Have Your Posting Habits Changed Since the Introduction of MGoPoints and Voting?

Submitted by UMFootballCrazy on

Since we have now come to the conclusion that there is nothing to talk about, it is time to go Seinfeld at the blog and talk about nothing.  Here is my little bit of “nothing.” 

Have you noticed your posting habits changing because of the points system?  Perhaps I am just a hyper-competitive type, but I know where I rank in terms of "Users by mgopoints" [you know you have checked...be honest].  To put it in football terms that most can relate to here, I am a "Top 25" user by mgopoints.  My actual ranking is 21 [EDIT: currently 20th; EDIT: T-19th], and I have jumped two positions in the last couple of days.  I know this says something about me and I am pretty sure what it is...but one can only be so vulnerable in a post like this. 

For me, if I have a something to say, I now say it.  I used to pass over threads and keep my thoughts to myself and would be content to go months on the sidelines.  I am more willing now to invest a few seconds/minutes/hours in actually writing something to post in a Diary/Forum. Previously, after a quiescent period, I would then I would jump in and post up a storm for a couple of months before receding back into the shadows.  Usually my busiest posting period would be in my slow work period, in real estate sales that is the fall/winter. 

As I have noted my own habits changing, it seems to me [without empirical evidence] that there is a greater profusion of Forum posts and there is certainly more Diaries being posted [this one included], and less and less of them are about substantive football issues.  I will admit a little guilt in this regard, but have also been open to the advice of fellow mgobloggers in terms of putting my “Best by the Numbers” series in the Forum.  Do you get the sense that people have more incentive to post because they receive points for the post?  I sense that they do.  [By the time this is done it will be long enough for a Diary post…so…why not?] Posting has been incentivised and any time you offer incentives for a certain behaviour, the amount of that activity will increase.  Perhaps tighter standards [the top quartile of users by mgopoints can start threads] would control the profusion of off topic and repetitive topics, but that might further incentivise posting. 

On the other hand, perhaps all of this profusion of topic formation is good for Brian in that it increases the number of page views and thus his income.  Perhaps he is incentivised to allow posting to increase to a point where he reaches that critical mass/economies of scale point where any more profusion of topics decreases page counts?  Perhaps he needs to hand off Forum/Diary administrative duties to some others [self serving plug: top 10, 20, 25 users by mgopoints?].?

I am also a little more careful in posts.  Heaven forbid that I do a “BlueFront.”  I do also think that the point system and the voting system, as much as I dislike the anonymity and lack of specificity of down votes—that is, you often don’t know who is voting against what and why—has resulted in a greater degree of civility.   People seem to be watching their tongues a little bit, avoiding obviously inflammatory exchanges and in spite of my philosophical objections seems to be a success in the area of civility.

So what do you think?  There is really nothing else to talk about now.  We might as well turn in a do a little naval gazing.

Comments

wolverine1987

July 16th, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^

that the introduction of points was a "so what" moment for me. I confess that I thought "only a loser" would pay any attention at all to what points they had, or even worse, what number of points any other blogger had.

And I confess that when I dropped from around 9th to wherever I am now that I was annoyed. And I further confess that the other day I said to myself "how the fuck can Shock have 1000 points?" I confess I am sad.

UMFootballCrazy

July 16th, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^

I feel your pain...and I ask myself the same bloody question...WTF...how does he have 1018 points? By the way..I just bumped you out of the top 20 :-)

And further more...who gives Brian points? Does he give himself more points for posting on the main page?

ShockFX

July 16th, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^

I have no idea how I have 1000 points. I think that HTML howto sticky must have like 400 points or something, since you can't see the total +/- on the OP I have no idea what it has. Maybe Brian will start showing the +/- totals on OPs.

I haven't changed my habits since the point system came out. I've had a really slow month and a half at work though, leaving me more time to post though. I barely posted from January to May though, so who knows what will happen next month.

Additionally, I totally expected to lose points hardcore when the system went live. Posts like this somehow are +1, which surprised the hell out of me. It kind of proves you can say anything, including calling the blog owner, the top recruiting guy, and lolScoutTom names, and NOT get dinged if you A)write complete sentences and/or B)use Dumb and Dumber clips.

