The Cleveland Cavaliers let fans become real life arcade game characters
February 14, 2015Cavaliers guard JR Smith wins the inaugural NBA All-Star All-Style Competition
February 14, 2015
Running around trying to get everything for the perfect Valentine’s Day? Worse, looking for the right words to entice that young lad or lady into being your valentine at the last minute? WFNY is here to help, along with some of our favorite Cleveland sports figures.
Try these cards out and see if your bones don’t get jumped in a jiffy.
(Some of the cards allude to adult-ish content—you’ve been warned.)
Delly’s star isn’t the only thing that’s rising.
Austin’s stuff is not weak.
Maybe we had the wrong idea about the tweets all along.
Dion is gone, but never forgotten.
Corey Kluber: humanoid of passion.
Nick Swisher: actual man of passion
Typical Dolan amirite?
Kyle Shanahan likes to declare his feelings with visual aids.
What Ray Farmer wants, Ray Farmer gets, rules be damned.
There’s still time to turn it around, you crazy kids in love.
Some call he and his company predatory. I’m afraid to ask what he’s hunting.
Some things write themselves.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
18 Comments
Like Lays, I can’t have just one.
lol
This is funny Will, but I’m confused. From Before You Comment:
“When WFNY began, we editors agreed to maintain a family-friendly atmosphere on the site. We would be careful with our language and encourage our commenters to do the same. In addition, we wouldn’t post pictures of half-naked women, nor would we publish links to articles and websites that feature them … There are thousands of sports sites — including hundreds of Cleveland sites — that don’t care to maintain this type of environment. We feel there should be a place where Cleveland fans should be able to read and comment about their favorite teams without being subjected to foul language and pornography. We feel the fans that read and comment here are some of the most knowledgeable and articulate around the Cleveland sports scene. We appreciate the atmosphere that they have helped us create.”
Obviously this isn’t “porn,” but it ain’t exactly taking care with language, or content. Surely you realize the tone of comments that will respond to prurient jokes, and commenters pointing to this as permission for things previously considered verboten. Has WFNY’s policy changed? Has it been relaxed since Rick left? If contributors can now go here, does that also apply to commenters as well? I try to self-edit and am not afraid to chide other commenters who violate the policy because, as this idealistic policy envisioned, it has in fact created an environment like few other in sports blogging. Again, I think what you did was funny and quality as usual, but in my mind represents a change from WFNY’s stated goals. I welcome any response from Craig, Scott, et al. A few weeks ago Scott passed off his own off-policy comment with something like “editor’s privilege.” So, where are we?
I do not want to speak for Craig and Andrew, but as someone who reads roughly 90 percent of the words that gets published to these pages prior to them going live, I have no issues addressing this—the others can offer their thoughts if in fact they differ.
The policy which you refer to still stands today as it did seven years ago. While “Family Friendly” may be a bit of a misnomer thanks to the absurd beer-free section of FirstEnergy Stadium, this site was created during a time when videos of a naked Erin Andrews were circulating throughout the web, and “hot chick” slideshows were as prevalent—if not more so—than any analysis of a game or player. This model will never be one that is embraced by WFNY. As the policy states, there are countless other places to obtain this “information”; WFNY was not going to be one of them.
Regarding language and word choice, I’ve taken a stance similar to Bill Simmons at Grantland or David Granger at Esquire. Any word that could be considered off-color or a “curse word” would rarely be one that would wouldn’t also screen through radio airwaves or, say, Comedy Central. There’s a time and place for everything—some words that were written by others were edited/altered/removed due to this belief, others have made it to final publication. Like with everything else in life, there’s nuance. Is this more lax than when Rick was an owner? Perhaps. But its no more explained by that as it is changing times, and my word choice is no different today than it was years ago.
Will Gibson has been nothing but a immensely valuable addition to WFNY since his arrival. He’s creative, funny, and has an ability to look at things from a lens that was long missing from these pages. His levity has been beyond valuable. The Valentines he created were, as you said, made with humorous intent. The idea was born, cleared by all of us behind the scenes, and executed perfectly. Certainly, I’m not about to break the site up between Stodgy Sports Coverage and Not-so Serious Stuff. I realize that it may oftentimes be tough to know what one is clicking on given the number of individuals who write for WFNY compared to that of a Grantland or Esquire (re: you know what you’re getting when you click on something from Charles P. Pierce and, contrarily, Shea Serrano), but that’s something we have to deal with due to the independent nature of the site (re: very little in the way of money to pay a humor-only staff).
The policy above is called “Before you comment,” and not “Before we write.” Given that this is not my full-time job, I have no way of policing every comment that is submitted. I do, however, have the ability to read and edit pieces before they go up. The comment you referred to is one where I used the term “jerkoffs” to describe a group of, well, jerkoffs. When someone attempted to so nobly call me out on it, I explained that this was “editorial rights,” something which you in turn “booed.” These have always existed and will continue to exist without discussion or debate. This isn’t a message board. We, the proprietors and contributors of WFNY, produce content—written pieces, video, whatever—and the commenters, well, comment. Sometimes these comments are in reply to the piece above, other times it’s in reply to something another commenter said. This isn’t to trivialize what our readership or commenters bring—we’ve long (and repeatedly) stated how valuable that portion of the community is. Yes, this is a community; yes, we encourage engagement, just as we have for years. But we, the owners of WFNY, will always have final say over literally everything on these pages. This may be a public place, but just like any restaurant or bar, the menu can change on a whim and there’s one, if not more, areas that say “employees only” on the door.
