[News] UPD: Coyotes renounce the rights to draft pick Mitchell Miller

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

I don't think it's ridiculous, I think with the internet group think is even more dangerous - it can accelerate it.

Why not both? Let's learn from both!

Of course there are lessons, but they need to be illustrated in a relevant way, not just trotted out as "Salem Witch Trials say hi." And you did follow up with more context, so I respect that.

Thing is, "group think" is an actual phenomenon. "Mob mentality" is one as well. But they're trotted out as buzzwords as though this is a clear example of it, with saying it's either obvious why it is, or lumping together and summarizing what has been a completely reasonable range of nuanced opinions, and suggesting they are all one or that they all must also feel the same about something else, based on the false premise that everyone in the "group" feels the same about this, or at very least that those who actually did fit the exact description of what comprises the mob had enough power on their own to override rational decision making. Relying on these buzzwords diminishes our ability to actually look critically at the response and treat individual responses as valid. By labelling this result as solely the effect of irrational thinking, we disregard the number of rational opinions and the amount of rational thinking that actually occurred.

Some people seem to believe that every time a significant change is made in light of negative reactions for the purposes of PR, "the mob" is at fault, or existed at all. But there are also plenty of situations where you don't make the change. These decisions aren't made because of "the mob" or in spite of it, they are made rationally, and when negative reactions are high enough to cause a shift like this, you can pretty much bet that a high percentage of those reactions were rational. But grouping them all together and calling it group think or the mob is no more rational.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course there are lessons, but they need to be illustrated in a relevant way, not just trotted out as "Salem Witch Trials say hi." And you did follow up with more context, so I respect that.

Thing is, "group think" is an actual phenomenon. "Mob mentality" is one as well. But they're trotted out as buzzwords as though this is a clear example of it, with saying it's either obvious why it is, or lumping together and summarizing what has been a completely reasonable range of nuanced opinions, and suggesting they are all one or that they all must also feel the same about something else, based on the false premise that everyone in the "group" feels the same about this, or at very least that those who actually did fit the exact description of what comprises the mob had enough power on their own to override rational decision making. Relying on these buzzwords diminishes our ability to actually look critically at the response and treat individual responses as valid. By labelling this result as solely the effect of irrational thinking, we disregard the number of rational opinions and the amount of rational thinking that actually occurred.

Some people seem to believe that every time a significant change is made in light of negative reactions for the purposes of PR, "the mob" is at fault, or existed at all. But there are also plenty of situations where you don't make the change. These decisions aren't made because of "the mob" or in spite of it, they are made rationally, and when negative reactions are high enough to cause a shift like this, you can pretty much bet that a high percentage of those reactions were rational. But grouping them all together and calling it group think or the mob is no more rational.

I think defining "mob mentality" is an interesting discussion.

Was this an example of it? Even if the answer is yes, that doesn't necessarily remove the nuanced conversation we've seen from some posters here on CP. I doubt the Coyotes were reading CP and reacting to the "mob".

But it might be fair to say that reactions on CP were relatively close to the broader "mob" that no doubt was flooding the Yotes social media and front office with complaints. Not to mention the media coverage, which in turn fuels that "mob".


While I agree that using those terms does ignore the nuance from the discussion, I'm not sure that they have to be mutually exclusive. The swift and decisive action from both the Yotes and UND could have been spurred on by the mob mentality of the general public but it doesn't necessarily mean that the Yotes didn't do their due diligence when making the decision. UND even specifically mentioned in their release that they'd spoken to all parties involved.

When something is burning hot like this, I don't see a problem with a quick and decisive reaction, as long as it is based on logic and not the "mob mentality".

The reason we don't like letting the mob make decisions is that they tend to be largely emotional, reactive and overly severe.

Which leads me to wonder whether the decision the Yotes made was logical? Reasonable? Not based emotion? I'd like to say so. On the other hand, we so often see companies make wild overreactions to online or media outrage that are short on details. Only later when the facts come out and the person's life is already ruined do we learn the nuance of the situation itself and then it is too late to make the right decision.

Based on what we know about this case so far, I see no reason to believe that the Yotes or UND reacted purely due to PR, public pressure and the mob, especially as it relates to making a reactive decision without doing their due diligence.