I generally only vote down if it's for comedy sake, like dropping bluefront to -523423 points. If something is -1, typically that's enough to make a point and anything worthy of -1 is already there before I see it anyway.

Alternatively, I have a stalker who likes my avatar or something. Who knows.

VAWolverine

July 16th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^

my posting habits have not changed; but now that I've accrued 20 points I've added that to my resume and every post is a publication. Academia is a great place to work!

DesHow21

July 16th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^

But you are ranked 21 because of your profusion of inane diaries (personal opinion, which is why I didnt post commnent on the diaries and try to attack you) . Just pointing it out now cuz you seem a little full of yourself.

I can also garner about 1000 points a day by putting stuff up like:

1. Players whose favorite number could be 9999
2. Players whose favorite number could be 9998

and so on.

This doesn't really mean anything and it isn't an indicator for me to trust the stuff you are putting out there.

I am not saying you are doing anything wrong here, just pointing out the stupidity of the system. If anything, I think it encourages people to post whatever the hell that pops into their heads without thinking if it really adds anything to the conversation.

Route66

July 16th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^

Is this an official word now?

BlueFront: (blu-frunt) Noun

Origin: 2009 July 13th, 2009

1. To write something that the masses will not agree with.
2. Not good
3. Receiving negative -559 points within 72hrs.

BlueFronted: (blu-frun-ted) Adj. [slang]

1. Beat up.

Ex: Johnny bluefronted Tommy after he found out what he did with his sister.

tom c

July 16th, 2009 at 5:01 PM ^

I didn't notice them til I got an email telling me I had achieved basic status. I'm posting more for two reasons. 1. I'm hurt and off work for a few weeks. 2. I'm not as intimidated by the smart kids as I once was. I do however try not to get a negative. I have no wish to compete with Bluefront.

Foote Fetish

July 16th, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^

I think the point incentive only really worked when I needed 20 points to start a discussion thread. Now that I'm able to do that, I don't really care so much about the points.

I imagine the increase in off-topic, inane posting has more to do with the fact that there's nothing else to talk about and nothing else to read. But I'm so desperate for some sort of Michigan football news that I still hang out here constantly.

And, of course, reading off-topic posting beats the alternative of actually doing work.

Cosmic Blue

July 16th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^

it's a sort of hobby of mine to view things economically - in terms of incentives and maximization of limited resources. basically even though this was about nothing, i enjoyed it

plus 1 pt for me!

Sandler For 3

July 16th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^

It has slightly. Like you I know post in some situations where I would have otherwise held my tongue or my opinion.

As for the worthless posts and people trying to get points, you all know who the good posters are. Now that there are a lot more comments on threads (many redundant) I have taken to identifying posters whos opinions I value, and then reading their comments. That's not to say I ignore everyone else, jsut that sometimes I skip over a few. On the flip side I have identified some posters (subconsciously) as so terrible that I MUST read their posts to LOL.

StephenRKass

July 16th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^

I post more now than I used to.

For an analogy, think of a classroom with a prof who encourages class participation. Some slackers never say a thing, and are virtually not there. Others wave their hands wildly, on just about every question raised. I don't want to be in either camp. I want a healthy amount of points, so I can weather a down arrow, but I don't want so many (200 or so,) that I've become an mgonerd.

It always was the case that if I had something to say, I'd say it. Now I'm more likely to give my two cents than I used to be.

I do like the general increase in civility. Although, I think that is too simplistic. There have been a few posts where there is definitely "group think" going on. What seems to happen is either the most vocal or the great majority decide what the "appropriate" view on a topic should be. Woe to those who post something from a different perspective. Two recent examples: RR & class/use of the F Bomb, and Wermer's departure. It seemed that the vast majority of readers fell in one camp on these issues, and scorn was heaped on any who begged to differ. I am much less likely to offer a differing opinion in response to a post, because I don't want to be slammed with a ton of down arrows.

