META: What is the point?
What is the point of Mgopoints?
-status: identify posters
-quality vs trolls vs meh
-currency: medium of exchange
-exchange of what = value
-value = perceived value
-value = status (importance varies by user)
-value = powers (voting, threading, posting during disaster)
-voting = recognition of voice
-voting = enter the economy
Are we creating an economy or a community discussion?
we care
way more
than we should
but its
college football man
you know?
August 13th, 2010 at 6:11 AM ^
Well, I don't think the point is to make your posts in outline form either.
August 13th, 2010 at 8:19 AM ^
Totally worth the "exchange of value" to give you a +1 for that song.
August 13th, 2010 at 8:16 AM ^
Did you post this just for the point?
August 13th, 2010 at 8:42 AM ^
First rule: Don't talk about them.
/self-inflicted-neg
August 13th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^
That was rather poetic
August 13th, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^
See what I did there?
August 13th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
I always saw MGoPoints as being fun and kind of a rough measuring stick for the quality of content a person provides. If someone makes a good point or a good joke, +1. -1 to the jerks. Since MGoPoints were basically free though you were always free to vote based on your feelings. Once you got over 300 MGoPoints it didn't matter, because you could still post when Henri showed up.
The deal is I feel like the new voting system has created economic rules that are rough on posters will smaller points totals. I'm closing on 5k MGoPoints. If say I have a net change of -20 MGoPoints in a day because I get myself negged or spend them on a troll, big freaking deal. However for a poster sitting on 200 MGoPoints, that -20 is a much larger dong punch. So for a guy with say 200 points, there is an incentive not to vote at all and simply hope for +1s. Basically it creates a system where it is in the best interest of a lot of people not to vote if their goal to get a decent points total. They also now have the extra cognitive load of having to worry if they really want to spend on a point on something or not.
So I dislike this system because I remember last year when Henri first showed up and I was at ~70 MGoPoints. Suddenly I couldn't post for periods and that really stunk. I had to up my activity and scrounge around for quality posts until I got a decent ways over 300 and was immune to Henri. I hope Henri doesn't pop us this year, because I'll bad for the newer members who are fighting to get their points totals up, as these rules will only make it harder.
August 13th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
I really agree with this. I had a really rough week of work, missed all that is Michigan football for the most part. I came back to this site and was caught completely off guard. I can't say whether or not I like the changes (it's too early to tell) but I think the point system needs adjustments. This is like a weird social psych experiment or something. It's too early to tell, but it looks like there are less +1s from what I've seen so far today.
EDIT: I just realized an added advantage is that people will be more inclined to explain why they +1 or -1 someone.
August 13th, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^
Your reasons for hoping Henri the Otter of Ennui doesn't show up are somewhat divergent from mine...
August 13th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
I like Brian's rationale. I'm sure he'll tweak again if a "real" problem (as real as problem can be when dealing with... ahem... Mgopoints) is revealed
Although unfair to many, increasing the cost of voting makes rational voting more prevalent, instead of herd mentality and voting based on emotion. The latter two phenomena, IMO, were having a negative effect on the board, dragging it into a quagmire of hormones and reptilian brain activity.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
Negged for pretentiousness.
Even if it costs me I will neg a post like this every time.
"Herd mentality"? The points were instituted as a system of self-moderation... so... by their very nature they are going to reflect the thoughts and feelings of the group.
And, people are emotional creatures, get over it. Heralding rationality that is unaffected by emotion as some sort of virtue to aspire to is not only ridiculous in its hypocrisy but it also denies the very thing which makes us human... that we are both irrational and emotional creatures.
August 13th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^
Does that mean you herald irrationality?
August 14th, 2010 at 5:08 AM ^
Absolutely not.
I'm just saying that acting like all human thought and interaction should be *purely* rational and completely unemotional is ridiculous.
The reality is its always a mix of the two. That's part of what makes us human and so for one to put on airs and pretend like their way of thinking is purely rational when others are obscured and hindered by mere emotion is really pretentious.
Furthermore we're on a sports message board, lol, this isn't the debate team.
Should we strive for intelligence in our comments? Yes. I do. I think most here do. But to act like pure reason without emotion is something the community here should aspire to here is just silly... both in general human terms, and especially given the specific context of this board (sports)
I guess what I'm saying is reason and emotion do not preclude one another.
August 14th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^
Animals have emotion. Not that it matters, but rational thought (among a few other things) is what separates us from the rest of Kingdom Animalia, and so has more to do with being "human" than our evolved and conditioned brain-chemical responses to observed phenomena. Emotions are useful tools but need to be kept in moderation -- otherwise you get trapped in a death spiral of knee-jerk reactions and raging hormones, and end up like MLive.
