Crossfire update (Unfriended)

[BudreauReye]

Awright, Matt!  Since you are now heretofore appointed our resident Photoshop expert, on rather suspect evidence I might add, that image is too intricate for a pirate winky smiley!  Furthermore, as an obviouly no pirate winky simley, it has no representation of the aforementioned Wet Noodle of DOOM!  And one furthermore more, is that Southwest Airlines Longhorn JPG in that other thread poorly photoshopped? or, not!  Inquiring minds want to know!  Your Forum Members are waiting with BAITED breath!  And, we ARE NOT having much luck with the FISHIES!  

 

[ATX89]

I'm on record having concerns with "insiders" offering information that hasn't been cleared for public release. I think Darrell does a good job of pushing for information other than what the people running the program would rather not be made public. He seems to ask smart questions rather than ask to be fed straight gossip. I enjoy Crossfire, but what I am looking forward to is the conversation during the season when there is actually something to talk about. If Crossfire would move to being more focused on personal observations and first person accounts, I wouldn't have any complaints.

 I don't think you understand what level of sources some of the mods have access to.  Having access to their insights and access should never go away frankly and to suggest otherwise just doesn't make sense.  If I want editorials on Texas athletics, I can get those talking to my buds at the tailgates or from Texassports.com and multiple free sites as well as most any state metro news site.  

 

[BudreauReye]

I have also been wondering why we have not had more information and commentary on the "open to the public" practice ... since it was open to the public and all.  Is that coming out on Monday?

 

[Aaron Carrara]

Is Aaron still around here somewhere?

Here brotha.

 

[SFlonghorngirl]

I have 3 inputs:

1. Crossfire!!! People come here for Crossfire! Honestly been more on OB just because of the inside information available. More inside scoops!!!

2. Practice, games.....Give live updates! Live feeds!! MAKE me want to press F5!!!!

3. Consistency and accountability. As a consumer, having a solid, reliable product is key for me to return for more.

 

[lakeman74]

I'll chime in because I know Aaron started this site way before McPhaul was around, way before most of you posted here. I've reiterated this several times and I will do it again.  I know Aaron from our days at UT and he is a standup guy in every aspect of the word. He told me from several years ago that this site had every intention of becoming something unique and it is still becoming "unique."  ATX89, I don't know you but if you think this site was built around and managed by McPhaul (who I don't happen to know), then you are mistaken.  I won't let you make ridiculous statements.  And from what I see Matt Cotcher (who I also don't know) is putting in a ton of work.  I emailed Aaron last week and we have yet to speak, but I am certain he has something special planned for the site.  

You act like you are McPhaul's personal secretary or perhaps you are kin to him.  If you don't like things here then you should not post here.  It's fairly simple. If you have complaints, voice them reasonably and with decency.

I am not a premium member only because I cannot afford it. If I had $5 per month to spend on my limited budget this would be the first site I join because the people here are genuine. While I lurk more than anything, I like Horn Sports because the people here are generally of sound mind and Aaron is a good guy.

 

[joeywa]

I'll chime in because I know Aaron started this site way before McPhaul was around, way before most of you posted here. I've reiterated this several times and I will do it again.  I know Aaron from our days at UT and he is a standup guy in every aspect of the word. He told me from several years ago that this site had every intention of becoming something unique and it is still becoming "unique."  ATX89, I don't know you but if you think this site was built around and managed by McPhaul (who I don't happen to know), then you are mistaken.  I won't let you make ridiculous statements.  And from what I see Matt Cotcher (who I also don't know) is putting in a ton of work.  I emailed Aaron last week and we have yet to speak, but I am certain he has something special planned for the site.  

You act like you are McPhaul's personal secretary or perhaps you are kin to him.  If you don't like things here then you should not post here.  It's fairly simple. If you have complaints, voice them reasonably and with decency.

I am not a premium member only because I cannot afford it. If I had $5 per month to spend on my limited budget this would be the first site I join because the people here are genuine. While I lurk more than anything, I like Horn Sports because the people here are generally of sound mind and Aaron is a good guy.

I'm fairly certain that there are things behind the scenes that are going on that we don't know about.  I'm sure that Aaron and Co. are working to provide the content here that members want, and are happy to come here and read.  I think that there are many moving parts, and to get them all to work in conjunction with one another is quite a challenge.  You have guys with views of how this site is going to grow, and as such, there is communication that must go on amongst the management and staff to get on the same page.  It will take some time to get everything fine tuned. 

Be patient.

In the meantime, enjoy the content offered and know that Aaron, Darrell, Matt, Coleman, Kylie, etc., are going to be on top of Texas sports in the coming weeks as the season kicks off.