I think that ideally, Brian has to find some way to allow unpopular yet valid points of view to be raised. I have no desire to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. But sometimes, contrarian and unorthodox views can prove very helpful. I'm thinking here of the big picture, the ideals which U of M supposedly stands for. At U of M, at least in the classroom, you should be able to argue for a position, even if it is unpopular. One of the side affects of the point system is to stifle and censure those who would bring unpopular views.

Here's an example. Say that J. Turner didn't pass his Ohio test, and had to sit out a year. I suspect that if someone had the temerity on this board to suggest that JT wasn't cut out to be at Michigan, that poster would be roundly criticized, reviled, and receive numerous down arrows. In this theoretical case, the point isn't whether or not JT should or should not be at Michigan, but whether or not the discussion can be held without negative repercussions.

I'll admit it: I'm an elitist. While I realize that the standards for football and basketball player are vastly different than for the general student body, I do not want someone with an IQ of 80 admitted just so he can be a monster on the line.

This is getting OT from the OP. But I think one of the flash points on this blog is between those who want to win at virtually all costs, and those who think there is a Michigan difference.

The other area I avoid now, as mentioned in other threads, is getting into any discussion having to do with the Tigers, Red Wings, or Pistons. To my way of thinking, this is a UofM blog, not a Detroit Pro Team blog, but I just avoid reading these, because I'm not a Detroit team homer.

Bleedin9Blue

July 16th, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^

I'd strongly agree with just about everything in this post.

It is definitely a risk to post something against the group think. Fortunately, I do believe that most posters here fairly civil and won't down vote you just because you have a different point of view IF (and only if) you give a lot of well thought out and pertinent reasons and examples for your point of view. People that down vote those types of posts will commonly feel the wrath that posters wish to bring down on the original poster are but unable to because his/her reasoning is sound enough to not merit a down vote. Those, the down voter of the original poster can see their MGoPoint total drop a lot more than what the original poster might have happen to them.

I do think that this is one of the more intelligent online communities that I've ever been an active part of so most of the time if you do have those good reasons for why you believe something, then you're probably in the majority. But that's not always true.

As for something being done to help the minority be able to voice their opinions without too much of a problem, I have two possible solutions.

1- Any post by a user can only be down voted to a certain [negative] number and no lower; it can be up voted to any number though.

Or...

2- Any user can only receive a certain number of down votes in a given amount of time before any down votes against them will not count against their MGoPoints total.

The first idea would ensure that any minority view could only hurt your point total so much. The flaw is that if someone really hates your opinion they could find other posts by you and down vote them. I'd hope that people on this blog aren't that vindictive though.

The second option would protect users voicing an unpopular opinion by allowing their posts to be down voted as much as people want, but their point total wouldn't be hurt quite as much.

For example, if I wrote a stupid, grammatically incorrect, post on how Michigan is a terrible place and OSU is the greatest university in the world, I'd probably be down voted quite a bit. The post could be at negative 50 within 30 minutes. But (I'm just using arbitrary numbers so don't latch on to them) since it all happened within 30 minutes, I'd only lose 20 points because that's the maximum amount of points that you can lose in a half hour (the time limit would be rolling, not a reset every x number of minutes type thing). That could work because posts tend to get forgotten once they're off the front of the diaries or board and thus the user wouldn't necessarily feel the complete wrath of the community. Again, there are obvious flaws in this plan, but at least it helps protect the little guy.

And I too generally think of this as a Michigan blog first and foremost and thus don't participate in the "OT" stuff as much. That's also because I'm less knowledgeable about the "OT" stuff as compared to the Michigan stuff.

I do wish that Brian would give a definitive answer on what belongs on the diaries and what doesn't. There's always a lot of debate about that sort of thing (including in this diary) and if we had some rules, that might help us keep some order.

ShockFX

July 16th, 2009 at 5:54 PM ^

"I suspect that if someone had the temerity on this board to suggest that JT wasn't cut out to be at Michigan, that poster would be roundly criticized, reviled, and receive numerous down arrows."