If it's costly to neg a post, people are forced to be more tolerant of dissenting opinions. So, they will be more likely to only neg posts from real trolls or d-bags instead of just everyone who disagrees with the assumptions and opinions of the majority. I say it's a good thing -- keep the MGoBoard a cut above the rest.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^
Although unfair to many, increasing the cost of voting makes rational voting more prevalent, instead of herd mentality and voting based on emotion. The latter two phenomena, IMO, were having a negative effect on the board, dragging it into a quagmire of hormones and reptilian brain activity.
This. Now people are required to actually think or defend a viewpoint. God forbid. The initial institution of points was great because it allowed Brian et. al. to quickly find trolls and bust out the banhammer.
Now, however, people have begun to obsess about them and overuse them. I think, instead of engaging in discourse, people simply push an up or down button and are not forced to defend an opinion. And then the herd piles on. When a non-trolling post gets negged over a hundred times, there's problems.
August 14th, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
Now, however, people have begun to obsess about them and overuse them. I think, instead of engaging in discourse, people simply push an up or down button and are not forced to defend an opinion. And then the herd piles on. When a non-trolling post gets negged over a hundred times, there's problems.
I agree those are some of the most detrimental unintended consequences of the original point system. But I also guarantee the new changes will have their own unintended consequences, we just don't know what they are yet.
Personally, I wish they would scrap the whole point system altogether. I never thought it was very effective at keeping trolls off the board. If the mods see a thread or comment that is inappropriate, they can just delete it (they pretty much do that already). Eliminating the point system would at least put an end to all the arguing and obsessing over absolutely worthless points and let us all get back to arguing and obsessing over other far more important meaningless topics.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
August 13th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
At the 35-second mark, it sounds like the guy in the dark blue robe on the right (Anthony Quinn?), across from Lawrence, blows a loud fart. Or was that a camel?
August 13th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
The river only flows at discrete intervals, unfortunately.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
...if you hadn't been spurred to become a more active contributor, we all may have missed your saga and MGoBlog would be the worse for it. Perhaps this will spur more CRex quality postings from those that have been hesitant to post original content.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
I don't know man, I have a slew of points, and I don't generate any quality content.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
I agree. Not that you don't add quality of content, But that i've started maybe 3 threads. And in comments, anything I say would probably have been said by someone else, if I weren't on this thing 22/7. (a fella's gotta sleep.)
August 13th, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^
Also, for those (like me) who have been around for a while and have accrued some points, if you can't spend as much time here as you previously had, it makes it hard to keep your points with year old points dropping off. If I stay as busy as I am now, all my points will be gone in another year...
I just can't be here as much as I used to.
August 13th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^
I'd like to hear an argument for why up-voting should cost a point. I can get behind a point deduction for down-voting, as it will spare some unnecessary neg-bangs, but what's the incentive for a point deduction for up-votes? Less circle-jerking perhaps?
I prefer good content be recognized and rewarded, and I think requiring others to give up points to do so will inhibit that tendency.
August 14th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
The rationale presented was that some folks have set up a number of "sock puppet" accounts. Once they get each one to 20 points (the suffrage threshold), they use those accounts to upvote posts from their real account and build up point totals and exercise undue influence over the board.
Having upvotes cost a point would require greater maintenance of the sock puppet accounts, making them less common.
August 13th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
I just want to know how much time someone has to spend on MGoBlog to earn 10 or 20 THOUSAND points? Holy Crap!
August 13th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
...that's just freaking ridiculous!
August 13th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
I am guessing they work for Brian, as a second job.
/sarcasm
I would have to say it is because they are key contributors to this blog. They always seem to post quality content and are fair to most. I know myself, i appreciate the quality post's from MGoShoe and the rest of the older members.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
some days it is close to a part time job
FA and I are thinking of striking until we get health care
August 13th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
me too!
August 13th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
now if only we knew the name of the guy who runs this site
August 13th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
August 13th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
August 13th, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^
the "Donate Points" button?
August 13th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
I think this will keep the overactive negbangers, like the person who seemed to go through negbanging every post on many threads a couple of weeks ago, from thoughtlessly using the neg button. It will also have a negative effect on posbanging, but it is probably worth the trade-off.
I think the changes will produce a lot less movement in points totals, and make it harder for trolls to "gain traction." The "ten-day" rule will keep those with waaay too much time on their hands and enough points to lose from going back and negging every post a person has made for the last year, too.
Whatever one's opinion on the changes, I think it is safe to say that Brian put a lot of thought into them, and that they will help further his vision of what mgoblog should be. In other words, I'm "all in."
