Clarification from Nighman

In response to the vague email I got from athletics recently, which someone copied into the NY Times thread, I asked Gene Nighman for clarification of what is allowed and what is not. I got this reply:

"Profanities such as A-hole and F'em up are NOT permitted. Although
not exactly nice, it is okay to say someone sucks and the sieve and bad
goalie chants are also okay.

Gene"

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I for one am going to take a copy of this to the next game for defence against over eagar ushers.

Given that Cambridge is in Massachusetts, how do you think he'd take to calling them "Massholes"?

I can't speak to whether it'll get you kicked out, but as a proud Masshole, I don't know of a single one of us who isn't damn proud of that term. You may as well cheer "you're awesome!"

Cornell Smoking Team
HARVARD IS IN CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGE IS IN BOSTON
BOSTON IS IN MASSACHUSETTS
TWO SHITS, TWO SHITS
YOU'RE ALL DOUCHES!

Good to know.

After calling RIT "a bunch of D-III goons" during pregame warmups, a member of the athletics staff (not an usher) pulled me aside and asked me to please be "less vicious" due to the new rules about sportsmanship. I tried to get more specifics out of her, and failed. This helps.

KP '06
Good to know.

After calling RIT "a bunch of D-III goons" during pregame warmups, a member of the athletics staff (not an usher) pulled me aside and asked me to please be "less vicious" due to the new rules about sportsmanship. I tried to get more specifics out of her, and failed. This helps.

Wow. They must be easily offended over there in D-III.

I happen to be one as well, so I know what you mean. And we certainly don't want to compliment them. Just looking for something in that grey area that doesn't quite get you evicted.

"I'd like to thank all of the CU students who have given the Athletic Department and myself positive feedback related to the ticket selection process that was implemented this season." -Gene

Just remember people, keep your constructive criticism to yourself. If you have a better idea in mind, Gene doesn't wanna hear it.

Too bad this doesn't apply to the band...one person got reprimanded by a senior athletics administrator for wearing a Hahvahd Sucks shirt. We haven't been able to say sucks for a good two years now.

People overuse suck anyway, and the creative center of Lynah is the band. So maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

kaelistus
People overuse suck anyway, and the creative center of Lynah is the band. So maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

Plus, the university probably considers the band an official representative and expects a (slightly) higher standard.

jtwcornell91
CAMBRIDGE IS IN BOSTON

Not entirely accurate, but okay

DeltaOne81

jtwcornell91
CAMBRIDGE IS IN BOSTON

Not entirely accurate, but okay

Because the Cornell Smoking Team were such sticklers for accuracy.

From today's Sun:

“Sportsmanship is a lost art in many respects and I’m not ready to give it up,” Noel said. “I’m somebody that respects tradition a lot, but I don’t respect tradition that is insulting to our visitors.”
Noel affirmed that come this Friday night, the administration will continue its policy of removing students caught throwing fish from Lynah.

Noel has witnessed Harvard players being hit in the head with fish and have fish parts slip inside their sweaters on more than one occasion.

Full article: [www.cornellsun.com]

Andy sure has an imagination...

“I think our administration has done a good job, because at one point in time it was out of control,” Schafer said. “But Cornell students won’t be denied and if they want to do it they’re going to find some creative way of doing it. As long as they don’t cost us a penalty, that’s the biggest thing.”

Sounds like an "ok" to me

Good to know our AD has taken to lying to the press.

jtwcornell91
Good to know our AD has taken to lying to the press.

This is new?

So I sent an email to good ol' Gene asking about whether a "Harvard Sucks" sign would acceptable and the chants, including the 'masshole' idea. His respose was.

[Q] Any signs that are derogatory will not be allowed, I would consider them to be more unsportsmanlike than shouting the same thing. Any chant that is obscene or could be easily mistaken as an obscene chant would also not be allowed. The traditional chant after a penalty is "See you loser," and although it is also derogatory, there are no immediate plans to ban the chant.
Gene[/Q]

Since when is loser a derogatory term?! Freakin' PC police.

Omie
Since when is loser a derogatory term?! Freakin' PC police.

Since when is loser the cheer?

It's "You Goon." Period.

Robb
Since when is loser the cheer?

It's "You Goon." Period.