That's not temerity, that's audacity. No one had a problem with him coming to Michigan when they knew his GPA (3.7 or something) or was lauding his class and composure, or his desire to play at Michigan. It would only be after the fact, when he didn't(at least the first time) pass a test(that was ridiculed, even by Brian, as being the equivalent of proving opposable thumbs), that people would start to question if he was cut out for Michigan. It's bullshit rationalization. If he passes by 1 point, this never happens. If he fails by 1 point, people start meta-criticizing a kid they've never met in order to justify their own expectations and feelings about Michigan and what it owes them. And you know what? That's just fucking pathetic.

"I'll admit it: I'm an elitist. While I realize that the standards for football and basketball player are vastly different than for the general student body, I do not want someone with an IQ of 80 admitted just so he can be a monster on the line."

Would you agree that the purpose of a university is to prepare kids for their chosen careers, and as such the university has a vested interest in admitting the best of the best students in their chosen field? Is Marques Slocum better prepared for his life by being at Michigan? Or by being out of football? Isn't the mission of a university to grow young adults as people and prepare them for their careers?

We're talking about athletes in the top 1% of their field, something that vast majority of people NEVER accomplish. Just because their accomplishments don't meet your standard of having a big number(IQ/ACT/SAT/etc) next their name doesn't give you the right to judge their value to the school.

StephenRKass

July 16th, 2009 at 6:39 PM ^

"The point isn't whether or not JT should or should not be at Michigan, but whether or not the discussion can be held without negative repercussions."

I want JT at Michigan. I'm glad he qualified. My original point was whether or not the discussion can be held.

Re: JT, GPA, and scores: there are too many instances of GPA's being rigged. A fellow UM grad who taught HS in Detroit shared the extreme pressure he was under from the Football coach to keep kids eligible by giving them decent grades. Test Scores give an independent verification or correlation that the GPA is somewhat accurate. Re: the Ohio test, I never read the threads or links on what is actually on the test, so in that regard, among others, I'm ignorant.

"I'll admit it: I'm an elitist. While I realize that the standards for football and basketball player are vastly different than for the general student body, I do not want someone with an IQ of 80 admitted just so he can be a monster on the line."

I never said in my OP that athletes need to match the standards for the general student body. As said above, I realize and accept that standards are different for athletes. The question is how much different. According to a cursory check on the Internet, an IQ of 80 is "borderline deficient." 90-110 is average or normal. Assuming that the average student at Michigan is superior to very superior, I'm completely fine with athletes having "average" intelligence. But borderline deficient is too much of a variance for me. I'm probably naive, but I'm just being honest on my preferences.

As I said, "I think one of the flash points on this blog is between those who want to win at virtually all costs, and those who think there is a Michigan difference." I happen to suspect that your thoughts are in the majority. The whole point in my original response is whether or not I can voice my opinion, and argue for it, without getting a ton of down arrows.

ShockFX

July 16th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^

"I want JT at Michigan. I'm glad he qualified. My original point was whether or not the discussion can be held."

The discussion should have occurred months if it was to ever occur. Whether or not he should be at Michigan, in addition to being something that's not our place to judge, shouldn't only be up for discussion AFTER it's clear he's not qualified. The discussion will be a swamp of retractment, revisionist history, and hypocrisy. No thanks.

"Assuming that the average student at Michigan is superior to very superior..."
Lol.

"But borderline deficient is too much of a variance for me. I'm probably naive, but I'm just being honest on my preferences."

You're athletic skills are borderline deficient relative to his. So he's not going to teach poetry classes, and you're not going to be in the NFL. Yet both of you can contribute positively to the University of Michigan. What's the problem again?

"I happen to suspect that your thoughts are in the majority."

Actually, I'm in the "let's not delude ourselves into believing Michigan Football is THAT different from other schools, all while conveniently ignoring Bball in the 90s, Woodson getting improper agent benefits, Larry Harrison, the nice new cars the players drive on campus, etc." group. Our admission standards for athletes aren't Stanford or Duke, but they also aren't Mississippi or USF. Actually, they are the same as Mississippi, do you qualify according to the NCAA clearinghouse. Michigan typically doesn't recruit athletes they don't think will qualify, where as some schools recruit like 32 players, then let qualifying work itself out.