August 13th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
That could be achieved by making negs cost points but allowing posbangs to be free. Personally, I think that would be a more fair solution to the ~200-point types (ahem, cough, cough).
August 13th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
People sure talk about points a lot...
August 13th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
The decision to charge points when negging was brilliant, since I've thought for months that it was out of control at various times. When the most innocuous, noncontroversial, common-sense comments get negged constantly, something has to be done, and Brian & Co did it in a way that doesn't require a heavy-handed police state to enforce it.
I feel very different about imposing a cost to upvote. I agree with the OP's point—this is a community, not an economy, and the notion of charging for registering your approval—even if it involves a purely fictional medium of exchange—seems frankly a bit bizarre in principle. It's not going to affect the time I spend here, and since I don't care about accumulating points it doesn't truly matter in practical terms, but I don't understand the necessity of doing it. Why exact a cost for saying "I agree" or "you're freaking hilarious?"
August 13th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
I agree..and I just payed the 1 point cost
August 20th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
If you get negged, it is very telling.
If you get an up vote, it is very telling.
If you don't get awarded any points, it is very telling.
On a more serious note, I feel that my low standing will definately dissuade me from voting until I get some more "money" to spend. They will stay in the bank unless there is a great item I need to "purchase" them on.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
Maybe Brian changed things up to distract us from Justin Turner, NCAA meetings in Seattle, and endless speculation. He just couldn't take 3 more weeks of it, so he made some changes knowing we would all talk about that, and then he'll change it back closer to the UConn game.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
I honestly think this is going to dillute the quality of the board.
Here's why.
Originally when the MGoPoint system was initiated, Brian stated something to the effect that he instituted the system so the board could sort of self-moderate. It's a way of encouraging quality posts and a deterrent to shitty posting.
For the most part, it's worked well.
Now, however, it costs users points to in order to participate in the system and thus accomplish the goal the system was created for. It penalizes users for doing the very thing we're supposed to do (self-moderating by making use of the points) which renders the whole thing incoherent.
Now that it costs points to up or down vote, over time less people will do it. With less consequences for mediocre or bad posting, it will start to happen more and more, just watch. It won't happen overnight, but over time it will.
Plus, in all honesty, sometimes I would just upvote a post that I agreed with as a way of saying "I agree", without making a post that says "I agree", which is useless and just clutters up the board.... But now it's going to cost me a point to do that? WTF? Upvotes, in this way, functioned not only as a means of self-moderating, but a way of participating in the discussion when I didn't have something substantial of my own to add to it but wanted to say "amen" to whatever someone else said.... So, now it costs all of us if we want to participate in a conversation in that way. Don't like it at all.
Anyhow, I'm not a fan of the change. Please give me my old MGoBoard back.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
I totally agree with this. Even though I know that points don't matter, I won't be giving anyone a +1 or -1 anytime soon just because I know it affects me. It take a lot of the regulation out of the equation.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
Sorry, I wholeheartedly disagree. Despite losing a point, I find that keeping the troll-noise ratio down is 100% worth a point.
Even if I had like 30, it's still worth it.
(edit: full disclosure, those aren't my negs)
August 13th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
I wasn't saying no one will ever up or down vote.... in fact I've up and down voted a handful of posts since the change.... but.... it'll make upvoting and downvoting much less prevalent, I think, to a point where it diminishes the effectiveness of the system.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
Maizenbluedevil, I totally agree with your post. I'm banking my points, though, so sorry but I'm not going to upvote you. Instead I'm posting this substance-less message to point out that I totally agree with your post. In short, I agree.
(Okay I think you get the point)
August 13th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
Gave you a +1 for agreeing with you, as you stated. I just don't understand why people care so much about their Mgopoints when we all agree they mean nothing beyond the threshold to create new threads and hold off Henri when the board goes nuclear.
I've continued to neg- and posbang people the same as I did before even if it costs me points, because quite frankly Mgopoints mean nothing.
EDIT: I do think that neg/posbanging provides valuable feedback to posters and this feedback loop--rationally or not--has been diminished by the change.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
if the ratio of + and - was 1:1
however, given the fact people incessantly neg while contributing little, we were having problems with sockpuppets and pissy users throwing a tilt on the system. frankly you don't need to +1 someone, or -1 them, unless you feel there is merit to it. after seeing a rather innocuous opinion get -30, it would probably now only get -5. from a moderation standpoint, that allows us to see where a BIG problem exists and not just a stupid pile-on. what's more, needing people to know their point is agreed to is not essential. and if you do agree, you likely have something to contribute on the matter so why not say "i agree. in my opinion, the defense yada yada yada." forcing this ALSO prevents people from feeling they need their own topic on the matter.
as a balance, i'm a much bigger fan of the point system than the change in aesthetic.