 

[Randolph Duke]

I don't think you understand what level of sources some of the mods have access to. Having access to their insights and access should never go away frankly and to suggest otherwise just doesn't make sense. If I want editorials on Texas athletics, I can get those talking to my buds at the tailgates or from Texassports.com and multiple free sites as well as most any state metro news site.

I think I understand some of the sources better than most. I still don't believe it is appropriate for people who have gained information about the inner workings of the program to decide they can violate confidences to give their friends gossip to sell to subscribers. It is one thing to have access to individuals and ask intelligent questions. It is another thing to ask individuals to violate confidences and make public information that makes it more difficult for people at high levels of the program to do their jobs.
I prefer journalism where intelligent people ask those in the know intelligent questions and refuse to publish any information that may be considered gained by insiders violating confidences. I'm certainly not saying Darrell made his money encouraginging insiders to violate confidences. I am also certainly not saying others have stopped short of encouraging insiders to violate confidences.

I personally want nothing to do with any site I believe encourages insiders to violate confidences in order to get content. While I know some fans feel differently, I hope more fans encourage writers to respect confidences, use the access granted to ask intelligent questions and write content in an intertwining style. I don't want gossip or "leaks." I want intelligent journalism.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I think I understand some of the sources better than most. I still don't believe it is appropriate for people who have gained information about the inner workings of the program to decide they can violate confidences to give their friends gossip to sell to subscribers. It is one thing to have access to individuals and ask intelligent questions. It is another thing to ask individuals to violate confidences and make public information that makes it more difficult for people at high levels of the program to do their jobs.

I prefer journalism where intelligent people ask those in the know intelligent questions and refuse to publish any information that may be considered gained by insiders violating confidences. I'm certainly not saying Darrell made his money encouraginging insiders to violate confidences. I am also certainly not saying others have stopped short of encouraging insiders to violate confidences.

That's a really large blanket you just threw down. I just don't think it applies as you suggest it does.

From what I've observed, much of what FOB provides is his perspective, his opinion and what he's observed. There's certainly a lot of value in that by itself. Value that other competing web sites are not providing or not providing as well as this one has.

I don't think you established that they've violated ANY confidences. I don't think FOBs have been told not to say what they've said. I also do not see any instance where it's made anyone's job more difficult. If you've got an example to provide, I'm all ears.

The type of journalism (intelligent questions) you say you prefer is exactly what Darrell provides in his questioning. Being a veteran of 17 years in the news industry and having led newsrooms, I can't think of a single question he's ever posed that I felt wasn't good or intelligent. He's been solid.

It's all about your niche in the market. What can you do better than your competition? What do they do well? Can you do it just as well? Do you have the resources to compete that way?

If not, you better figure out what you can bring to the table that others can't or don't that will be a constant draw to your page.

 

[Randolph Duke]

That's a really large blanket you just threw down. I just don't think it applies as you suggest it does.

From what I've observed, much of what FOB provides is his perspective, his opinion and what he's observed. There's certainly a lot of value in that by itself. Value that other competing web sites are not providing or not providing as well as this one has.

I don't think you established that they've violated ANY confidences. I don't think FOBs have been told not to say what they've said. I also do not see any instance where it's made anyone's job more difficult. If you've got an example to provide, I'm all ears.

The type of journalism (intelligent questions) you say you prefer is exactly what Darrell provides in his questioning. Being a veteran of 17 years in the news industry and having led newsrooms, I can't think of a single question he's ever posed that I felt it wasn't a good or intelligent. He's been solid.

It's all about your niche in the market. What can you do better than your competition? What do they do well? Can you do it just as well?

If not, you better figure out what you can bring to the table that others can't or don't that will be a constant draw to your page.

I have said repeatedly, including this evening, that I am not calling out Darrell. I specifically said I believe he asks intelligent questions, which is what I prefer. I just don't like anonymous sources from within the program. It sounds good to be an "insider" for $10/Mo, but when the inside info comes from people who are betraying confidences, the $10/Mo just feeds a cancer. If individuals who are empowered to speak to the media want to have off the record conversations that are cleared for discussion, that is a separate issue. I just don't like any business model based on getting people to violate confidences to give information about what is going on inside Bellmont.

 

[Matt Cotcher]

Y'all be careful....if you keep providing such thought-provoking, well-articulated opinions, then we're going to have to make this a premium thread. 

 

[BudreauReye]

That's a really large blanket you just threw down. I just don't think it applies as you suggest it does.

From what I've observed, much of what FOB provides is his perspective, his opinion and what he's observed. There's certainly a lot of value in that by itself. Value that other competing web sites are not providing or not providing as well as this one has.

I don't think you established that they've violated ANY confidences. I don't think FOBs have been told not to say what they've said. I also do not see any instance where it's made anyone's job more difficult. If you've got an example to provide, I'm all ears.

