums, football and basketball.

- Chris sent me a text this afternoon, he's not in any trouble at all with his employer, despite a possible back-handed swipe by Florio to attempt that with her mention that he's an employee of the UM.

[[cat_bracket]]

The criticism holds some merit, yes - I did a fact check post this evening that shows these comments she suggests were made, however they consist of about 0.02% of the total amount of posts on egriz - an incredibly tiny sliver. So... yeah they're on there and they are bad. Chris has put out some announcements just in the last few days of an updated banning/warning system and refreshed his code of conduct that I know he was working on for months. So there will be some changes and that should clean up some additional posts as well I'd expect.

The frustrating thing is that outside of a few of Alpha's troll posts and the occasional wack-job and random post most everyone over there does not think/act in that way, but if you read the Florio article... especially how it begins... man, that sounds like the only thing we talk about.

Is that 2 in every 100? I think it's probably quite a bit higher than that when you include negative posts that reinforce that language. For instance when someone call Florio a feminazi and others say "nailed it tokyo_griz" "good post" or "+1", etc. that won't show up when you're searching the specific words that Florio says are being used on the board.

No, 0.02% or 0.002 in every 100 posts

Can you explain further what you did here? It doesn't add up. In the threads I've been reading about investigations of rape the percentage is definitely a lot higher than that. Maybe I'm mistaken, but to be able to say that it's 0.02% you'd need to have at least 5,000 posts (1 in 5,000 = 0.02%) and I think 4,000 would be a generous estimate for every post made on this subject. Or is that every thread since the first accusation was made or every thread in the history of egriz? I think if you add up all the posts made from threads on the subject and divide that by the number of times those words were used, you'd have a more accurate pct. I'd also say a pct with the number of times someone agrees (as TomCat88 said) with those posts is relevant. I wouldn't say it's a lot, but the number you've put up seems to minimize it.

[cats2506]

The criticism holds some merit, yes - I did a fact check post this evening that shows these comments she suggests were made, however they consist of about 0.02% of the total amount of posts on egriz - an incredibly tiny sliver. So... yeah they're on there and they are bad. Chris has put out some announcements just in the last few days of an updated banning/warning system and refreshed his code of conduct that I know he was working on for months. So there will be some changes and that should clean up some additional posts as well I'd expect.

The frustrating thing is that outside of a few of Alpha's troll posts and the occasional wack-job and random post most everyone over there does not think/act in that way, but if you read the Florio article... especially how it begins... man, that sounds like the only thing we talk about.

Is that 2 in every 100? I think it's probably quite a bit higher than that when you include negative posts that reinforce that language. For instance when someone call Florio a feminazi and others say "nailed it tokyo_griz" "good post" or "+1", etc. that won't show up when you're searching the specific words that Florio says are being used on the board.

+1

Your are correct on this one. The only person I've ever seen banned, to my knowlege, was 2506 for a comment about lynching when people thought Playerrep was black. Alot goes at egriz. Brint has good posts, but there's alot over there that is rediculous. Alot of posters pretty much proove her point with the "this chick needs to get laid" comments in the topic about this article. Or the Capitalize Words Like This To Spell Out The C Word jeuvenille antics. As far as Chris and his status as a UM employee....notice how he has yet to make a comment....I'm guessing its painfull to type right now as his hands got slapped by the proverbial ruler.

What Florio should have put more emphasis on was the message board bullying making rape victims second guess reporting the assault, and not so much the other stuff. I did giggle as a read the whole article, knowing how much popcorn I would be eating, as Brint said, as I watched this play out of on egriz.

A few things;

- As I just posted it's 0.02% or 0.0002 of the time - not 2%, that would actually be quite high. Also that count I did included quoted posts. So if someone typed "bitch" and then that post was quoted 10 times it would show as 10 posts (edit - it'd actually show as 11 times, orignal plus the 10 quotes). So the counts are actually probably higher than when it's actually used, but it's best to look at the worst case I suppose.