We are all about humor and good times. If posting innuendo-laden Valentines, however, causes someone to flip some switch and become some porn-posting, name calling heathen as if the mere mention Nick Swisher causes some Bruce Banner-to-Hulk transformation, I think this says exponentially more about them than it does us and they’ll be handled just as others who refused to understand the privilege have. A “change” would infer that WFNY is going in a different direction, which simply is not the case. Just as we edit, you’re all expected to do the same. There’s still a dress code—we just understand that someone may want to wear a patterned shirt once in a while.
I think it’s a good point. I did think about it when I first saw Will’s funny work.
While I agree with Scott for the most part, I also think it’s probably time to update the “Before you Comment” section. We still don’t want to give way to rampant cursing across the site and especially in the comments. We also don’t want to post “hot chicks” or other content that serves only to drive clicks for flesh. At the same time, this is something I wrestled with on the podcast. On the one hand WFNY has a standard toward swearing and cursing, but on the other hand podcasts are independent – an alternative to radio with the FCC guidelines – and if I have a guest on who wants to swear a smidge, I don’t want to create an environment that stifles creativity or free expression.
I think that the valentines straddle the line of what you’re talking about Harv, but ultimately after seeing them I thought the funny outweighed the vulgar. I think it still fits into a really PG to PG-13 level in terms of movies or TV content, and I’m really O.K. with it. I mean, even in my personal life, it’s hard for me to tell my son that jokes about underwear and poop and farts aren’t funny. By the time he’s 13, I’m guessing he won’t be blown away by the same kind of mild sexual content that used to make me giggle in Spencer’s at the mall.
I like to have conversations like these as we move forward. I think it’s probably time to update the “Before You Comment” section because I do feel like while we still are largely the same website from when that was written, I think we’ve found a comfortable place where we’re pretty family friendly, but not overly puritanical. I like to think the site is somewhere between a PG and PG-13. I don’t think it’s salacious for the purposes of being salacious, but I also like to have the freedom to use a word here and there when I feel it works. I think Will’s post is the exception and not the rule. Sometimes it’s acceptable to push the boundaries of your own rules. Like a holiday lunch where you drink during the day or something.
Cheers. 🙂
Thank you for thoughtful replies, both Scott and Craig.
Scott, obviously it’s your site, your labor of love, never intended to suggest otherwise. The only thing in your response I would challenge is that “Before You Comment” applies solely to commenters. Read your words again: “We would be careful with our language and encourage our commenters to do the same.” Even without that policy, to attempt to decouple the tone of what is written from the type of comments it is sure to create strikes me as disingenuous.
Craig, agree on all, including the admission that the tone has morphed. I have stated multiple times I love Will’s pieces. I think he’s the most important addition you’ve made. One reason I’ve pointed this out is that just a few days ago I pointed out a fab gif from one of my favorite other commenters that I thought crossed your stated lines – and you biffed his gif within an hour. That gif was absolutely no less over the line than Will’s valentines, and actually contained an important sunstantive message. I’m sorry I flagged it, and wouldn’t do it again.
I think your previous bright line created a unique vibe here. The site will still be great, but I think you’ve just sacrificed a lot without knowing it in exchange for edgier humor. It may be a wise trade off. And I do sincerely appreciate knowing where you guys stand.
Delly looks creepy in his card. My favorite is Smith.
I was the one who deleted the image, and I disagree wholeheartedly that the image in question was “no less over the line” than this post. I won’t re-print the words used in that image, but those words will never, ever be allowed in the comments on this site as long as I am part of it. Even if those said words were used to prove a point relevant to the topic at hand. Will’s piece does tip-toe on the line of innuendo, but you guys (the commentariat) have left comments that hint at innuendo before and I have allowed them to stay. But the word “f*g”, which was used in the image I deleted, is simply never going to be acceptable in the comments section. I’d like to think the by now it’s pretty well known what will and will not be allowed. If there’s any ambiguity, it’s likely more a result of me not seeing the comment in question than that of me allowing it. But I do realize how that can potentially be confusing for you guys. I try to keep up with the comments best I can, but these days I don’t have as much time to vigilantly moderate the comments here as I once did.