The type of journalism (intelligent questions) you say you prefer is exactly what Darrell provides in his questioning. Being a veteran of 17 years in the news industry and having led newsrooms, I can't think of a single question he's ever posed that I felt it wasn't a good or intelligent. He's been solid.

It's all about your niche in the market. What can you do better than your competition? What do they do well? Can you do it just as well? Do you have the resources to compete that way?

If not, you better figure out what you can bring to the table that others can't or don't that will be a constant draw to your page.

Sirhornsalot, I cannot speak for Randolf, but, with all due respect, I do not think he is saying that Darrell or anybody else here are going to the extreme that he is describing.  I could be very wrong, but I think he is saying that he does not WANT HornsSports to go to that extreme, and that he feels that there might be some pressure that some folks would push HornsSports in that direction if possible.  I probably do not understand one whit of what Randolf is really saying, but I can tell you that I fully support my interpretation thereof ... and upon rereading THIS post, I am sure that what I just said is as clear as mud!  But, I am too damn tired to try and re-interpret what Randolf said, anybody else said, or what my poor fevered peanut of a brain tells me that I tried to say!  So there!  So now!  I feel a Cranky Fest coming on! 

 

[Darrell McPhaul]

Let's understand this right now.  I have NEVER betrayed any of my source.  Any and everyone I have spoken with understands that their words are going to be shared only on Hornsports.

That is why they are MY sources and that is why you only hear the info that you do on Hornsports.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I have said repeatedly, including this evening, that I am not calling out Darrell. I specifically said I believe he asks intelligent questions, which is what I prefer. I just don't like anonymous sources from within the program. It sounds good to be an "insider" for $10/Mo, but when the inside info comes from people who are betraying confidences, the $10/Mo just feeds a cancer. If individuals who are empowered to speak to the media want to have off the record conversations that are cleared for discussion, that is a separate issue. I just don't like any business model based on getting people to violate confidences to give information about what is going on inside Bellmont.

Until you establish that a single confidence has been broken, I can't take you seriously with the accusation. Anyone can throw around a generalization. And I did ask for at least one.

And let's face it, every day you watch the news or read a newspaper - you're accepting anonymous sources because today's journalists use them extensively, every single day. "Pentagon sources say" is anonymous.

Then, you contradict yourself in the same sentence. How can you be an "individual" who are "empowered" but have to be "cleared?" Cleared by whom? And for what? And since when did this start happening?

Not once in my career did I have to be called back so that someone could "clear" something they wanted to say to me.

I don't think Darrell or Hornsports is "getting people to violate" anything. FOB is a willing participant who is wealthy enough to snub somebody like Darrell just because he's got a thousand more important things to do as anyone of that stature would. Not saying it hasn't happened, but, FOB really hasn't taken on Bellmont much either. For one, it's about as boring as watching grass grow. But he answers the questions that Darrell poses of him.

From the perch of FOB, much can be seen that people who walk around on lower terrain cannot see. That's where the value of crossfire is. I just don't see the need to get all lathered up about the moral aspect and certainly not if there's not enough to support an intelligent discussion about it.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Sirhornsalot, I cannot speak for Randolf, but, with all due respect, I do not think he is saying that Darrell or anybody else here are going to the extreme that he is describing.  I could be very wrong, but I think he is saying that he does not WANT HornsSports to go to that extreme, and that he feels that there might be some pressure that some folks would push HornsSports in that direction if possible.  I probably do not understand one whit of what Randolf is really saying, but I can tell you that I fully support my interpretation thereof ... and upon rereading THIS post, I am sure that what I just said is as clear as mud!  But, I am too damn tired to try and re-interpret what Randolf said, anybody else said, or what my poor fevered peanut of a brain tells me that I tried to say!  So there!  So now!  I feel a Cranky Fest coming on! 

I just gave you a digital hug. FYI

 

[Randolph Duke]

Until you establish that a single confidence has been broken, I can't take you seriously with the accusation. Anyone can throw around a generalization. And I did ask for at least one.

And let's face it, every day you watch the news or read a newspaper - you're accepting anonymous sources because today's journalists use them extensively, every single day. "Pentagon sources say" is anonymous.

Then, you contradict yourself in the same sentence. How can you be an "individual" who are "empowered" but have to be "cleared?" Cleared by whom? And for what? And since when did this start happening?

Not once in my career did I have to be called back so that someone could "clear" something they wanted to say to me.

I don't think Darrell or Hornsports is "getting people to violate" anything. FOB is a willing participant who is wealthy enough to snub somebody like Darrell just because he's got a thousand more important things to do as anyone of that stature would. Not saying it hasn't happened, but, FOB really hasn't taken on Bellmont much either. For one, it's about as boring as watching grass grow. But he answers the questions that Darrell poses of him.