- There's actually a fairly extensive ban list over there, some of the usual suspects have been in and out of banning, PlayerRep, Growler1 (and his many alter-egos), Grizbacker1, Bear Axed, Cats2506, AlphaGriz and a few others who have been given permanant bans such as DJollieballs for those that recall him. Chris's banning policy leans to letting most all back onto the board eventually. Some just decide not to come back.

- Chris added in some content scrubbing fixes where I believe if someone types in the "c-word" it gets edited with a * in it, as it does for some swear words. I believe that's just in the public forums, football and basketball.

- Chris sent me a text this afternoon, he's not in any trouble at all with his employer, despite a possible back-handed swipe by Florio to attempt that with her mention that he's an employee of the UM.

Just to clarify, I have only been banned twice over there, the first was for a comment on hangings when PR claimed to have family in Montana in the 1860's. PR cried racism claiming to have Native American heritage, the second banning was on my first post back for asking what was the event in early Montana history that had hanging of Native Americans. To date, no one over there has explained the connection between Montana history and Native Americans being hung.

[tampa_griz]

Just to clarify, I have only been banned twice over there, the first was for a comment on hangings when PR claimed to have family in Montana in the 1860's. PR cried racism claiming to have Native American heritage, the second banning was on my first post back for asking what was the event in early Montana history that had hanging of Native Americans. To date, no one over there has explained the connection between Montana history and Native Americans being hung.

For clarification's sake, you responded to a post in which PR wrote that his ancestors were members of the Sioux Nation. You responded to and quoted that text. Given that, it's easy to see that someone could be confused. If there is no connection to hangings and Native Americans in Montana history, why did you respond to a post of Native American ancestry mentioning hangings?

[cats2506]

Just to clarify, I have only been banned twice over there, the first was for a comment on hangings when PR claimed to have family in Montana in the 1860's. PR cried racism claiming to have Native American heritage, the second banning was on my first post back for asking what was the event in early Montana history that had hanging of Native Americans. To date, no one over there has explained the connection between Montana history and Native Americans being hung.

For clarification's sake, you responded to a post in which PR wrote that his ancestors were members of the Sioux Nation. You responded to and quoted that text. Given that, it's easy to see that someone could be confused. If there is no connection to hangings and Native Americans in Montana history, why did you respond to a post of Native American ancestry mentioning hangings?

when were Native Americans hung in Montana?

[Rich K]

Just to clarify, I have only been banned twice over there, the first was for a comment on hangings when PR claimed to have family in Montana in the 1860's. PR cried racism claiming to have Native American heritage, the second banning was on my first post back for asking what was the event in early Montana history that had hanging of Native Americans. To date, no one over there has explained the connection between Montana history and Native Americans being hung.

For clarification's sake, you responded to a post in which PR wrote that his ancestors were members of the Sioux Nation. You responded to and quoted that text. Given that, it's easy to see that someone could be confused. If there is no connection to hangings and Native Americans in Montana history, why did you respond to a post of Native American ancestry mentioning hangings?

when were Native Americans hung in Montana?

Most of the Natives I know don't go around boasting about it.

[tampa_griz]

Just to clarify, I have only been banned twice over there, the first was for a comment on hangings when PR claimed to have family in Montana in the 1860's. PR cried racism claiming to have Native American heritage, the second banning was on my first post back for asking what was the event in early Montana history that had hanging of Native Americans. To date, no one over there has explained the connection between Montana history and Native Americans being hung.

For clarification's sake, you responded to a post in which PR wrote that his ancestors were members of the Sioux Nation. You responded to and quoted that text. Given that, it's easy to see that someone could be confused. If there is no connection to hangings and Native Americans in Montana history, why did you respond to a post of Native American ancestry mentioning hangings?

when were Native Americans hung in Montana?

Good question. If someone says, "My ancestors were members of the Sioux" and someone responds to that statement with "Maybe my ancestors hung some of your ancestors" I would like to know why they made such a response.

