11/21/24
August 21, 2003
No knock against Garfield, but when I read his post questioning the weird report on Scottie Pippen, I was tempted to delete it because the story is loosely sourced, lacks credibility, and would be libelous if untrue. Would you prefer that we let things like this be publicly put under the microscope or quietly deleted?
posted by rcade to editorial policy at 03:48 PM - 27 comments
I say we need more gossip and innuendo, not less. Who is Scottie Pippen?
posted by Fat Buddha at 04:29 PM on August 21, 2003
That's a good question. On the on hand, I love shit like that. On the other, this site's pretty Google-friendly, so all of this starts showing up in web searches and then filters into the global consciousness. I'll admit to being a complete geek, but the 'Net's reminding me more and more of Mike Baron's concept of the Library of History in Nexus
posted by yerfatma at 04:51 PM on August 21, 2003
I was confused that the link in the posting pointed to a nothing comment in the thread rather than the top of the thread? It has fostered a bit of discussion. The discussion is not of much sporting value and it is gossipy. So, once in a while I don't mind that kind of thing. If it was every second day it would be too much. Cross the bridge when it comes? Wait for an uproar? Good to gauge the opinions by asking, I say.
posted by gspm at 05:33 PM on August 21, 2003
Steve Rude's artwork ain't bad either. Though too many fanboys know him as "that coloring guy".
posted by lilnemo at 05:39 PM on August 21, 2003
At least he isn't a tracer.
posted by lilnemo at 05:39 PM on August 21, 2003
If we're going to allow the occasional Kobe update, we gotta include gay-Scottie.
SpoFi: Equal Oppurtunity smut-purveyors.
posted by lilnemo at 05:49 PM on August 21, 2003
I don't think the stories are comparable -- no one here has posted a Kobe Bryant link as loosely sourced or non-credible as today's Scottie Pippen story. I was glad that no one here linked to stories on Internet sites with the name and address of Bryant's alleged victim. Personally, I think the Pippen story probably should have been smothered in infancy. When a sensational charge is made about an athlete and there's only one source for that claim, it ought to be a source that would face legal consequences for being wrong.
posted by rcade at 08:15 PM on August 21, 2003
I'm going to agree with rcade in this case. Otherwise, it opens the door for people posting web-rants from nutbars about athletes. If this story had appeared on a more credible site, or was independently mentioned on more than one site (so site A has an mention but not only because they saw it on site B), then maybe it deserves to be on the front page. This is where that idea of the "rumours" page would be a good one. A place that the SpoFi denziens can post rumours that they've heard/read and let everyone gossip and speculate about them. And if people abuse the page, then the founders can just can the idea.
posted by grum@work at 09:11 PM on August 21, 2003
/looks incredulous It's a link posted about a message board! Surely, us folks here at sportsfilter can have some common sense and realise it's almost certainly gossip. I say leave it, it don't do no harm to nobody.
posted by BigCalm at 03:04 AM on August 22, 2003
There goes the possibility of having Scottie speak at our next SpoFi convention.
posted by jasonspaceman at 06:31 AM on August 22, 2003
I was going to interview him next. So much for: "What did you study in college?"
posted by worldcup2002 at 09:59 AM on August 22, 2003
I'm with BigClam. Apply your own editorial standards, in yer brain like. Anyway, I'm off into the wilds for a few days, wrassling bears and suchlike. Play nice.
posted by squealy at 10:05 AM on August 22, 2003
Um.....thanks for not deleting the post rcade. I didn't know you could do that. No harm intended. I was hoping to spur a collective discovery of the facts, as the story seemed to be short on them.
posted by garfield at 10:25 AM on August 22, 2003
btw, I heard of the story by way of a forwarded email, so I was immediately skeptical. I was hesitant to post it, but figured the 'is this true?' tone would convey that.
posted by garfield at 10:41 AM on August 22, 2003
Someone sent me aforwarded email years ago relating the amazing story of a night hanging out with Peter McNeely boozing and doing drugs. I'm not going to post it though: it ends with The Hurricaine's phone number. Not that I care about giving it out, it's just that every 6 months or so when I'm feeling down I give it a ring and listen to the answering machine message. Hearing Peter go "WHHHOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSHH!" never fails to brighten my day.
posted by yerfatma at 11:55 AM on August 22, 2003
For the record, Garfield's got a small jackass problem. I live a couple miles away from him, and after knowing him for several years I've come to the conclusion that it's just something he was born with. Grum is on to a decent idea, though. Maybe we should have a "rumors" category. As much as we all know that stuff like this isn't true, it's a part of sports, and affects the way we look at players. Posting all sorts of rumors all the time wouldn't be a good idea, but sometimes rumors turn out to be true. Obviously not in this case, though. I stand by my assertion that this is a pantload.
posted by Samsonov14 at 01:02 PM on August 22, 2003
I'll go along with that rumors category thought. Rumors and fantasy sports.
posted by jerseygirl at 02:00 PM on August 22, 2003
Starting a rumors category would encourage people to post them. Looking at the number of people taking the Pippen rumor at face value, I can't say I'm eager to get further into the gossip business. Garfield: I can delete posts, like the other six founding members, but I've only done it a few times for self-links and duplicates.
posted by rcade at 02:10 PM on August 22, 2003
Ok, how about a fantasy sports category then? :)
posted by jerseygirl at 02:16 PM on August 22, 2003
thanks numbnuts. what an endorsement?! Well, everything I type seems to be an apology of some sort or another. But I'm really not sorry, so I'll just leave it alone.
posted by garfield at 02:23 PM on August 22, 2003
I vote for quietly deleted, for the reasons rcade mentioned.
posted by kirkaracha at 05:21 PM on August 22, 2003
please delete the story.
posted by garfield at 08:39 AM on August 25, 2003
cause this ain't cool
posted by garfield at 08:44 AM on August 25, 2003
i do not understand what the problem is...the story is on more than just the one message board (read my contribution--which also includes an "unsourced" denial by Pippen's attorney), and doesn't everyone's comments on the story attempt to knock it down? Generally, we're not journalists or lawyers here, and Scottie Pippen is a public figure, unless garfield or one of the founders *knows* that this story is untrue and promulgates, I don't believe it to be libelous in the US. PS Mike Piazza is gay.
posted by pastepotpete at 09:40 AM on August 28, 2003
good point. libel and slander have alot to do with motive.
posted by garfield at 10:23 AM on August 28, 2003
at first I thought you meant, "good point, Mike Piazza *is* gay."
posted by pastepotpete at 10:36 AM on August 28, 2003
Anyone have a more reliable source for this story. I don't think Spofi wold be in danger of a lawsuit for the post, especially given the querulous nature as indicated by the quoted sentence. I say leave it, if only for the humor quotient around here.