R.I.P. thread

(12-10-2013 10:32 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:29 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:27 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:25 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:14 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  Agree...other mods, PLEASE HELP! We have never been threatened that factual info was NOT allowed on this board.

I will repeat once again. You want to post FACTUAL information no problem. If you want to post SELECTIVE factual information to start a smack back and forth with ONE particular group of fans then those will be moved.
Don't try to hide behind factual information. We know full well what your agenda is and why you focus on one particular school

Sorry yours is the only one available. Stop crying about it. Even if others were available I think you'd find no inflates nearly as much as usf does. If you can find others id love to see it.

If you are so interested in them. Find them and post them. I do t care if UCF announces 85 k. What I do object to is to selective numbers and pictures used with only one purpose behind them and that's to get a reaction that would lead that thread into smack back and forth.

Can you please pin ALL YOUR RULES....as I can't find those same rules from any other MOD.

No pictures? Check

No factual info? Check

Post comments to get feedback/reaction from others? Check

You have sooo many rules, I can't remember them all, please fill in the blanks.

Sounds like CB might have to put somebody time out. Mods are like kings in here.

(12-10-2013 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's true, but let's face it: Our numbers are probably more inflated than theirs. There were a couple USF games when it appeared that the stadium was almost empty.

Gotta love that his own level-headed USF brethren agreed in a civilized manner to our factual statements yet the USF mod felt the need to hide this comment away in the smack thread. It's clear he has an agenda.

Honestly, it only turned into "smack" once the embarrassed USF fans began to dispute the information. It's pathetic, really. Own up to it and if it bothers you that much that it makes USF look THAT bad, then do something about it and go to games. Maybe bring a few friends with you.

Also, these so-called "selective" pictures were obtained by a simple twitter image search.

Source:

Twitter search for USF football, USF stadium, USF attendance. Click on photos tab.

Twitter search for UCF football, UCF stadium, UCF attendance. Click on photos tab.

Perhaps banning twitter from this thread would've been a more prudent move.

For those of you wondering, those "smack" pictures can be found at the link below.

Banned: UCF AGENDA (Danger! Enter at your own risk.)

(12-11-2013 01:43 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's true, but let's face it: Our numbers are probably more inflated than theirs. There were a couple USF games when it appeared that the stadium was almost empty.

Gotta love that his own level-headed USF brethren agreed in a civilized manner to our factual statements yet the USF mod felt the need to hide this comment away in the smack thread. It's clear he has an agenda.

Honestly, it only turned into "smack" once the embarrassed USF fans began to dispute the information. It's pathetic, really. Own up to it and if it bothers you that much that it makes USF look THAT bad, then do something about it and go to games. Maybe bring a few friends with you.

I know that your objective was to stir the pot and not have any discussions about it if you read my first post you would see that I am in no shape or form saying that our attendance numbers are not inflated. No one is debating that my friend. Where I have an issue is you and your buddies jumping on it to once again attack USF. We have had numerous threads discussing how USF and others count attendance but that doesn't stop you and others from joking every attendance thread to gloat about it.

(12-11-2013 06:14 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 01:43 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's true, but let's face it: Our numbers are probably more inflated than theirs. There were a couple USF games when it appeared that the stadium was almost empty.

Gotta love that his own level-headed USF brethren agreed in a civilized manner to our factual statements yet the USF mod felt the need to hide this comment away in the smack thread. It's clear he has an agenda.

Honestly, it only turned into "smack" once the embarrassed USF fans began to dispute the information. It's pathetic, really. Own up to it and if it bothers you that much that it makes USF look THAT bad, then do something about it and go to games. Maybe bring a few friends with you.

I know that your objective was to stir the pot and not have any discussions about it if you read my first post you would see that I am in no shape or form saying that our attendance numbers are not inflated. No one is debating that my friend. Where I have an issue is you and your buddies jumping on it to once again attack USF. We have had numerous threads discussing how USF and others count attendance but that doesn't stop you and others from joking every attendance thread to gloat about it.

Lol you're a clown.

..not worth it...

(12-11-2013 01:43 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's true, but let's face it: Our numbers are probably more inflated than theirs. There were a couple USF games when it appeared that the stadium was almost empty.

Gotta love that his own level-headed USF brethren agreed in a civilized manner to our factual statements yet the USF mod felt the need to hide this comment away in the smack thread. It's clear he has an agenda.

Honestly, it only turned into "smack" once the embarrassed USF fans began to dispute the information. It's pathetic, really. Own up to it and if it bothers you that much that it makes USF look THAT bad, then do something about it and go to games. Maybe bring a few friends with you.

Really? Did the USF Mod really move quo's comment to the SMACK BOARD?

If so...that's all the proof other mods need to know that one of their own has "left the reservation".

(12-10-2013 10:19 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:16 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:14 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:13 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Lmao mods going over the top here. Facts aren't allowed now? I have a feeling if it weren't your school you wouldn't care

Believe what you want. I have moved other attendance posts regarding SMU and a Temple. You don't like it too bad.
I know exactly what some of you want to do and there is a board for that.

I think it would be a GREAT IDEA for the board to VOTE on which MODS deserved to be renewed for 2014 because it seems that a certain few are going above and beyond and even threatening others that post factual information.

LOL. Ok. Funny how I have been a mod here for years and no one has had an issue until you and some of your buddies showed up.
As I said you want to discuss FACTUAL information. No problem find that FACTUAL information on ALL our members and no problem.