[BWahlberg]

The criticism holds some merit, yes - I did a fact check post this evening that shows these comments she suggests were made, however they consist of about 0.02% of the total amount of posts on egriz - an incredibly tiny sliver. So... yeah they're on there and they are bad. Chris has put out some announcements just in the last few days of an updated banning/warning system and refreshed his code of conduct that I know he was working on for months. So there will be some changes and that should clean up some additional posts as well I'd expect.

The frustrating thing is that outside of a few of Alpha's troll posts and the occasional wack-job and random post most everyone over there does not think/act in that way, but if you read the Florio article... especially how it begins... man, that sounds like the only thing we talk about.

Is that 2 in every 100? I think it's probably quite a bit higher than that when you include negative posts that reinforce that language. For instance when someone call Florio a feminazi and others say "nailed it tokyo_griz" "good post" or "+1", etc. that won't show up when you're searching the specific words that Florio says are being used on the board.

No, 0.02% or 0.002 in every 100 posts

Can you explain further what you did here? It doesn't add up. In the threads I've been reading about investigations of rape the percentage is definitely a lot higher than that. Maybe I'm mistaken, but to be able to say that it's 0.02% you'd need to have at least 5,000 posts (1 in 5,000 = 0.02%) and I think 4,000 would be a generous estimate for every post made on this subject. Or is that every thread since the first accusation was made or every thread in the history of egriz? I think if you add up all the posts made from threads on the subject and divide that by the number of times those words were used, you'd have a more accurate pct. I'd also say a pct with the number of times someone agrees (as TomCat88 said) with those posts is relevant. I wouldn't say it's a lot, but the number you've put up seems to minimize it.

Sure thing - that number is based on the use of the words Florio cited in her article, "c*nt, b*tch, one night stand, witch hunt, lynch mob" so its a very select set. There are WAY more posts/thread about general dissent with the "scandal" and opinions on it, far more than 0.02% for sure.

[[cat_bracket]]

The criticism holds some merit, yes - I did a fact check post this evening that shows these comments she suggests were made, however they consist of about 0.02% of the total amount of posts on egriz - an incredibly tiny sliver. So... yeah they're on there and they are bad. Chris has put out some announcements just in the last few days of an updated banning/warning system and refreshed his code of conduct that I know he was working on for months. So there will be some changes and that should clean up some additional posts as well I'd expect.

The frustrating thing is that outside of a few of Alpha's troll posts and the occasional wack-job and random post most everyone over there does not think/act in that way, but if you read the Florio article... especially how it begins... man, that sounds like the only thing we talk about.

Is that 2 in every 100? I think it's probably quite a bit higher than that when you include negative posts that reinforce that language. For instance when someone call Florio a feminazi and others say "nailed it tokyo_griz" "good post" or "+1", etc. that won't show up when you're searching the specific words that Florio says are being used on the board.

No, 0.02% or 0.002 in every 100 posts

Can you explain further what you did here? It doesn't add up. In the threads I've been reading about investigations of rape the percentage is definitely a lot higher than that. Maybe I'm mistaken, but to be able to say that it's 0.02% you'd need to have at least 5,000 posts (1 in 5,000 = 0.02%) and I think 4,000 would be a generous estimate for every post made on this subject. Or is that every thread since the first accusation was made or every thread in the history of egriz? I think if you add up all the posts made from threads on the subject and divide that by the number of times those words were used, you'd have a more accurate pct. I'd also say a pct with the number of times someone agrees (as TomCat88 said) with those posts is relevant. I wouldn't say it's a lot, but the number you've put up seems to minimize it.

Sure thing - that number is based on the use of the words Florio cited in her article, "c*nt, b*tch, one night stand, witch hunt, lynch mob" so its a very select set. There are WAY more posts/thread about general dissent with the "scandal" and opinions on it, far more than 0.02% for sure.