"The whole point in my original response is whether or not I can voice my opinion, and argue for it, without getting a ton of down arrows."

You can voice your opinion, but if it's not based in logic, is unreadable/incoherent/batshit insane, or if it's arrogantly stupid, you will probably get down arrows.

StephenRKass

July 16th, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^

Will attempt to be brief. Too easy to write posts that elicit "tl-dr."

1) I'm actually happy to have this dialogue. We can agree to disagree, and it appears that so far, neither us have been greatly negged. My issue, going to the OP, is that there needs to be the opp. to disagree in posts. If someone who disagrees with you is flamed w/ neg points, there is a severe disincentive to engage in debate.

2) I don't know what else to say about JT. Obviously, he's a great FB player. I'd have to be an idiot not to want him to qualify and be on the team. Yes, it's the staff's responsibility to gauge who is qualified to be a "Michigan Man." Also agree w/ you that the discussion should occur prior to this point, really, prior to recruitment.

3) Yes, I want there to be a Michigan difference. Maybe I am delusional, but that's my delusion. This is why I'm so thrilled with the current status of the Basketball program, and what Beilein is doing, and how he's recruiting. I'm not proud of the Frieder and Fisher era, nor improper agent benefits, Harrison, etc. If we are just like Memphis, and Louisville, and Pitino, and Saban, I'm not a happy camper. I'd rather err towards being like Stanford and Duke than to be like Alabama and UCF et. al.

4) You can have the last word, and win, if you wish. I'm done with this thread.

mejunglechop

July 17th, 2009 at 3:20 AM ^

"You're athletic skills are borderline deficient relative to his. So he's not going to teach poetry classes, and you're not going to be in the NFL. Yet both of you can contribute positively to the University of Michigan. What's the problem again?"

The problem is that UM is an academic institution first. The further we bend in our admissions standards for athletes the more we compromise that principle.

To look at a kid who fails to qualify and say he doesn't belong at Michigan (right now) doesn't imply revisionism at all. If someone can't qualify by the NCAA minimum standards he almost certainly doesn't yet have the academic skills to survive at Michigan.

ShockFX

July 17th, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^

Neither can athletes. Additionally, music majors don't have the same barrier to a career in music like football players do to the NFL. The NCAA functions as the NFL's minor league. If you want to play in the NFL, you pretty much HAVE to play college football of some kind. And if you happen to be an excellent athlete but can't handle college for whatever reason, you're effectively locked out.

mejunglechop

July 17th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^

Athletes actually can, I was wrong earlier- that's exactly a minimum on the NCAAs sliding scale. I'm sure a musician couldn't get in with that, but that's not the point.

Are we compromising our academic mission by letting in great musicians who may not be great students? Slightly, yes. But the point I was making is that there is a limit to how much we will bend in regard to their numbers. And even to the extent we do compromise our academics by admitting these kids it is to fulfill another explicit goal of the university's mission statement.

Football can only be read as part of the missions statement by broadly interpreting the vaguest of platitudes. Even still, I'm resigned to the fact that we let in athletes with the minimum NCAA standards. My beef with you, Shock, is that you don't even see a kid's failure to reach the NCAA minimum standards as proof that he doesn't belong at Michigan. You write, "Whether or not he should be at Michigan, in addition to being something that's not our place to judge, shouldn't only be up for discussion AFTER it's clear he's not qualified." In other words the fact that he couldn't reach the NCAA minimum requirements isn't enough to determine whether or not he belongs at Michigan.

chitownblue2

July 17th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^

He wasn't making the point that "the fact that he couldn't reach the NCAA minimum requirements isn't enough to determine whether or not he belongs at Michigan." He was saying that people who threw their arms up in outrage and abandoned Turner would be hypocrites, because nobody had an issue lauding his 3.7 GPA or his leadership skills prior to learning that information.

mejunglechop

July 17th, 2009 at 8:04 PM ^

I've read and re-read Shock's comments. While what I said wasn't his conclusion, it is still necessary to his argument. I don't know JT Turner or his situation personally so I don't want to comment on his situation in particular other than to say if he can't qualify he probably can't handle a UM courseload.