That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with their decision, only that I don't think it was driven solely by the mob blowback that they received. I mean, that's no doubt what brought it to their attention but thankfully it does not appear that they just listened to the mob and acted without investigating first.

I also think it is important to distinguish between mob mentality and mob justice. The former, I think, likely applied here. The latter, not so much, for reasons that I won't rehash.

Is it fair to say that some people on CP or social media wanted mob justice? Absolutely. Does that diminish the conversation? I don't know. I feel like the mob advocating for that type of justice diminished it by reacting that way in the first place. Where things break down is when people try to assign labels to others for disagreeing on the correct outcome. We should be able to evaluate the severity of the punishment (or proposed punishments as suggested by various people) without worrying about being labelled all kinds of awful things. It tends to devolve into virtue signalling and that's not constructive for anyone.


I kind of relate it to peaceful protests turning into riots. Does mob mentality apply there? For sure. Is it fair to say mob mentality took over? Again, often yes. Does that unfairly categorize the peaceful protesters who didn't riot? Almost certainly.

[Titan]

This article states he has been removed from the team but keeps his scholarship for the rest of the year as it was not related to an incident while he was at the school.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/spo...ND-hockey-team

[theinfinitejar]

[Stochansky]

Originally Posted by cannon7

We live in a world where the mother of a bullied child has herself bullied others. And this happened shortly after Miller was before a juvenile court. I'm not likening the two in the way you assert that I am. There are different degrees of severity here, one was a child and the other an adult etc.

The point is that if the mother of a bullied child can still make such a mistake after her son was bullied -- then maybe the world isn't as cut and dry as some would like it to be.



We'll have to disagree about that.

And I also agree that she should not be awarded the privilege of playing in the NHL and being compensated with millions of dollars. Likewise, Miller is free to pursue the level of compensation equivalent to the mother rod the bullied child. Don’t see what is difficult or confusing around any of this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CliffFletcher]

So are we as a society moving away from the principles of youth justice where the slate is more or less wiped clean on reaching adulthood? Or do we still support those principles, but reserve the license to cast them aside in cases where we feel especially outraged?

There are no doubt dozens of cases in Calgary alone in the last few years of minors being charged with worse behaviour than Miller, with little to no long-term consequences on their adult lives. Do we feel that’s a good thing, or a bad thing?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

The principles of youth justice never included wiping the slate clean. Miller's criminal record may be treated the same in Ohio as it would in Canada. I don't really know. As I have posted, this has precious little to do with criminal justice. One can support the Canadian system, as I do, and still think Miller is not a victim.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The principles of youth justice never included wiping the slate clean. Miller's criminal record may be treated the same in Ohio as it would in Canada. I don't really know. As I have posted, this has precious little to do with criminal justice. One can support the Canadian system, as I do, and still think Miller is not a victim.

You don’t have to think Miller is a victim to accept the principle that his offences as a youth shouldn’t have a serious effect on his life as an adult.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You don’t have to think Miller is a victim to accept the principle that his offences as a youth shouldn’t have a serious effect on his life as an adult.

True. And I don't think the consequences will necessarily have serious consequences to his life. He wasn't drafted to the NHL, along with thousands of other hopefuls. He has an opportunity to go to school, an option not open to many. He can still play. Or not play, up to him.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

True. And I don't think the consequences will necessarily have serious consequences to his life. He wasn't drafted to the NHL, along with thousands of other hopefuls. He has an opportunity to go to school, an option not open to many. He can still play. Or not play, up to him.

Yup. He still in is in a privileged position, with an opportunity to get an education.
Given the level torment his victim was subjected to, I have little doubt he will suffer ongoing consequences to his life.
But we are worried about the guy that was the cause of that torment?
His life isn't over. He may not be able to pursue the dream of an NHL career.
I'm good with that.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So are we as a society moving away from the principles of youth justice where the slate is more or less wiped clean on reaching adulthood? Or do we still support those principles, but reserve the license to cast them aside in cases where we feel especially outraged?

There are no doubt dozens of cases in Calgary alone in the last few years of minors being charged with worse behaviour than Miller, with little to no long-term consequences on their adult lives. Do we feel that’s a good thing, or a bad thing?

