East Coast Aztec Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 On 5/14/2023 at 1:40 PM, ---I GREEN INFECTION I--- said: As does Canvas...which Snapdragon copied, hence comment: "Snapdragon is a copy of Canvas Stadium in Ft Fun, Colorado." This is like saying CSU is a copy of Rice. Or NC State. Or Rutgers. Or Wazzu. Or Kentucky. CSU is the plainest new stadium in CFB, just layout alone. It is the definition of cookie cutter, just really flat and then added a nice press/premium box and exterior. SDSU copied every generic stadium for the base, then made one side unique and the endzones got a slight twist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---I GREEN INFECTION I--- Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 On 5/14/2023 at 1:51 PM, East Coast Aztec said: This is like saying CSU is a copy of Rice. Or NC State. Or Rutgers. Or Wazzu. Or Kentucky. CSU is the plainest new stadium in CFB, just layout alone. It is the definition of cookie cutter, just really flat and then added a nice press/premium box and exterior. SDSU copied every generic stadium for the base, then made one side unique and the endzones got a slight twist. Thanks for repeating your last post. CSU did the same regarding making "...one side unique & the (New Belgium porch) end zone." CSU-Diego came & toured Canvas during the Snapdragon design process. Then did the same thing, thus my: "Snapdragon is a copy of Canvas Stadium in Ft Fun, Colorado." comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Coast Aztec Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 On 5/14/2023 at 1:58 PM, ---I GREEN INFECTION I--- said: Thanks for repeating your last post. CSU did the same regarding making "...one side unique & the (New Belgium porch) end zone." CSU-Diego came & toured Canvas during the Snapdragon design process. Then did the same thing, thus my: "Snapdragon is a copy of Canvas Stadium in Ft Fun, Colorado." comment. They also toured Stanford. "Snapdragon is a copy of Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, California". A lower bowl and upper decks. So unique, glad we could copy Stanford. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
415hawaiiboy Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 If OU and UW leave, Pac-12 needs to invite SDSU and Fresno. The remaining value of the conference is to have as strong of a market presence in California (aka drivable games). I’d say, UNLV as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---I GREEN INFECTION I--- Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/14/2023 at 7:42 PM, 415hawaiiboy said: If OU and UW leave, Pac-12 needs to invite SDSU and Fresno. The remaining value of the conference is to have as strong of a market presence in California (aka drivable games). I’d say, UNLV as well. CSU-FresNo & Southern Nevada to the 12-Pac. ¡haha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
415hawaiiboy Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 New Pac-12 (16) Pacific 1) Cal 2) Stanford 3) San Jose State 4) Fresno State 5) San Diego St 6) Hawaii 7) Nevada-Reno 8) UNLV Mountain 1) Washington State 2) Oregon State 3) Boise State 4) Utah State 5) Colorado State 6) Air Force 7) Wyoming 8) New Mexico Cal won’t go independent, but will negotiate unequal revenue. If Stanford stays, then that softens the ego blow. UCLA compensation to UC Berkeley will help. Give more money to them (Cal, Stanford, OSU, Wazzu) for a period of time, and then provide incentive money to everyone. I could see the Pacific division targeting games in Asia/Pacific with Hawaii as the time zone anchor (6pm Hawaii kickoff is 2pm Sunday in Sydney). Week Zero (and Week One) games played in Sydney, Tokyo/Osaka, and maybe New Zealand, Manila, and on rotation, including Univ of British Columbia in Vancouver. This conference champ should get playoff access every year. Lots of drivable games in CA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Did I hear a WOOSH? Posted May 15 Author Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 2:28 AM, 415hawaiiboy said: New Pac-12 (16) Pacific 1) Cal 2) Stanford 3) San Jose State 4) Fresno State 5) San Diego St 6) Hawaii 7) Nevada-Reno 8) UNLV Mountain 1) Washington State 2) Oregon State 3) Boise State 4) Utah State 5) Colorado State 6) Air Force 7) Wyoming 8) New Mexico Cal won’t go independent, but will negotiate unequal revenue. If Stanford stays, then that softens the ego blow. UCLA compensation to UC Berkeley will help. Give more money to them (Cal, Stanford, OSU, Wazzu) for a period of time, and then provide incentive money to everyone. I could see the Pacific division targeting games in Asia/Pacific with Hawaii as the time zone anchor (6pm Hawaii kickoff is 2pm Sunday in Sydney). Week Zero (and Week One) games played in Sydney, Tokyo/Osaka, and maybe New Zealand, Manila, and on rotation, including Univ of British Columbia in Vancouver. This conference champ should get playoff access every year. Lots of drivable games in CA. I like the way it looks even though I think SMU might be in there somewhere but any MWC school that agrees to unequal shares deserves to be in G5 hell. Especially if we’re talking Cal being the beneficiary. They have zero leverage, why give them more money? In your scenario their conference is dead at 4 members unless they add. In fact given the circumstances any prospective school should require immediate full share compensation as far as I’m concerned, none of this graduated payout crap…who else would the new PAC be able to add? UNT? UTSA? There is no leverage on the part of the PAC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/12/2023 at 7:17 AM, Yoda said: Another bit of news that might get you banned at AM -- so whatever you do, don't share it there. They aren't into anything more challenging to their PAC `12 dream than rainbows and unicorns. Interesting synopsis of the recent week's news and speculation on the tug of war between the PAC 12 and the Big 12 ==> https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/11/23719794/pac-12-tv-negotiations-reaching-critical-stage-as-timing-mood-atmosphere-grow-more-stressful Do you even know anything about the author Dick Harmon and the D News? Dick isn’t a fair, non biased author first off. He’s belittled Utah and anything we do since he started writing for this paper. He sucks BYU cock any chance he gets. And the D News is a LDS church owned paper/entity. Again, pro-BYU. Hmmmmm. Go figure. Last I checked, most things BYU don’t favor anything Utah does. But sources don’t matter right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/12/2023 at 9:08 PM, Did I hear a WOOSH? said: The only thing your poll would guarantee is confirmation bias. I don’t have an issue with you but you’d have to be living under a rock to confuse Utenation with anything resembling a good person. Been here over 4 years and at his absolute best he discourages engagement, which is not good for the health of the board in an era where boards are withering. Your head is in the wrong place on this one, though I’m sure your heart is in the right place. And by the way your own members brought me here so you have yourselves to thank for my presence. You’re not smart enough to figure out that I just hate you. Just like everyone else on this board. We shouldn’t expect a fruit fly like you to understand this. I’ve been here since 2005 putz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/13/2023 at 7:05 PM, Yoda said: I have no idea what the canvas stadium is a reference to but I am disappointed that someone with a junior high school level of maturity -- hopefully an actual junior high school student -- accidentally found his way onto this thread. And to the prior poster, I agree that we have no chance of joining the PAC. They don't want us and we don't want them. With the loss of USC and UCLA, the PAC is already dead to those of us in Fresno and San Diego. Being in the PAC 12 meant playing USC and UCLA every year as equals; it no longer does. And if Oregon and Washington leave, the PAC is nothing more than half of a MWC 18. No thanks. I'll take the Big 12. LMAO. ummm. Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 8:27 AM, utenation said: LMAO. ummm. Ok. I'm not quite sure what you find so funny but I will say this -- Utah deserves a much better fate than I fear that they are going to end up with. Maybe they will go Big 12 or even Big 10, some years down the road. And maybe the PAC will survive and prosper. But I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on it. Quote ____________________________________________... After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway. And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response… Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here. My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks. Steve was first banned on the SDSU board. When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board). It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.” (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show. Then the haters arrived.) I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others. But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong. And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too. Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him. (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.) I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this. My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board. I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning. The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide. But was the post taken down? Was an apology issued? Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay. This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join. And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve. You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves. Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago. He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”. Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down. The poster has never been admonished. And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology. In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in. A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve). It won’t be the last one. You need to fix this. You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 8:19 AM, utenation said: Do you even know anything about the author Dick Harmon and the D News? Dick isn’t a fair, non biased author first off. He’s belittled Utah and anything we do since he started writing for this paper. He sucks BYU cock any chance he gets. And the D News is a LDS church owned paper/entity. Again, pro-BYU. Hmmmmm. Go figure. Last I checked, most things BYU don’t favor anything Utah does. But sources don’t matter right? I know who he and his paper are and that they have a strong BYU bias -- and as I said in a different post, his bias is obvious. But his article, if I recall correctly, was mostly a summary of what other writers have been claiming, so I went with it. Not as a definitive piece but as one piece in pie that is full of biased articles on both sides. Quote ____________________________________________... After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway. And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response… Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here. My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks. Steve was first banned on the SDSU board. When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board). It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.” (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show. Then the haters arrived.) I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others. But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong. And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too. Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him. (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.) I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this. My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board. I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning. The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide. But was the post taken down? Was an apology issued? Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay. This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join. And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve. You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves. Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago. He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”. Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down. The poster has never been admonished. And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology. In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in. A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve). It won’t be the last one. You need to fix this. You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 9:45 AM, Yoda said: I'm not quite sure what you find so funny but I will say this -- Utah deserves a much better fate than I fear that they are going to end up with. Maybe they will go Big 12 or even Big 10, some years down the road. And maybe the PAC will survive and prosper. But I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on it. Is your name Dick Harmon with the Deseret News? Kinda sounds like it. You should let Utah Admin and fans worry about our school. I like Fresno. There’s a lot of good Fresno fans here. But you aren’t one of them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 9:48 AM, Yoda said: I know who he and his paper are and that they have a strong BYU bias -- and as I said in a different post, his bias is obvious. But his article, if I recall correctly, was mostly a summary of what other writers have been claiming, so I went with it. Not as a definitive piece but as one piece in pie that is full of biased articles on both sides. I see. So you just post anything that fits your personal agenda. Makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolverine Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 9:19 AM, utenation said: Do you even know anything about the author Dick Harmon and the D News? Dick isn’t a fair, non biased author first off. He’s belittled Utah and anything we do since he started writing for this paper. He sucks BYU cock any chance he gets. And the D News is a LDS church owned paper/entity. Again, pro-BYU. Hmmmmm. Go figure. Last I checked, most things BYU don’t favor anything Utah does. But sources don’t matter right? Lil’ Natty…….you are so much better than coming off like a little whiny, crybaby, biotch. Get over it and be the better man that you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents. https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences Interesting article in the SI 1 2 Quote ____________________________________________... After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway. And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response… Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here. My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks. Steve was first banned on the SDSU board. When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board). It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.” (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show. Then the haters arrived.) I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others. But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong. And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too. Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him. (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.) I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this. My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board. I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning. The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide. But was the post taken down? Was an apology issued? Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay. This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join. And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve. You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves. Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago. He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”. Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down. The poster has never been admonished. And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology. In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in. A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve). It won’t be the last one. You need to fix this. You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecMD Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 8:59 AM, Yoda said: The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents. https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences Interesting article in the SI After reading that article are you still 90% sure Fresno is going to the Big 12. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 9:10 AM, AztecMD said: After reading that article are you still 90% sure Fresno is going to the Big 12. Unless the PAC implodes, yes. But I'll admit that either I'm full of crap, or the Big 12 has done a masterful job of keeping us out of the discussion. Because basically nobody considers us anything other than plan B -- or lower. 1 Quote ____________________________________________... After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway. And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response… Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here. My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks. Steve was first banned on the SDSU board. When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board). It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.” (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show. Then the haters arrived.) I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others. But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong. And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too. Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him. (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.) I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this. My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board. I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning. The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide. But was the post taken down? Was an apology issued? Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay. This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join. And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve. You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves. Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago. He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”. Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down. The poster has never been admonished. And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology. In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in. A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve). It won’t be the last one. You need to fix this. You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 8:50 AM, utenation said: 1. Is your name Dick Harmon with the Deseret News? Kinda sounds like it. 2. You should let Utah Admin and fans worry about our school. I like Fresno. There’s a lot of good Fresno fans here. But you aren’t one of them. 1. I'm hardly alone in that observation. 2. You are or may be a competitor for a Big 12 spot, so I'll worry about you plenty until this is over. And honestly, I'm perfectly capable of figuring out who I do and don't need to worry about. 1 1 Quote ____________________________________________... After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway. And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response… Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here. My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks. Steve was first banned on the SDSU board. When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board). It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.” (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show. Then the haters arrived.) I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others. But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong. And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too. Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him. (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.) I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this. My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board. I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning. The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide. But was the post taken down? Was an apology issued? Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay. This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join. And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve. You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves. Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago. He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”. Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down. The poster has never been admonished. And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology. In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in. A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve). It won’t be the last one. You need to fix this. You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilPoke Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 On 5/15/2023 at 12:28 AM, 415hawaiiboy said: New Pac-12 (16) Pacific 1) Cal 2) Stanford 3) San Jose State 4) Fresno State 5) San Diego St 6) Hawaii 7) Nevada-Reno UNLV Mountain 1) Washington State 2) Oregon State 3) Boise State 4) Utah State 5) Colorado State 6) Air Force 7) Wyoming New Mexico Cal won’t go independent, but will negotiate unequal revenue. If Stanford stays, then that softens the ego blow. UCLA compensation to UC Berkeley will help. Give more money to them (Cal, Stanford, OSU, Wazzu) for a period of time, and then provide incentive money to everyone. I could see the Pacific division targeting games in Asia/Pacific with Hawaii as the time zone anchor (6pm Hawaii kickoff is 2pm Sunday in Sydney). Week Zero (and Week One) games played in Sydney, Tokyo/Osaka, and maybe New Zealand, Manila, and on rotation, including Univ of British Columbia in Vancouver. This conference champ should get playoff access every year. Lots of drivable games in CA. Generally, all for this - but... 1. They wouldn't split up the remaining Pac teams. Move UNLV and Nevada over 2. Why in the world would CAL get uneven revenue? 3. Stanford would go independent before doing this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