I think he's referring to the first part. He's gunning for "See you loser! You [something]." I doubt he knows, or cares, whether the [something] is "goon" or "lose," as long as we don't say "asshole."

Also, I really wish he'd grow some freaking balls. I can understand banning actual profanities, especially if it's televised, but is he really setting the bar at "derogatory" words? Wtf? Are we supposed to keep any cheer directed at the opposing team positive or neutral? Is "Hey goalie, you may or may not be doing an adequate job!" really the spiciest he'd like us to get? What a tool.

edit: oops wrong thread

my question is, if someone happens to shout out: Gene Nighman! three times and the crowd happens to respond SUCKS! would that induvidual person come under any scrutiny? After all they would just be shouting out the man's name, they would have no control over what the crowd's responce may be.

I think Noel is the bigger problem than Nighman. He calls the shots in this area - just read his proposterous quotes in the paper today.

well, I'm sure we could accomadate each of them with they're own induvidual chant.

evilnaturedrobot
well, I'm sure we could accomadate each of them with they're own induvidual chant.

Seconded. When would that cheer be appropriate? Mabye when the ushers try to drag fish throwers out.

Is it remotely possible that the lunacy coming from Noel is actually not so much his fault as it is part of his job, part of some more ridiculous doctrine handed down from much higher up? It certainly would suck if his job depended on being an asshole, then being called for it by hundreds of fans, right on national TV.

Of course, I don't know the man, so maybe he's just PC-whipped...

DL
Is it remotely possible that the lunacy coming from Noel is actually not so much his fault as it is part of his job, part of some more ridiculous doctrine handed down from much higher up? It certainly would suck if his job depended on being an asshole, then being called for it by hundreds of fans, right on national TV.

There are many, many things in this world that are done for the sake of covering your own ass, and his seems like one of those times. If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue and decides to sue the department, the defense will hinge around "oh, didn't you see the emails we sent out, and how we ejected Bob and Jill who looked like they were about to make a throwing motion with their arm while saying 'socks' in the direction of Kyle Richter? What else do you want us to do?". Our legal system sponsors such theater as a way out.

Winnabago
Our legal system sponsors such theater as a way out.

I'm adding this to my list of reasons why giving some group (the government) a monopoly on force is a bad idea.

Kyle

Winnabago

DL
Is it remotely possible that the lunacy coming from Noel is actually not so much his fault as it is part of his job, part of some more ridiculous doctrine handed down from much higher up? It certainly would suck if his job depended on being an asshole, then being called for it by hundreds of fans, right on national TV.

There are many, many things in this world that are done for the sake of covering your own ass, and his seems like one of those times. If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue and decides to sue the department, the defense will hinge around "oh, didn't you see the emails we sent out, and how we ejected Bob and Jill who looked like they were about to make a throwing motion with their arm while saying 'socks' in the direction of Kyle Richter? What else do you want us to do?". Our legal system sponsors such theater as a way out.

If Ted Donato slips on his way to the bench, I'd imagine the defense would hinge around "you were walking on ice" and not all that other stuff.

Jordan 04

Winnabago
There are many, many things in this world that are done for the sake of covering your own ass, and his seems like one of those times. If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue and decides to sue the department, the defense will hinge around "oh, didn't you see the emails we sent out, and how we ejected Bob and Jill who looked like they were about to make a throwing motion with their arm while saying 'socks' in the direction of Kyle Richter? What else do you want us to do?". Our legal system sponsors such theater as a way out.

If Ted Donato slips on his way to the bench, I'd imagine the defense would hinge around "you were walking on ice" and not all that other stuff.

...plus the fact that he admitted in the freakin' New York Times that he knew it was coming.

ftyuv
I think he's referring to the first part. He's gunning for "See you loser! You [something]." I doubt he knows, or cares, whether the [something] is "goon" or "lose," as long as we don't say "asshole."

Obviously that's what he's going for, but it's pretty inane to say (as he did) that that's the "traditional" chant or something like that. Lying to us is just insulting.

Josh '99

ftyuv
I think he's referring to the first part. He's gunning for "See you loser! You [something]." I doubt he knows, or cares, whether the [something] is "goon" or "lose," as long as we don't say "asshole."

Obviously that's what he's going for, but it's pretty inane to say (as he did) that that's the "traditional" chant or something like that. Lying to us is just insulting.

