MGoPoints - Benefits and Problems?

more good than harm. Like others have said it is disappointing to see a well worded and sincere post that goes against the popular stance here get neg banged. Even though I strongly disagree with someone calling for RR's ouster this minute, if they produce a well thought and calm post I will read and at least acknowledge their viewpoint. Deserved negbangs and meltdowns are quite fun, though. Just the volume of hilarious posts they can produce are worth every minute.

I have to admit, there is something nice about seeing someone write something completely asinine and then get neg banged. In the past, they could keep writing further responses with the deluded perception that they're right or that people in the community agree with them. Now, we've got visual, statistical proof that we don't agree. -41 points, or whatever.

I am a researcher myself, and I find the points here pretty fascinating - a few thoughts: They started out as a side note but have become their own incentive system which has spawned several normative institutions - due to the points a whole set of rules, and rules of thumb, have developed. And there are two point systems going on here - per individual and per post. Individual points have overarching importance in terms of credibility and legitimacy, but post points have more proximate influence. But of course post points can influence individual points and all that they entail. Then there is the anonymous decision to posbang or negbang, which is of course is related to individual points of the poster, as well as the substance of the post. An interesting aspect is that they might have a perverse effect once they get too high - once an individual gets above, say 10k points, he has little incentive to post according to the normative rules - he has so many points that it doesn't matter. He can be a jerk, and will be regarded as such, but as long as he posts something of substantive value here and there, he is accepted as a part of the community. Thus, the nature of posts from such a person might be different from a beginning poster. Ok, back to my own work.

The point system, in theory, is a good idea. It rewards "acceptable behavior," it helps cut down on redundancy, and it encourages people to think about what they are contributing. However, this is also where the system fails. Too many people are quick to judge that an entry must be unacceptable if they don't agree with it (or if someone with a lot of MGoPoints disagreed with it). A lot of good discussion is squelched early because the topic is controversial or it's taken out of context. If that first post gets down voted, there is almost nothing the OP can say in response that will prevent that post from also getting down voted. I don't have a solution to this. I don't think points should go away because I do agree that posters should be held accountable for their content. I do have a suggestion, though, that I think will help do away with some of the mindless down voting. We should be able to see the "voting details" of all entries and not just that of the OP. I'm not a fan of not being able to see who down voted a perfectly reasonable post. If we do away with all anonymity, maybe people will pay a little more attention to the content of the post. EDIT: I basically reiterated some of what GoBlueScott posted right before me. I do agree with raising the points before you can create a topic. New members may think that it's flawed but it will actually be for their own good. Not only will it give them more time to acclimate themselves to the mood of the masses, but more points with make them more credible. Right or wrong, members will often give more benefit of the doubt to those with higher MGoPoints. EDIT2: I also just saw that GOBLUE4EVR already opined on being able to see the voting for every entry. Therefore nothing I contributed was an original thought. My apologies to the Lemmings.

In the end, it's like Biggie said, "mo mgopoints mo problems."

I think that sometimes when someone posts an un-popular opinion that is well thought out that once someone else sees a negged post it begins a neg-alanche. So solution (just throwing this out there) don't have the -/+ total up at the bottom for everyone only have it up for the individual so that they know if they got negged or plussed and their points reflect it but that everyone can't see if a post is plussed or negged? Thoughts?

I think it has definitely gotten rid of the trolls - for the most part. Obviously they still exist but they are either negbanged into oblivion or they are removed by the mods. The only problem I see with them is that if you have a negative view of anything - ever - you are probably going to lose mgopoints because of it.

Nothing that hasn't been mentioned, but my two cents. -Points add a little bit of validity to posts in most cases. I'm assuming people here know not to trust my opinion on actually football strategy questions, but if someone else posts with an opinion and has a reasonable number of points, I'm more likely to take them seriously. -They make it easier to identify trolls. They're not perfect, as sometimes people get negged for just being of a different opinion, but you don't end in the negative hundreds without trying to be an idiot.

I like the mgopoints because of said comments above about self-policing, checking grammar before posting, so on and so forth. I also agree with the comments that say it adds to group think though. For these reasons I think maybe a few rules could be implemented to maybe help prevent this from happening to a degree. For one, I think maybe there should be an implementation for how much you can get neg’d or pos’d for a post, like +/-10 points. Another option could that if you have three or so -10 posts in one thread you can no longer post in that thread (to prevent trolling or someone too drunk from going off the deep end). I think you need to allow more than one post of -10 before cutting them off for the sake of argument so people can defend themselves though (so groupthink isn’t detrimental to someone posting). Another thing that is both good and bad is that for someone newer to posting (such as me), it makes me think out posts more. This clearly prevents trolling as someone would have to post quite a bit of quality content before going at it with trolling, but it could lead to any credibility I had being killed very quickly. There are probably flaws in my statement (such as if Magnus was a troll, then we would all be screwed), but they are just suggestions kind of thrown out there.

Reading through all of these comments clarified the value of MGoPoints for me. MGoBlog is an active community and MGoPoints provide a way for members to democratically shape the community. The use of Pos/Neg bangs train posters about what is acceptable. This system isn't perfect but it is better than a free-for-all like Mlive.