Good question, albeit when one chooses a career in Entertainment, they can expect greater scrutiny when in the public eye.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So are we as a society moving away from the principles of youth justice where the slate is more or less wiped clean on reaching adulthood? Or do we still support those principles, but reserve the license to cast them aside in cases where we feel especially outraged?

There are no doubt dozens of cases in Calgary alone in the last few years of minors being charged with worse behaviour than Miller, with little to no long-term consequences on their adult lives. Do we feel that’s a good thing, or a bad thing?

Another question to ask is why stop at court cases? Shouldn't every questionable thing a youth does get wiped clean as an adult?

NHL teams evaluate draft prospects on their character as under 18 year olds routinely. Based on these character evaluations they may decide to never draft certain prospects.

So for example, if a draft eligible routinely talked back to his coaches, came to team practices and meetings late, and got into physical altercations with teammates off the ice as a 16 year old, should NHL teams just ignore that under the principle of things being wiped clean as an adult?

Or is only the bad stuff that is court worthy should be kept secret?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So are we as a society moving away from the principles of youth justice where the slate is more or less wiped clean on reaching adulthood? Or do we still support those principles, but reserve the license to cast them aside in cases where we feel especially outraged?

There are no doubt dozens of cases in Calgary alone in the last few years of minors being charged with worse behaviour than Miller, with little to no long-term consequences on their adult lives. Do we feel that’s a good thing, or a bad thing?

Is Miller going to jail? Is he unable to obtain and education and get a job once he graduates?

He was seeking a job that less than 1% of people are able to obtain. He showed he had the physical ability to potentially get there but his horrendous actions as a kid-young adult have taken that away from him at this point in time.

I have zero doubt he could play professional hockey outside of the NHL if he so chooses. He has demonstrated he does not have the character to play in the NHL or be affiliated with a team at this time and most likely ever.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Is Miller going to jail? Is he unable to obtain and education and get a job once he graduates?

He was seeking a job that less than 1% of people are able to obtain. He showed he had the physical ability to potentially get there but his horrendous actions as a kid-young adult have taken that away from him at this point in time.

I have zero doubt he could play professional hockey outside of the NHL if he so chooses. He has demonstrated he does not have the character to play in the NHL or be affiliated with a team at this time and most likely ever.

Sean Avery says HI.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

Sean Avery says HI.

From where?

Hasn’t played in the league for almost a decade.

Bill Peters also says hi I suppose?

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You don’t have to think Miller is a victim to accept the principle that his offences as a youth shouldn’t have a serious effect on his life as an adult.

You’re right they shouldn’t. Acknowledge, learn, & grow from cleaning up the mistakes and the effect isn’t serious.

In fact it might even be an asset.

This was not the case.

This isn’t groupthink or mob mentality. It’s just the facts of the case.

Losing consequences of actions as a youth, a child or an adult doesn’t go away with time like your inability to purchase alcohol when you turn 18.

You get out what you put in.

If I feel sorry for Miller it is because he has parents that couldn’t properly help him when and how he needed it.

[Vinny01]

I think the lack of remorse and continued intimidation for 2 years after the incident that lead to charges occurred is what buried Miller here.

Had he reacted like his accomplice who delivered a tearful/heartfelt apology that was accepted by Meyers-Cruthers I don’t think it is at this point today.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So are we as a society moving away from the principles of youth justice where the slate is more or less wiped clean on reaching adulthood? Or do we still support those principles, but reserve the license to cast them aside in cases where we feel especially outraged?

There are no doubt dozens of cases in Calgary alone in the last few years of minors being charged with worse behaviour than Miller, with little to no long-term consequences on their adult lives. Do we feel that’s a good thing, or a bad thing?

I actually dont see this as being much different from the way many kids from small town Canada would be treated, I dont doubt there are thousands of kids that are quietly and without publicity sidelined from moving up the hockey ladder because everyone knows in Nowhereville Manitoba that they were a drunken scumbag that bullied or raped or some such thing and that information ends up being told to a scout, I mean that is literally what scouts are paid to find out

[TheoFleury]

Such a contentious issue considering the kid appears to be an unrepentant psychopath. I dont like internet justice generally but this kid needed a kick in the face and I think he got it. I dont feel sorry for him in the slightest.

[SeanCharles]

Looking like a death blow to his hockey career.

What options does he have?

Go play in Russia?