From the perch of FOB, much can be seen that people who walk around on lower terrain cannot see. That's where the value of crossfire is. I just don't see the need to get all lathered up about the moral aspect and certainly not if there's not enough to support an intelligent discussion about it.

The entire "Nick Saban" chapter was nothing other than violated confidences. Anonymous sources are problematic at best. The only time a source wants to remain anonymous is to avoid repercussions of going public and on the record. Make me the argument why anyone involved with the program would want to remain anonymous while dishing inside information. What repercussions does the individual want to avoid?

 

[BudreauReye]

I just gave you a digital hug. FYI

That gave me the giggles!  I must say that I think that more than a few folks who frequent this forum definitely need a few digital hugs! 

 

[Sirhornsalot]

The entire "Nick Saban" chapter was nothing other than violated confidences. Anonymous sources are problematic at best. The only time a source wants to remain anonymous is to avoid repercussions of going public and on the record. Make me the argument why anyone involved with the program would want to remain anonymous while dishing inside information. What repercussions does the individual want to avoid?

Oh now that's rich. We go from Saban was never a factor and there never was nothing there to now we've violated confidences.

Why are anonymous sources problematic? What type of problem do they pose?

Your conclusion about why sources wish to remain anonymous is just incorrect. People do that for a variety of reasons. 

Perhaps a person who has held a position in the professional world that would make both our noses bleed would not wish to be seen as someone who peddles information on an internet message board? That's just not hard to figure out. Maybe he's not "involved" with the program at all in any capacity? I know at least one of the FOBs and he definitely fits the criteria I just listed.

As for your last question, it can only be answered if your premise is true, which it is not.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Oh now that's rich. We go from Saban was never a factor and there never was nothing there to now we've violated confidences.

Why are anonymous sources problematic? What type of problem do they pose?

Your conclusion about why sources wish to remain anonymous is just incorrect. People do that for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps a person who has held a position in the professional world that would make both our noses bleed would not wish to be seen as someone who peddles information on an internet message board? That's just not hard to figure out. Maybe he's not "involved" with the program at all in any capacity? I know at least one of the FOBs and he definitely fits the criteria I just listed.

As for your last question, it can only be answered if your premise is true, which it is not.

In your business, do you allow your employees to make public information on your bids, contracts, receivables and other operating details? Of course not, but you are essentially arguing there is nothing wrong with people at any level within the UT athletic program making public any information they choose. What is the difference? If a copy room intern wants to leak the play book to a web site, that seems fine? Are there any limits on what inside information low level employees can leak for whatever reason they choose? Does writing a donor check give an individual the right to release information gained in confidence to the public? If so, why?
People who choose to release information that was intended to be confidential are a cancer on the program. I have repeatedly given Darrell credit for avoiding the temptation to encourage insiders to violate confidences and instead he has largely chosen to take the more difficult tack of asking pointed questions to particular individuals. I still stick to my point that anonymous sources are highly problematic, at best.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

In your business, do you allow your employees to make public information on your bids, contracts, receivables and other operating details? Of course not, but you are essentially arguing there is nothing wrong with people at any level within the UT athletic program making public any information they choose. What is the difference? If a copy room intern wants to leak the play book to a web site, that seems fine? Are there any limits on what inside information low level employees can leak for whatever reason they choose? Does writing a donor check give an individual the right to release information gained in confidence to the public? If so, why?

People who choose to release information that was intended to be confidential are a cancer on the program. I have repeatedly given Darrell credit for avoiding the temptation to encourage insiders to violate confidences and instead he has largely chosen to take the more difficult tack of asking pointed questions to particular individuals. I still stick to my point that anonymous sources are highly problematic, at best.

I'm not a good comparison. My employees aren't aware of those details and don't have access to it.

I'm not a taxpayer supported institution, either. I don't have a BOR or hugely wealthy people donating to my business. IF I DID THOUGH, I would expect this to happen to some extent.

So now you make the giant assumption that information that CF contains is confidential and was somehow intended to stay that way. I am not privy to the business of those folks so I can't say yes or not, factually. But neither can you. You're getting all bothered by your own assumptions here.

I'd ask you to explain how a FOB is a "cancer" to the program. I don't think there is an answer but you're free to provide one if you have one.

I asked you to tell us why anonymous sources are problematic. You just repeated the statement without an explanation.

Hornsports is not an arm of the University. It's not subject to taxpayer funds to help it exist. It has to have a niche(s) for which it can capitalize on and make itself profitable. HS has healthy, established competition so there's no sense in duplicating whats already there unless you intend to do it better than they do. 

At this point, we're beating a dead horse. You're making the same point over and over and obviously, I'm not getting through to you.