Robert Sarver is in Big Trouble (ANNOUNCES SALE PROCESS)

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I honestly have no idea what Ouchie and Covert's argument is.

Lol. In the long run it’s a somewhat meaningless argument.

 

[Chaplin]

Lol. In the long run it’s a somewhat meaningless argument.

Definitely is for me.

 

[Covert Rain]

Lol. Read the post literally directly before yours.

He is stating something different. He is stating that the wording they used can apply to the 70 without exaggeration which is different than what I said. Technically he is correct. Since using words like "interview" can simply mean asking a question. That is much different than going on record for a full statement. LOL. That's the problem with the entire article. It uses generalizations that can have open meaning to what it actually means by the alleged 70 people involved in making the story.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

If it hasn't been settled in the last 15 pages ..... Maybe time to turn the page......

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

He is stating something different. He is stating that the wording they used can apply to the 70 without exaggeration which is different than what I said. Technically he is correct. Since using words like "interview" can simply mean asking a question. That is much different than going on record for a full statement. LOL. That's the problem with the entire article. It uses generalizations that can have open meaning to what it actually means by the alleged 70 people involved in making the story.

Here’s his exact words:

The article states that 70 interviews “describe a toxic and sometimes hostile workplace under Sarver.

Explain to me how he’s not staying all 70 describe a toxic workplace please. It’s literally his words.

 

[Western Font]

No you’re misstating the article. If that’s what it said it would explicitly state that 70 different people made an allegation or corroboration. It does not state that. Does someone want to tell me again that people aren’t claiming the article states 70 people said bad things? Cuz here’s one in black and white.

I think I see the misunderstanding here. I believe Homes is stating the conclusion drawn from the investigation as a whole (with a scope of 70 interviews). This is a common way of presenting such information. But a copy editor could have recommended a rephrasing that more specifically says something like “drawn from 70 interviews” rather than having the interview be the subject of the sentence.

I’m sorry to keep going around with this, to you and anyone else who is bored.

 

[Covert Rain]

Here’s his exact words:

The article states that 70 interviews “describe a toxic and sometimes hostile workplace under Sarver.

Explain to me how he’s not staying all 70 describe a toxic workplace please. It’s literally his words.

“Interviews” is the key word. That’s the problem with the article. It generalizes the term. If I call and ask you one question like “Did you ever witness a toxic culture?” Is that really an interview?!?

“Interviews with more than 70 former and current Suns employees throughout Sarver's 17-year tenure describe a toxic and sometimes hostile workplace under Sarver. Some told ESPN that he has used racially insensitive…..”

That entire paragraph reads to me that it’s “some” not all. They use “sometime” and in the next sentence “some”. Nowhere did they say “all” or that the feeling was “universal”.

Is that subtle to manipulate the narrative? Possibly but using words like sometimes and some indicate to me that it might not have been said by everyone “interviewed”.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Here’s his exact words:

The article states that 70 interviews “describe a toxic and sometimes hostile workplace under Sarver.

Explain to me how he’s not staying all 70 describe a toxic workplace please. It’s literally his words.

And here is the thing, we don't know exactly what the 70 said. The author defines how the 70 described the workplace as toxic.

It could be that Joe Q. Sunsworker loves Sarver, but said that Sarver routinely makes dick and fart jokes, and the author believes that to be toxic.

 

[Hoop Head]

And here is the thing, we don't know exactly what the 70 said. The author defines how the 70 described the workplace as toxic.

It could be that Joe Q. Sunsworker loves Sarver, but said that Sarver routinely makes dick and fart jokes, and the author believes that to be toxic.

Did they say that? We don't know what the 70 said so claiming all 70 said it was a toxic work environment is false. Some of the 70 who interviewed said that but we don't know how many so repeating 70 over and over gives off a false impression of how many the interviewer spoke with actually condemned the work environment or Sarver. There shouldn't be a number attributed to how many.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Did they say that? We don't know what the 70 said so claiming all 70 said it was a toxic work environment is false. Some of the 70 who interviewed said that but we don't know how many so repeating 70 over and over gives off a false impression of how many the interviewer spoke with actually condemned the work environment or Sarver. There shouldn't be a number attributed to how many.

Exactly my point. And the fact that posters like krang keep inaccurately restating that as fact means the tactic worked. It convinced a ton of readers that 70 people described the worksite as toxic. That’s a world difference from 70 people were interviewed and some (no idea how many or how few) described it as toxic.