ShockFX

July 17th, 2009 at 5:22 PM ^

Athletes actually can, I was wrong earlier- that's exactly a minimum on the NCAAs sliding scale. I'm sure a musician couldn't get in with that, but that's not the point.

You have absolutely ZERO proof of this.

Are we compromising our academic mission by letting in great musicians who may not be great students? Slightly, yes.

Yeah, I whore myself out for money, but I charge a lot so it's not that bad.

But the point I was making is that there is a limit to how much we will bend in regard to their numbers.

This limit(if it exists for musicians) is arbitrary just like for athletes.

And even to the extent we do compromise our academics by admitting these kids it is to fulfill another explicit goal of the university's mission statement. Football can only be read as part of the missions statement by broadly interpreting the vaguest of platitudes.

While athletics may not be explicitly stated in the mission statement, actions speak louder than written words.

Even still, I'm resigned to the fact that we let in athletes with the minimum NCAA standards.

Does this bother you when you watch Michigan football teams? Didn't think so. And if it does, then you should either A) Stop supporting something if it bothers you so much or B) Try and change it.

My beef with you, Shock, is that you don't even see a kid's failure to reach the NCAA minimum standards as proof that he doesn't belong at Michigan.

First, you've already stated that anyone under normal Michigan standards does not belong, but you are "resigned to this fact that we let in athletes with the minimum NCAA standards". So by your logic, I'm at fault for not using an arbitrary standard to determine if someone "belongs", but you're not at fault using two different standards? You conveniently use your higher standard to rationalize your intellectual superiority and brand the athlete a second class university member, THEN you use the lower NCAA standard to defend the right of an athlete to belong at Michigan.

Simply put, I'm not capable of the mental gymnastics required to rationalize how a star football player "belongs" if he has a 19 on his ACT, but not if he has a 18, and then SPECIFICALLY APPLY THIS TO MICHIGAN as if Michigan is any different from 99% of the other big athletic universities.

You write, "Whether or not he should be at Michigan, in addition to being something that's not our place to judge, shouldn't only be up for discussion AFTER it's clear he's not qualified." In other words the fact that he couldn't reach the NCAA minimum requirements isn't enough to determine whether or not he belongs at Michigan.

Chitown addressed this already.

mejunglechop

July 17th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^

Woah woah woah. Talk about leaps in logic! Are the NCAA minimum standards arbitrary? To some degree they have to be, but I wasn't there when they came up with them and it's quite a leap to say they pulled them out of thin air. Even if they are to a degree arbitrary, the alternatives are either having a better cutoff put in place, which may be welcome, or having no cutoff at all which would water down the academic rigor of schools and/or be an invitation for academic fraud.

Secondly, I would prefer if Michigan had higher academic standards for its athletes. But let's be realistic, I'm a non-descript junior in LSA, I'm not a "student leader" on campus, my parents don't have gazillions of dollars and didn't go to Michigan, what makes you think I have any chance of getting this changed? So I'm resigned to the status quo.

Why should Michigan be different? Well it wouldn't be that different if we were to apply, at least, higher standards for our athletes. Plenty of other more academically prestigious schools already do it. It's not really a Michigan specific argument, but I'm sure it takes a lot more to survive academically at a school like Michigan than it does at USF.

Blue in Yarmouth

July 17th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^

that I never made it to the NFL, is it a bad thing that something that is considered the "minor league" for the NFL has high standards (academic as well as athletic)? In life there are rules we must follow or suffer reprecussions. If you break the law you go to jail. If you speed you get a ticket. If you don't do well enough in school you can't go to university.

If I always wanted to be a Doctor and I trained my whole life by disecting things and doing very good in all my biology classes but was terrible in everything else should I still get into medical school? Biology would be the "minor league" of medicine and I can't get to the "big leagues" without going to university so why should I be left out simply because I can't write a proper paragraph?

I would not begrudge any university not accepting a STUDENT-athlete based on their marks. Perhaps asking a person who wants to make $1,000,000.00+ a year to do well in school isn't that big a deal. Universities are academic institutions and it is their job to educate, not produce professional athletes from what I know about them.