I only attend UCF Games...yet I posted this photo of a poorly attended UCF Basketball game...which is now in clear violation of CubanBull's rules (if you can't attend games at ALL the schools and take photos of all teams crowds, especially the poorly attended ones, then you can't post photos of just one team on this board).

http://csnbbs.com/thread-660294-post-100...id10022325




Why did Cubanbull allow this post/thread to stay on this board?

IMHO, any post that is intended to mock another school should be considered smack. They should be moved to the smack board where the haters can hate amongst themselves.

I don't go to the smack board. Life is too short to wallow in hate.

Thanks, Cubanbull.

(12-11-2013 08:43 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  IMHO, any post that is intended to mock another school should be considered smack. They should be moved to the smack board where the haters can hate amongst themselves.

Wrong.

FACTS (usually from credible newspaper web sites) are used to correct INACCURATE statements made by others on this board.

Only a fool would consider using FACTS by credible sources as "smack" while allow inaccurate statements WITHOUT facts to stand as reason.

Hilarious that USF fans are extremely touchy in a thread about attendance.

.....wonder why?

I agree that facts shouldn't be smack. I also agree that a bunch of UCF fans constantly pointing out USF's attendance woes isn't just stating facts. It is meant as a jab at our friends to the west. I hate USF just as much as the next UCF fan, but bickering over how many butts were in seats is just childish and silly. I prefer to settle all disputes with USF on the turf and on the court. So I guess I'm siding with Cuban on this one.



Also, this is my 1000th post and I wasted it defending USF fans. I need a beer.

I'll tell you one thing...Temple's 2015 season will be their best season of attendance ever...Possible strong Temple team with ND and PSU playing at Temple...

Potential for 35-40k avg...

(12-11-2013 09:55 AM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  I agree that facts shouldn't be smack. I also agree that a bunch of UCF fans constantly pointing out USF's attendance woes isn't just stating facts. It is meant as a jab at our friends to the west.

That's exactly right. E.g., if someone I know spent a year in jail 20 years ago for robbery, and I go to a dinner party and broadcast that fact to a bunch of neighbors who don't know that, he will surely get pissed and ask why I am embarrassing him. If I were to reply with "I wasn't embarrassing you, I was just stating a fact", I would sound ridiculous.

Because truth is, it was BOTH: I was stating a fact, but with the intent to EMBARRASS that guy.

And the UCF fans who stated the fact of USF's attendance did so to talk smack, to take potshots at USF.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

(12-11-2013 09:00 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 08:43 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  IMHO, any post that is intended to mock another school should be considered smack. They should be moved to the smack board where the haters can hate amongst themselves.

Wrong.

FACTS (usually from credible newspaper web sites) are used to correct INACCURATE statements made by others on this board.

Only a fool would consider using FACTS by credible sources as "smack" while allow inaccurate statements WITHOUT facts to stand as reason.

It all depends on the intent of the poster. If the intent is to mock, I don't want to see it. If the intent is to enlighten, I'm ok with it.

(12-11-2013 07:23 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 06:14 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 01:43 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's true, but let's face it: Our numbers are probably more inflated than theirs. There were a couple USF games when it appeared that the stadium was almost empty.

Gotta love that his own level-headed USF brethren agreed in a civilized manner to our factual statements yet the USF mod felt the need to hide this comment away in the smack thread. It's clear he has an agenda.

Honestly, it only turned into "smack" once the embarrassed USF fans began to dispute the information. It's pathetic, really. Own up to it and if it bothers you that much that it makes USF look THAT bad, then do something about it and go to games. Maybe bring a few friends with you.

I know that your objective was to stir the pot and not have any discussions about it if you read my first post you would see that I am in no shape or form saying that our attendance numbers are not inflated. No one is debating that my friend. Where I have an issue is you and your buddies jumping on it to once again attack USF. We have had numerous threads discussing how USF and others count attendance but that doesn't stop you and others from joking every attendance thread to gloat about it.

Lol you're a clown.

If you were honest, you'd admit that Cuban is exactly right: The purpose of mentioning USF's attendance was to take a shot at USF, i.e. to talk SMACK. And therefore that belongs on the SMACK board, not this board.

And if you are going to say he was too touchy, you have to understand the context, namely that this type of smack has happened NUMEROUS times in the past, so a quick moderator trigger is JUSTIFIED.

If you read my post before it was moved I actually stuck up for usf.

I said there was no way they had 34k and it's a fact they actually averaged around 10k. I also said that if usf were to have a winning season they'd be right back to 40k. The funny thing is,usf mod moved all of the ucf posts to smack, but left the usf smack post here for the whole night. The one where cyber bull said ucf attendance wasn't real either. Wish I was a mod so I could selectively move posts I didn't want people to see.

(12-11-2013 10:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 09:00 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 08:43 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  IMHO, any post that is intended to mock another school should be considered smack. They should be moved to the smack board where the haters can hate amongst themselves.

Wrong.

FACTS (usually from credible newspaper web sites) are used to correct INACCURATE statements made by others on this board.

Only a fool would consider using FACTS by credible sources as "smack" while allow inaccurate statements WITHOUT facts to stand as reason.

It all depends on the intent of the poster.

Intent?

Now we are judging intent?

Is CORRECTING FALSE STATEMENTS with ACTUAL FACTS ok in regards to your "intent" ruling?

Or, is allowing known FALSE STATEMENTS to remain on this board ok in regards to their intent?

Intent?

Really?