 

[Cheesebeef]

HOLY CRAP.

You guys are STILL doing this?!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

HOLY CRAP.

You guys are STILL doing this?!

I think we are almost done. I’ll let you know when you can click the thread again.

 

[Western Font]

“Interviews” is the key word. That’s the problem with the article. It generalizes the term. If I call and ask you one question like “Did you ever witness a toxic culture?” Is that really an interview?!?

“Interviews with more than 70 former and current Suns employees throughout Sarver's 17-year tenure describe a toxic and sometimes hostile workplace under Sarver. Some told ESPN that he has used racially insensitive…..”

That entire paragraph reads to me that it’s “some” not all. They use “sometime” and in the next sentence “some”. Nowhere did they say “all” or that the feeling was “universal”.

Is that subtle to manipulate the narrative? Possibly but using words like sometimes and some indicate to me that it might not have been said by everyone “interviewed”.

The more I consider it, I don’t think this is the result of a tactic, but an unintended consequence of needed copy editing. When I read the article it seemed totally obvious to me that the allegations came from a portion of the 70 interviews, though the number was unclear due to anonymity.

Also when journalists call someone for a comment they usually describe it that way and not as an interview. It’s possible that some of the 70 were brief comments but I would be surprised if the number were high. Journalists are easy targets but in my experience they face a tremendous amount a pressure from each other to maintain their reputations.

 

[Folster]

I didn't get to throw my 2 cents in on this. I think Sarver is more Michael Scott than Archie Bunker, but lacks the endearing qualities of either. He means well, but is awkward, arrogant, and offensive.

The fact is he put himself in this position with countless poor hires and constant micro-managing.

 

[SirStefan32]

I didn't get to throw my 2 cents in on this. I think Sarver is more Michael Scott than Archie Bunker, but lacks the endearing qualities of either. He means well, but is awkward, arrogant, and offensive.

The fact is he put himself in this position with countless poor hires and constant micro-managing.

I agree with this. I really think he is just an idiot.

 

[Mainstreet]

Deandre Ayton on the Robert Sarver allegations and the Jalen Rose comment.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[95pro]

I didn't get to throw my 2 cents in on this. I think Sarver is more Michael Scott than Archie Bunker, but lacks the endearing qualities of either. He means well, but is awkward, arrogant, and offensive.

The fact is he put himself in this position with countless poor hires and constant micro-managing.

Michael Scott was loved by his subordinates. They enjoyed working for him and were constantly one of the best branches.

 

[Folster]

Michael Scott was loved by his subordinates. They enjoyed working for him and were constantly one of the best branches.

Not in the early seasons. He only became more endearing because the showrunners and writers took his character in that direction in later seasons. He had countless awkward and offensive racial, sexual, homophobic, and misogynistic incidents that would have got any one canned.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Deandre Ayton on the Robert Sarver allegations and the Jalen Rose comment.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

I really WANT this kid to be great. He’s not a bad guy, seems always like a nice, big kid. He’s just got so much natural talent and I think he can be so much more than he is on the court that my frustration level spikes easy.

 

[95pro]

Not in the early seasons. He only became more endearing because the showrunners and writers took his character in that direction in later seasons. He had countless awkward and offensive racial, sexual, homophobic, and misogynistic incidents that would have got any one canned.

Oh yes I agree on that. He didn’t compare to Todd Packer though lol

 

[Cheesebeef]

If we’re making office comparisons, he’s more David Brent from the original Office than Michael Scott.

 

[TJ]

Deandre Ayton on the Robert Sarver allegations and the Jalen Rose comment.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Yeah, I call bullspit. Ayton isn’t that insulated from those comments, especially with his entourage and teammates

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yeah, I call bullspit. Ayton isn’t that insulated from those comments, especially with his entourage and teammates

Same but I think he’s smart to avoid the subject in the media.

 

[TJ]

Same but I think he’s smart to avoid the subject in the media.

Ayton’s no stranger to this level of distraction in the media, especially considering how well he handled the Schlabach hit job. Not worried about it sidetracking him in any way.

 

[Mainstreet]

I really WANT this kid to be great. He’s not a bad guy, seems always like a nice, big kid. He’s just got so much natural talent and I think he can be so much more than he is on the court that my frustration level spikes easy.

Ayton has a lot of endearing qualities. Maybe we just need to remain patient.