In football, like any profession there has to be a means by which you select a person for a job. I mean honestly, who wouldn't want to make millions playing a game they love? Why shouldn't academics come in to it especially when you are talking about a university? Are we being serious here?

Blue Durham

July 16th, 2009 at 8:22 PM ^

on this one.

The purpose of a university is not really "to prepare kids for chosen careers" as this is not what is reflected in UM's mission statement. The university does not have a vocational school mission (and is much more than a vocational school, I think), even though the vast majority of the students attending have career/employment motives as their primary consideration for attending.

Regarding your last paragraph, if being in the top 1% in a student's chosen field (in this case football) was the only consideration, why have minimum academic standards for the incoming athletes? What about the Ivies and their policy the last 60 years regarding athletes? Or is it right that UM (or universities as a whole) should have as their primary focus, more academic (and the arts) fields, as reflected in UM's mission statement?

Brian

July 16th, 2009 at 9:27 PM ^

Just one dissension: I don't have a problem with that particular diary you reference getting hammered because it was crappy content. It wasn't well written, it was confrontational and annoying, and so forth and so on. If someone put together a serious post that was pessimistic and it got hammered I'd see that as a problem, but that was not what happened there.

StephenRKass

July 17th, 2009 at 12:14 AM ^

I figured you might read this diary & thread, because it has to be tricky how to manage the point system. Regarding your dissent, I hate it when an argument might have merit, but it can't be easily discerned because the post/diary is poorly written, illogical, long-winded, confrontational, etc. Actually, I would go so far as to say that both the diary re RR & his possible use of F-bombs, and the board post re Wermers' transfer, were looking for a rise and a response, and were confrontational and annoying. Your pupils must get stuck from the amount of times you roll your eyes at various posts seeking to do this.

Speaking of the desire for rise and response, this is actually the closest thing to my achilles heel and temptation on this blog. I don't care to be at the top of the list in points . . . anyone who has enough time and writes enough posts with "+1" responses can rack up points easily enough. But to write a diary or a post that garners 100 plus responses, let alone hits -- now that's something it would be easy to find beguiling.

There's something I'd love, but which you can't possibly do consistently because of time constraints and the need for you to regularly generate good content. (When I think of mgoblog, the vision of the monster plant in the movie "Little Shop of Horrors" comes to mind, with its insatiable cry to "feed me." You'll never be able to feed the mgobeast enough. I digress.) Nonetheless, it would be fascinating for you to be the "puppet master," manipulating point totals like the wizard behind the curtain in Oz, when you feel it is justified, negative arrows be damned. Brian as "mgoGod."

Bleedin9Blue

July 16th, 2009 at 5:31 PM ^

I readily admit that the points have changed how I post. I used to post very infrequently and only when I had something lengthy to say. Now, I'm much more prone to post when I have a suitably strong opinion on anything on the board or diaries.

That isn't to say that I go around posting "+1" to everyone that I agree with. If you look at my posting history, the vast majority of my posts are substantially longer than the average post. That's partially because I'm pretty long-winded and wordy (and I like to hear myself talk).

The points have made posting into a competition. And I must try to win or at least beat as many other people as possible. I'm not close to the top 25 but I am moving up in terms of what page I'm on. And that is because of the point system.

I'd like to think that the points have just given me that small push that I needed to actually start contributing here rather than just taking. Hopefully my contributions are worthwhile. I try to only post when I think that they will be (this post, however, may actually be the exception to that rule).

Yinka Double Dare

July 16th, 2009 at 5:36 PM ^

I think I still post the same amount of smart-ass or snarky comments that I used to. Kinda hard to break the habit. But if posting snarky comments on the intarwebs is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Joe

July 16th, 2009 at 6:16 PM ^

No... I still am a minimal poster on here. Even back in the haloscan days, I didn't post too much. I do like the concept of having a point system.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

July 16th, 2009 at 6:53 PM ^

I don't think my posting habits have changed. But before the points system was introduced, I never used to up-check or down-check people's posts. Now I do it all the time, sometimes.