The Wafffe -- Straight Milk Dawg

Dan Patrick has the wifff. Shots Heard has the Wafffe.

Silly Von. Wafers are for dunking (into milk)

The condescension of ESPN towards their message boards posters

You ever wonder why Dan Patrick calls ESPN 'The Mother Ship?' Clearly, he is not affectionately talking about his former employee despite the fact that the said corporate entity propelled his career as a multimillionaire talking head. It might seem ungrateful of DP, but he is justifiably unapologetic in his portrayal of ESPN as monopolistic sports entity that will steam roll anyone that gets in the way of the ESPN/Disney sports networks brand.

Granted, it is a common expansive American business approach that quells individual expressions and ESPN employees that want their cut are savvy and tow the line. Being an adverse force on a money train is clearly not going to work in Disney's 'synergy' model. The synergy model applications states that the combination of small parts is meant to create a grand illusion or sense of happy euphoria.

But as someone that has frequented ESPN forums lately, I have been completely soured by their fascist policies that ESPN uses in their zest for synergistic greatness. I have had many postings and threads completely deleted simply because they contain adverse opinions which otherwise comply with ESPN terms of service. And when this happens, hundreds of postings get deleted, not just the postings being flagged!

ESPN has set up their boards so that they can corral the 'synergy' of the happy-go-lucky posters or haters who unwittingly act as thought police. Once a posting is reported a certain amount of times, the posting is automatically removed.

Furthermore, if ESPN is not satisfied a pattern of opinions 'disrupting' the brand they then suspend the users account without any explanation sent to the user (not even an irritating form letter). The user's guilt is presumed via the judgment of faceless ESPN moderators. If the user wants to continue to post, he then must apply for reinstatement and state a reason for it despite having received no accusation against him.

The system is essentially a shell game as ESPN wants no bad publicity for permanently banning any member for merely having an adverse opinion (even if they can mitigate the publicity or unfavorable word of mouth on technicalities such as 'masked profanity,' 'baiting,' etc).

Thus anybody can and will get reinstated but only at the leisure of ESPN. The mother ship has disclaimer claims 'up to 24 hours' for responses. But it it they reply to members when they want or even ignore the member. Often, they make a member apply for reinstatement multiple times to no avail.

If a member is repeatedly ignored , the member can call ESPN member services' 800 number. Customer service operators will cheerfully tell him about how technical issues prevented the account from being reactivated sooner. Posters can then have their contempt for the systematic abuse lulled by somebody that 'really' cares about him.

This umbrella system, takes a user from a sports connoisseur that wanted to talk about his team to a 'valued Disney customer.' The member unwittingly is forged into the framework of the brand. And the poster often feels better about unquestionably comply to Disney demands.

But if a poster is an individual and still expects to be treated as such he will quickly find that to be an impossibility. Any discussion of whether a violation of terms of services is prohibited. The following passage is from Mzinga Moderation Services who moderates on behalf of the ESPN message boards.

Discussions about issues with other members, as well as posts about the removal of threads and posts aren't allowed in the forum.

True to form, ESPN rigorously applies that suppressive standard. I kept wondering why ESPN was deleting my threads questioning their actions and then I went back and re-read that stipulation.

Another ironic point found in the above passage is that members are not allowed to discuss issues with each other. Clearly any interpersonal dispute is prohibited in the ESPN sports 'community.' ESPN is insistent that their posters be devoid of that type human characteristic. After all, how can a fairytale mood persist if any sort of human shortcoming or human dissent is on display?

At times, ESPN may even essentially harass their members. The member may be allowed to post on some teams boards, but not on a board for which that member had an adverse opinion. Worse yet, ESPN displays further condescension to the poster. Instead of showing team's threads for the poster to at least read, two links are listed. One link is a contact link to ESPN and the other link is a rules link.

ESPN is the biggest sports brand and they clearly control the sports industry. That fact is not changing anytime soon (if ever). But sports fans are wisely advised to go to other websites to talk about sports in a realistic manner with other sports fans.

Peepers Creepers: Erin Andrews Edition

Many of us may remember the classic 'Married With Children' episode (all of the episodes were classics) in which all the neighborhood women were getting peeped. Peg was mad that she was not getting peeped and dressed in a sexy negligee next to the lighted window. She yelled out to the potential peeper that she had cookies.


But for ESPN executives, the subject of peeping (peeking) is not so funny. Erin Andrews, voted the sexiest sports reporter by Playboy two years running.was peeped on while in the nude in her hotel. The video then was leaked onto a still unknown blog and taken down after ESPN lawyers took legal action. Though that action may have unwittingly brought the crime into the public consciousness.

The New York Post ran blurred pictures of the incident and wrote:

"No one would have known that a sick voyeur had secretly videotaped ESPN reporter Erin Andrews nude in her hotel room if the Mickey Mouse sports network hadn't sent a letter to an obscure Web site demanding that it take down its link to a fuzzy video of an unidentified blonde."

USA columnist, Christine Brennan twittered that this type of happening was brought about by Andrews cultivating a frat house type of following. And the frat boys came out in full force for this story as 'Erin Andrews peephole video' topped google searches for a day.

But it does not appear that many if anybody is sneaking a peek. A lot of would-be viewers are instead downloading viruses. But if one did a sneak a peek, you might have the understanding of MMA fighter Gina Carano.

You may remember in February, Carano weighed in nude to make weight, while her handlers held towels to cover her. She then told ESPN radio that she would not blame someone for sneaking a peek. Ironically that same 'Mothership' that pimped the sneak-a-peak is heading off at the pass any effort to sneak a peek at Andrews.



Picture 1-3: ESPN sideline reporter, Erin Andrews
Picture 4: Model and sister of Erin Andrews, Kendra Andrews, Radio talk show host, Dan Patrick, Erin Andrews
Picture 5: Erin Andrew eats a sandwich as part of a sideline report
Pictures 6-7: MMA fighter, Gina Carano

Note: Shots Heard is not publishing the controversial Andrews photos. The pictures are viewable at this link to the NY Post 6th Page news story.