See Hanlon's Razor.

I wish I'd seen this in time to use it as a defense for my "harvard sucks" t-shirt.

so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?

We were talking about a legal defense in a personal injury suit. Feel free to join us when you've reached the same page.

Beeeej
We were talking about a legal defense in a personal injury suit. Feel free to join us when you've reached the same page.

Thanks Beeej.

The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place. Feel free to understand that.

Rich S

Beeeej
We were talking about a legal defense in a personal injury suit. Feel free to join us when you've reached the same page.

Thanks Beeej.

The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place. Feel free to understand that.

And Cornell never should have torn down the U-Halls. See, non sequiturs are fun!

Rich S
so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?

Okay, I'll bite, since you're incapable of seeing how the question is unrelated to the statement it follows:

It makes Donato unable to recover in a personal injury lawsuit.

Wow, that was fun!

Jordan 04

Winnabago

DL
Is it remotely possible that the lunacy coming from Noel is actually not so much his fault as it is part of his job, part of some more ridiculous doctrine handed down from much higher up? It certainly would suck if his job depended on being an asshole, then being called for it by hundreds of fans, right on national TV.

There are many, many things in this world that are done for the sake of covering your own ass, and his seems like one of those times. If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue and decides to sue the department, the defense will hinge around "oh, didn't you see the emails we sent out, and how we ejected Bob and Jill who looked like they were about to make a throwing motion with their arm while saying 'socks' in the direction of Kyle Richter? What else do you want us to do?". Our legal system sponsors such theater as a way out.

If Ted Donato slips on his way to the bench, I'd imagine the defense would hinge around "you were walking on ice" and not all that other stuff.

Ok, so he trips <i>over</i> some fish residue. Same argument.

Beeeej

Rich S
so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?

Okay, I'll bite, since you're incapable of seeing how the question is unrelated to the statement it follows:

It makes Donato unable to recover in a personal injury lawsuit.

Wow, that was fun!

Your arrogance is appalling if not at all surprising consider the source, (a guy who gets his panties in a bunch because I wouldn't track him down at Lynah last Spring).

Incapable? Perhaps you're the one that adjective fits best.

You guys made reference to a personal injury suit, not me. I said the following which I'll repeat since you seemingly missed it.

"The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place. Feel free to understand that."

My question asking 'So then the fish throwing is ok?' despite being a "unsportsmanlike act in the first place", meant, does the defense of his knowing it was coming make it a less unsportsmanlike act?

I think not, but hey, you're the know-it-all lawyer so feel free to continue to interpret my words any way you like.

Rich S

Beeeej

Rich S
so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?

Okay, I'll bite, since you're incapable of seeing how the question is unrelated to the statement it follows:

It makes Donato unable to recover in a personal injury lawsuit.

Wow, that was fun!

Your arrogance is appalling if not at all surprising consider the source, (a guy who gets his panties in a bunch because I wouldn't track him down at Lynah last Spring).

Incapable? Perhaps you're the one that adjective fits best.

You guys made reference to a personal injury suit, not me. I said the following which I'll repeat since you seemingly missed it.

"The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place. Feel free to understand that."

My question asking 'So then the fish throwing is ok?' despite being a "unsportsmanlike act in the first place", meant, does the defense of his knowing it was coming make it a less unsportsmanlike act?

I think not, but hey, you're the know-it-all lawyer so feel free to continue to interpret my words any way you like.

If you insist. I will even endeavour to be polite about it.

For probably 99% of readers, when you follow a statement "Y" with a question of the form "So that makes X okay?" you are understood to be using "that" to refer to "Y," the statement that preceeded it and the context in which "Y" arose. We were in the middle of conversation about whether Donato's hypothetical lawsuit against Cornell might have merit, and I had just brought up a point that would probably be a strong defense for Cornell in that hypothetical lawsuit. Since you responded directly to that point "Y" with a question of the form "So that makes X okay?" any rational reader would have to presume that your question arose from my point and the context in which I made it.

The answer is that one has nothing to do with the other. If you'd asked "So that makes it more likely Cornell would be able to defend such a lawsuit successfully?" then the answer would have been "Yes." Your question "So that makes your ... behavior ok?" just doesn't apply. There's an enormous difference between what might serve as a successful defense in a court of law and what makes behavior "ok" in a moral sense or in terms of etiquette.

