Sunday, June 10, 2007

I've created controversy

When this blog first started, I posted a few links to it on Tigerdroppings. I thought it was harmless and that LSU fans would want to know about the existence of a new LSU-themed blog. Instead, the management of Tigerdroppings took umbrage at my actions and sent me a nasty cease-and-desist private message. I then put the address of this site in my signature, and they went into my profile and edited it out.

I still didn't see what the big deal was, but I more or less followed the rules for a while. Eventually, another frequent poster on Tigerdroppings started his own college football blog, which he discussed on the board. I warned him that management did not take kindly to people posting links to their own blogs on the board. He responded, "It does involve LSU to an extent." To which I replied, "Mine is strictly LSU content." He must have been shot down by management because the conversation is now heavily edited by him. This happened only a few days ago.

Last night, I saw a post expressing some interest in incoming recruit John Williams. I replied to it with a link to this post. Even though it was perfectly on topic, I knew I was probably breaking the unwritten rule. I got some positive feedback.

This morning, I get up and log onto Tigerdroppings, and I see a Private Message from the management of Tigerdroppings sternly warning me about posting links to the blog and further (and I think appallingly) asking me not to mention on the board that I am not allowed to post links to the blog. I took offense to this, because it means that not only am I not allowed to post the blog, but I am not allowed to post about the fact that I am not allowed to post the blog. I am supposed to pretend that this rule and this blog do not exist, and that all is cool with me and Tigerdroppings management.

I took action. I made a post to the Help board, which has since been deleted, saying that I wouldn't follow that directive. I think some of my exact words were, "The only reason not to allow me to discuss it is because you're embarrassed you're doing it. I won't go for it."

A few minutes later, my posting privileges were taken away with a note to send them an email if I want to post again. I'm not sending that email. I can't in good conscience agree to abide by their latest directive. It's too Orwellian. I am supposed to follow certain rules, but not mention that the rules exist or discuss their impact on me and others.

So, I'm off of Tigerdroppings, which will probably greatly enhance my productivity. I honestly do not understand their position about this. This blog does not in any way compete with Tigerdroppings. Not one bit. In fact, I consider this blog to be something of an offshoot of Tigerdroppings, like a sitcom that spins off from another sitcom. This blog is "Facts of Life" to Tigerdroppings' "Diff'rent Strokes".

If Tigerdroppings was concerned about some kind of a rash of people posting links to their blogs, it's just not a legitimate concern. There aren't enough fans out there with their own sports blogs to worry about it. It won't clutter the board in the least.

And if they were worried about cluttering the board, they certainly don't show it. It's widely acknowledged that the Tiger Rant is filled with idiots, malcontents, and assorted people who post the same topics over and over again. The OT Lounge is admitted, even by its denizens, as a wasteland for attention whores, pictures of half-naked women, sexual obsessions, and bathroom humor. Links to well-thought-out blogs would actually increase the quality of discussion.

So anyway, this is my first banning from Tigerdroppings. It's entirely possible I'll never be back. I doubt they'll miss me that much.


Poseur said...

As an admin over at and a contributor over here, I've completely stayed out of it. I have made no opinion in public or private to the management about this blog because of my inherent conflict of interest.

I had no part in banning you or any of the private messages. But I have tried to stay out of it because of my ties here.

Richard Pittman said...

I totally understand and respect that. I wouldn't expect you to take any sides in it at all. Personally, I don't really see any sides to take at this point. Basically it comes down to two points:

1) I don't think I can accept the terms of service as I know them to be. I can't agree to post there under the agreement that I not post certain things and not mention that I can't post those things. If those are the terms of service, I politely refuse.

2) I think the unwritten rules are silly and seem to serve no real purpose. I honestly don't even know WHY i'm not allowed to mention this blog. OK, I can get why I'm not supposed to mention it ad nauseum, and in general I can agree not to link to it, even though I think it's a silly rule. As for why I'm not allowed to mention that I can't post about my blog, the only reason I can think of to have that rule is to avoid the embarrassment of having people know that kind of content is censored. I can't respect that.

Richard Pittman said...

...and of course, it goes without saying that you are more than welcome to continue contributing. Hell, you can still continue contributing even if you go on record saying I'm absolutely in the wrong.