Thanks. That's what I was getting at. In reading it this afternoon, you can see a much higher rate than 2 in 10,000. Carry on and thanks again for your clairfication.

[tampa_griz]

If anyone is interested, Gwen has joined the thread on eGriz.

[bobcat99]

If anyone is interested, Gwen has joined the thread on eGriz.

Oh goody. That place does generate a lot of entertainment.

[tampa_griz]

False alarm. It isn't Gwen.

[PHAT CAT]

PLEASE save me some of the popcorn you guys will be eating while this unfolds.

As cat fans this article and the blow-up that is building has to be just comical.... sigh... yay Missoula reporters.

That woman is from hell.

Let me guess, you are a griz? I personally cant read egriz without lowering my IQ by at least 50

No, I'm not a griz. Chris Lynn is a friend of mine. He's a good guy and not a women hater. Not even close.

[SonomaCat]

PLEASE save me some of the popcorn you guys will be eating while this unfolds.

As cat fans this article and the blow-up that is building has to be just comical.... sigh... yay Missoula reporters.

That woman is from hell.

Let me guess, you are a griz? I personally cant read egriz without lowering my IQ by at least 50

No, I'm not a griz. Chris Lynn is a friend of mine. He's a good guy and not a women hater. Not even close.

I guess I really don't understand all of the distress specifically about Chris being named in the article. She didn't say that any of the opinions she was citing were his, but rather was quite clear in stating that he merely owned the site (which is true). She also tried to interview him (where he could have distanced himself from those kinds of comments as much as he wanted and given some much-needed perspective on this situation), but he declined to be interviewed.

Frankly, it would be really strange if somebody wrote an article about a social media business like egriz (which is, as I understand it, a for-profit business) and did NOT note who the owner was.

[tampa_griz]

PLEASE save me some of the popcorn you guys will be eating while this unfolds.

As cat fans this article and the blow-up that is building has to be just comical.... sigh... yay Missoula reporters.

That woman is from hell.

Let me guess, you are a griz? I personally cant read egriz without lowering my IQ by at least 50

No, I'm not a griz. Chris Lynn is a friend of mine. He's a good guy and not a women hater. Not even close.

I guess I really don't understand all of the distress about Chris being named in the article. She didn't say that any of the opinions she was citing were his, but rather was quite clear in stating that he merely owned the site (which is true). She also tried to interview him (where he could have distanced himself from those kinds of comments as much as he wanted and given some perspective on this situation), but he declined to be interviewed.

Frankly, it would be really strange if somebody wrote an article about egriz (which is, as I understand it, a for-profit business) and did NOT note who the owner was.

I don't have a problem with naming him as the owner (although a story on the site is a bit childish). You kind of have to if you're going to do a story on him. But to list where he works was a real sh!tty move. I read that as an attempt to silence him. He's not a public figure at UM to the best of my knowledge. He didn't create the site as a UM employee.

[SonomaCat]

I actually think her mentioning of where he works was quite appropriate, given the circumstances and theme of her article. The fact that he works at UM does, indeed, imply that UM condones eGriz, at least passively. If UM really had a problem with the website, they'd certainly be in a position to ask him to remove himself from it. Granted, I don't think anyone should read that he works at UM and therefore conclude that eGriz is a mouthpiece for the university (and anyone who has even glanced at the site would know that instantly), but the fact that there is a professional connection does seem news-worthy ... if one deems anything in the article to be news-worthy.

I agree that the entire theme of the article may be shaky (and that whether it should even have been written is a very valid debate), but in the context of what she was writing about, the fact that he's an employee of UM does seem relevant.

If I was running a high profile social media company on my own time that was devoted to fan-boys of the company I work for, and it got a lot of negative press attention, I would fully expect that the media would point out that I worked for the company in question. That's really a risk that all parties (employer and me) should be aware of and should anticipate, I guess.