In the end, I feel this is all much ado about nothing. When we started this site, we had a vision for what we wanted the community to be about and what kind of things we wanted to allow. That vision remains in tact today. We, as proprietors of this website, allow a little more leeway to our writers than we do the comments. That’s probably not perceived as being 100% fair, but that’s the way it goes. And as dismissive as that sounds, I truly don’t mean it to be. It’s just that this is a privately owned, independent website. From day one Scott, Rick, and myself (and now Scott, Craig, and myself) have been figuring this stuff out as we go along. We answer to ourselves and to the feedback we get from our readers. That’s it. So I do take your concerns seriously, Harv. But I don’t feel a dramatic change is needed in terms of our policy. That policy continues to be that we will delete any comment that uses profane language. We will warn and ban anyone who is consistently using personal attacks as a method of debate. Anything that deals with innuendo and/or off topic banter and is thus a little more in the grey area will be taken on a case by case scenario and we will use our best judgment as to what is and isn’t allowed.
As for the big picture, I do think that maybe our tone has changed a little since Rick left. Emphasis on “a little”. Maybe we give our writers a little more freedom to express themselves than we once did. But not much. We still hold ourselves and our writers to a standard, just as we hold our commentariat to a standard as well. There may be some grey area here and there, and I can see how a couple of these valentines might fall into that area, but for the most part I think it’s still pretty clear what this site stands for and what our vision for decency is. I hope that continues to be the case moving forward, but I truly do welcome any feedback like this when you or others feel it is shifting.
I like all of the funny!
Thanks, Andrew. I wasn’t suggesting a dramatic change, I was just commenting on the change and asking what if anything it means to you guys. I didn’t mean to focus on language as much as content, though my mentioning the gif blurred my point. I only really disagree on one point: that Will’s content “does tip-toe on the line of innuendo,” I mean, c’mon, the whole point (except the Dolan) is sexual innuendo, from mild to explicit, and it’s funny because Will makes the level of explicitness match the sports personality. This is a change, and a dramatic one, from that which the site has featured before. I will be curious to see how you handle and rein in comments in reaction to such pieces, giving more leeway to writers than commenters.
Anyway, enough, I thought it was worth noting. Certainly hope you all accept it in the spirit intended. Maybe should have emailed you all instead. Thanks for honest the feedback. And thanks for the site.
I’m actually glad you left it as a comment. I think it’s a good discussion to have out in the open. And to address your specific point real quick, this piece does not meet my own personal standard for needing “writer’s privilege”. I would not have moderated any of these if they were made by commenters. From my own context I do not view this piece as a dramatic departure from our history. However, I will say, I do take it seriously that you do view it as such. It gives us something to think about and consider. So thank you.
I agree with Harv. There’s been a little coarsening of the culture here lately, and it seems to be more gratuitous than functional. It’s a bit disheartening.
Craig, it ain’t broke.
“Coarsening of the culture” is a great way to put it. But I think what Scott said is that they’ve found a different kind of voice they’ve sought after. I totally get that – they have to attract talent like Will, they have to grow the website consistent with the vision they have right now. I’m sad about the loss of what I perceived as an experiment in web discipline gone right, but listening to some of the podcasts, seeing the site increase sprinklings of music and other stuff I see that what S, C and A are doing is working. And they are in fact very disciplined, like in how much non-sports stuff, they throw in and the quality of that stuff.
I’m trying not to be reactionary, complaining in a thumb-sucking way about change just because. Because 1) I’m probably wrong, and 2) excessive complaining from followers just produces an understandable response from the guys who have invested their lives in this along the lines of “it’s our site, go make your own.” I’d have the same attitude.
I think the “old” WFNY standards, if that’s the right way to put it, were admirable. I would think that writers who are truly talented would have no problem complying with them. I’m certainly not a Church Lady type, but is it really necessary to lower the level of discourse in order to grow?
I suppose I could gasbag about this all day, but like you said, it’s not my site, and if I don’t like it, I can leave anytime. I just hate to see another “institution” pander to some notion that you can’t succeed without lowering standards.
(I’m probably way overreacting to this.)
I would add that the tone of this particular piece is still more exception than norm. Also, I’m finding it hard to explain our point of view on this without it sounding condescending. I don’t ever want this to be a “take it or leave it” proposition. Believe me, the feedback you guys give us is heard and it is considered. We may not agree with all of the feedback, and not every issue raised will cause a change within WFNY, but it’s all part of this big stew we’re all making together.
But man do I hate that you used the word “pander”, because I don’t feel like we’re pandering to anyone or anything. WFNY still stands for something different. I believe that in my soul. But sometimes, we just want to have a little bit of fun and we trust that our readers will trust us.
For the record, I’m with Harv and Mr. Cleaveland. I don’t comment much, but I read here often, and to me, this is disappointing. Whether you like the term or not, this seems to me as if you’re pandering to the lowest common denominator. Some of them are funny, sure, but others are just the adult equivalent of fart jokes- no intelligent humor, just inserting something sexual to get giggles from people who think that kind of stuff is funny. It’s on par with so-called “clickbait.” Designed to get people looking without regard to standards or intelligence. And again, it’s disappointing.
But, as you’ve said, it’s your site. You can publish what you want.
So, after commenting, I noticed this was from a year ago. Apparently I missed this last year, but I got here from your fresh link on Facebook. Just FYI, I suppose.