Which brings me to another point. Your phrasing "gross display of unsportsmanship behavior" presumes that the display is gross, that the behavior is - well, "unsportsmanlike" (that would be the adjective form of the word, I believe) in the first place. It's the worst kind of loaded, conclusory question, because it presupposes the answer. It would be as if I asked, say, a St. Lawrence alum posting on this board, "So your moronically ignorant and deranged reply made sense?" Well, no, it couldn't possibly - I've already stated in the question that it was moronically ignorant and deranged, so no answer that poster gives will suffice to make us believe otherwise. Most of the time, I don't even think a question like that deserves an answer.

All that having been said, if what you actually wanted to know was whether I think the fish-tossing at the Hahvahd game is unsportsmanlike, you could have simply asked, but you didn't. You could also have asked me whether I think it's less unsportsmanlike because Donato knew it was coming, but you didn't, though you clearly think you did. Based on the way any rational human being would read the conversation in sequence, you asked if the fact that Ted Donato would likely lose a lawsuit against Cornell because he knew in advance of the potentially dangerous condition "makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok."

The answer - once again - is that it has nothing to do with it.

The answer to the question you think you originally asked, since you have now gone to the trouble of asking it (and whatever you may think, I do appreciate the clarification), is: No, I don't think Donato's foreknowledge of the fish has any bearing whatsoever on whether the fish is unsportsmanlike or, if it is unsportsmanlike, how unsportsmanlike it is.

As for last year, I let that go a long time ago. I tried at the time to make you understand why I thought your double-standard was ridiculous, but you didn't get it, so I gave up. I fail to see why you continue to bring it up, or what it has to do with this discussion. If it makes you feel better to think that I was offended because you didn't grace me with your presence, please feel free to continue thinking that. I know better, and I'm completely at peace with my opinion on the matter.

My sincerest and genuine wishes for Clarkson's success against St. Cloud State this weekend.

Do you two have nothhing better to do

Beeeej
My sincerest and genuine wishes for Clarkson's success against St. Cloud State this weekend.

Thank You

scannon
Do you two have nothhing better to do

Second

Dpperk29

Beeeej
My sincerest and genuine wishes for Clarkson's success against St. Cloud State this weekend.

Thank You

LGT!

jtwcornell91

Dpperk29

Beeeej
My sincerest and genuine wishes for Clarkson's success against St. Cloud State this weekend.

Thank You

LGT!

WTF, I'll agree with that this weekend also.

The ECAC has done quite well to date in interconference matches [www.uscho.com]

          Total           vs. 'Big 4'   
AHA      5-25-2 (.188)    2-22-2 (.115)   
CCHA    26-13-5 (.648)   10-13-4 (.444)
CHA      7-19-1 (.278)    4-16-1 (.214)  
ECACHL  23-12-5 (.638)    9- 9-3 (.500)   
HEA     17-16-4 (.514)   13-15-4 (.469)  
WCHA    20-13-5 (.592)   16-11-5 (.578)

We're currently second by either measure.

scannon
Do you two have nothhing better to do

...than judge others (excuse me, "othhers" for hhow thhey spend thheir time? Why, yes. Yes, I do.

Beeeej
The answer to the question you think you originally asked, since you have now gone to the trouble of asking it (and whatever you may think, I do appreciate the clarification), is: No, I don't think Donato's foreknowledge of the fish has any bearing whatsoever on whether the fish is unsportsmanlike or, if it is unsportsmanlike, how unsportsmanlike it is.

Left unsaid was that, as a matter of first principles, I don't (and Beeeej probably doesn't) consider the fish tossing unsportsmanlike.

Trying to hit the players, on the other hand... is borderline.

ugarte

Beeeej
The answer to the question you think you originally asked, since you have now gone to the trouble of asking it (and whatever you may think, I do appreciate the clarification), is: No, I don't think Donato's foreknowledge of the fish has any bearing whatsoever on whether the fish is unsportsmanlike or, if it is unsportsmanlike, how unsportsmanlike it is.

Left unsaid was that, as a matter of first principles, I don't (and Beeeej probably doesn't) consider the fish tossing unsportsmanlike.

Trying to hit the players, on the other hand... is borderline.

There almost has to be some give in this statement. Aiming for Pelle is probably a noble pursuit.