I guess I really wish he would have just accepted the interview and presented things from his perspective instead of just referring her to the code of conduct (which sounds exactly like what officials in scandal-ridden companies do when they did something wrong -- it almost makes you look guilty even if you aren't). I think he really missed an important opportunity there to add some substance to the discussion.

[tampa_griz]

I actually think her mentioning of where he works was quite appropriate, given the circumstances and theme of her article. The fact that he works at UM does, indeed, imply that UM condones eGriz, at least passively. If UM really had a problem with the website, they'd certainly be in a position to ask him to remove himself from it. Granted, I don't think anyone should read that he works at UM and therefore conclude that eGriz is a mouthpiece for the university (and anyone who has even glanced at the site would know that instantly), but the fact that there is a professional connection does seem news-worthy ... if one deems anything in the article to be news-worthy.

I agree that the entire theme of the article may be shaky (and that whether it should even have been written is a very valid debate), but in the context of what she was writing about, the fact that he's an employee of UM does seem relevant.

If I was running a high profile social media company on my own time that was devoted to fan-boys of the company I work for, and it got a lot of negative press attention, I would fully expect that the media would point out that I worked for the company in question. That's really a risk that all parties (employer and me) should be aware of and should anticipate, I guess.

I'm gonna have to disagree. UM is a huge institution with a lot of different moving parts....athletics being one. And it's not a web site promoting his own thoughts on UM. It's a community forum. If it were a personal blog full of his own diaries that might be different. It's not like he landed at UM as an employee and started a web site about UM. If, as you noted, anyone who visits the site can see that eGriz is not a mouthpiece for the university then I can't see the value in publishing that information unless it was meant to intimidate him or his employer to shut it down. It was a really unclassy move.

I understand free speech rules and that Chris doesn't exactly go out of his way to conceal who he works for. But for a newspaper to go after someone's job as a means to punish them for what someone else wrote anonymously....well....I'm just not comfortable with it.

[PHAT CAT]

PLEASE save me some of the popcorn you guys will be eating while this unfolds.

As cat fans this article and the blow-up that is building has to be just comical.... sigh... yay Missoula reporters.

That woman is from hell.

Let me guess, you are a griz? I personally cant read egriz without lowering my IQ by at least 50

No, I'm not a griz. Chris Lynn is a friend of mine. He's a good guy and not a women hater. Not even close.

I guess I really don't understand all of the distress about Chris being named in the article. She didn't say that any of the opinions she was citing were his, but rather was quite clear in stating that he merely owned the site (which is true). She also tried to interview him (where he could have distanced himself from those kinds of comments as much as he wanted and given some perspective on this situation), but he declined to be interviewed.

She didn't need to say where he works or write that the director of the YWCA thinks the web site looks like an official U of M web site. What that woman thinks, does not mean jack. Gwen is trying to tie Chris, his employer "U of M" and the site all into one nice little package, because she doesn't like what people post on it. Most posters on the site, hate her. Why do I have a feeling the director of the YWCA is Gwens buddy? Did Gwen just out of the blue think " I wonder what the director of the YWCA thinks of Egriz?" Gwens a hack and if I'm in Missoula and see her, I going frinkin off on her sorry ass. BTW, Chris started Egriz in 2001 before he was employed at U of M. He also went to MSU his freshman year. But he's still a griz...Poor kid.

[SonomaCat]

I understand free speech rules and that Chris doesn't exactly go out of his way to conceal who he works for. But for a newspaper to go after someone's job as a means to punish them for what someone else wrote anonymously....well....I'm just not comfortable with it.

I think we're probably just not lined up on intent. If her motivation for writing the article was to get Chris in trouble with UM, then I agree that's a horrible thing and should be condemned.

But I'm just saying that, from a journalistic perspective, the fact that there are those connections to the University is something relevant to state as fact in an article of that kind (assuming the article as a whole is relevant and isn't merely a vehicle to get somebody in trouble or to shut down a media outlet).