Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

My two cents this thread should be locked or something. I think those of us who have looked into it are aware of the situation and the emotions, opinions, and actions surrounding this event are not going to create anything positive. People are going to see this and learn what they want to learn from it...

Well toss now I sound like a back seat moderator, considering I already shot myself in the foot by backseat moding, I think I will ratchet up the risky bidniss and say from the looks of it I imagine there is at least one moderator out there willing to take a few questions in there private messages. I'm also going to go super risky and play 21 and hit on 16's...

I have subscribed to the philosophy that GP is an inward reflection and not a standard you can apply to others, and this has served me well and seems to be in most cases a good rule.

It is however possible that Mr. Fultz is one of the few people that can claim to do so. In that situation, mea culpa.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

I have not seen the "leak", but his years game is already become interesting! Now I am anxiously waiting for kick-off than I felt yesterday!

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

I don't see anything wrong with the response. There is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree on the proper course of action when encountering leaked information. Moreover, I don't see anything in that post telling Mr. Fultz what GP is - rather, he quite reasonably pointed out that this is a non-trivial situation and we shouldn't condemn others simply for not agreeing with us.

And, really, I think it's unwise to perpetuate a culture where we treat certain people's opinions as word of god. There is nothing innately wrong with disagreeing with a Champion Woodie Flowers winner, and I think telling people that they should back away from entirely reasonable posts, simply because they express disagreement with people whom the community holds in high esteem, is not an atmosphere conducive to healthy discussion.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

So "leak" means a water game is confirmed? :confused:

Sigh. I'll wait for Saturday.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

I would agree to everything you said except for the word "reasonable." How is spreading a "leak" or what I really think is actively mined information from AndyMark that was never intended to be released to the public, reasonable? He is giving his team an advantage that others don't have. Excuse me if I don't think if that's "reasonable."

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

I don't think that was necessary. Every person is entitled to an opinion, and he wasn't slandering anyone. One of the most significant aspects of CD is that it has always sparked some good discussion (albeit heated at times), and this kind of post discourages members of our very own FRC community from being able to voice their thoughts.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

My team's pre-season projects have all included scuba gear. I feel prepared!

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

Let's set aside the "actively mined information" bit, since no one here (afaik) has provided any evidence to that effect (and moreover I don't think it's really relevant even if it is true).

Leaked information, once it has been put on the internet, is public domain. Once something is out there, it is out there - you can never take it back. It is an entirely reasonable stance that, sometimes, the best policy in those cases is to keep the information public rather than the contrary. Whether that is the case here is up for debate - I can see legitimate points on both sides.

There is room for reasonable people to disagree about this topic. I think it's good to respect that.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

There was no "mining" of information. For a period of time yesterday, anyone could have gone to the AndyMark website, clicked a link, and clicked a subsequent link which contained the information in question.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

*putting my fingers in my ears now*

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

Let me tell you what I would have done if I happened to "stumble" upon such information: I would have contacted FIRST and AndyMark immediately. I would have kept the info to myself until I heard back from them. I would not have posted it to any other site or talked to anyone else about it. I know, I should not use my common sense when dealing with anyone else, but I just can't help it. I can't see ANY legitimate reason to spread info that i KNOW I shouldn't have. What agenda is served by spreading this information when know it shouldn't be in the public domain? If you buy into the logic that anything put on the internet is fair game, the world becomes a VERY scary place.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

This is fine, and is a perfectly legitimate and well-founded view. It is not the only legitimate view. This is a complicated issue, and attempts to paint it as black-and-white, I think, do everyone involved in the discussion a disservice.

To some sensibilities, fairness. People/teams that have seen it are not going to un-see it. Attempts to contain leaks can certainly, in some situations, be less-ideal solutions than everyone knowing what was leaked. Whether it "should" be in the public domain or not is, to an extent, immaterial - it is in the public domain, and that's not something that can necessarily be undone.

Appeal to consequences of a belief is a fallacy.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

If that is true, then I wonder how many folks "stumbled" upon this information? How many of those folks contacted FIRST or AM. How many of those folks told anyone else, or only their teams or folks they know? Those that spread information they knew should not have been public should be ashamed of themselves. I will again ask, what good was there in spreading this mistake to a larger population? None.

Re: Chief Delphi Moderators Censoring Posts
 

FYI the person who originally leaked the information (that was his first post ever) is not the same person referenced on the previous page. The person in question here was simply relaying information already out in public, which is a completely different matter entirely from leaking it originally.