I don't think Brian would have deleted it if it was a post, but that was probably not diary worthy by the standards Brian set. This post should also NOT be a diary.
MGoBoard Censorship: A dissent
EDIT: sorry for the lack of paragraph breaks, I'm using a Mac with Safari, and somehow screwed it up. Also, in response to Sgt. Wolverine, who wrote that censorship is an overused term, I agree.
but thought that a post questioning the blog rules or the blog in general is "not just another post" as spelled out in the guide for diaries, and therefore was diary worthy (whether people agree with the POV is another matter altogether). A post questioning a decision by the blog also is "on topic", not "just a link to something else without original content," again as spelled out in the diary guide. But if Tim, Paul or Brian respond I'm sure they'll correct me, and I wouldn't disagree if it was moved.
Actually, Forum posts with a similar meme do get deleted as well.
i cant wait to see who our quarterback is going to be this year.
I'm sick of jerks who really do just gang up and negative anything you say after they don't agree with you one time.
I know I'll get negged for this and probably mocked and whatever else. I just think it's ridiculous to see Michigan fans ganging up on Michigan fans in a non-friendly way. Especially when there's no real argument or anything, just some people being dicks for the sake of being dicks.
For the most part on these boards it comes down to this: If you're not saying something inflammatory, and you say it relatively clearly and concisely, you'll get people to discuss without going insane. It's when people say things that are so ridiculous it's hard to tell if they're sarcastic or not, or when someone posts a legitimate opinion using TXT lingo that they get quashed.
Sometimes that's not the case, but most of the time it is.
Also, if you repost something from 10 minutes ago, that'll do it too.
this blog I was amazed at how negative some of the responses were from veterans who called people out for poor posts. I got nailed myself one time by GSimmons. I didn't like it at first, but over time I found that the policing does make the post quality better. I know I put more time and thought into what I write because of it and that started before the point system was in place.
Here is a serious piece of advice. Don't write things like what jerks and dicks there are on this blog when it is your first day on the blog. If you have been reading for a while and just signed up for an account, I think you will have seen that people get negged a little here and there but don't ever go into negative territory unless they say something that a large group of people find offensive or worthless. I didn't neg you by the way.
This isn't my first day.
I had quite a few months under a different name and was fine until I posted this. From the original post alone I went from about 30 points to like 12.
Then my first response to those which was just, "This isn't obsession, just pointing out something I was shown" got me well into the negatives.
I'm not going to lie, I was pissed after that and started calling people jerks and whatever else. But it's just absurd. People have points on this blog and think they're like higher class. Not all, but some. I'll stop now so I don't rant. But it's just stupid.
I was one of those responding to your OP re MSU. You counter-responded, and I replied that you had a point (in this case, that something informational about MSU is not nec an obsession.) fyi, I wasn't one of those who negged you. But it is clear to me that sometimes folks don't really "listen" to each other.
I think that in our collective desire as Michigan fans for the season to begin, nerves may be a bit frayed, and folks are taking offense where it isn't intended.
iirc, there have been a few instances when I wrote an annoying or offbase post. This hasn't really affected me greatly, but there has been some collateral damage (responders who received neg feedback.) My only advice is that if you are rebuked by the online community, go lick your wounds and lay low, instead of starting a flame war or, as you write, "getting pissed and calling people jerks." Doing that never ends well.
My 8 year old boy occasionally gets me to play some games with him on the PS2. I've noticed that there are occasions on this platform and others when you can vastly drain your "health" or "strength" absurdly quickly. If you want to survive, you have to withdraw and restrategize. This is probably a good strategy in blogging here as well.
What should I do when I'm sick of people referring to people being "mean" on message boards as "Hitler"?
Because there were so many comments like that? And they (it) were serious?
Maybe comment on how you think it was inappropriate if you really think it was inappropriate. Maybe go watch Inglourious Basterds. Not neg every comment posted by that person from then on out.
Just an idea.
I've negged you once, ever, and that was the single post in which you referred to people who disagreed with you as "Hitler", because that's beyond stupid.
I didn't call people who disagree with me "Hitler". I said people who are trying to police the boards like they are their own, acting like dictators. The ones who were following every comment of mine, negging even posts that just said things like, "Yeah I agree that's a good point."
It would be cool if you could read though. Or at least read things in context or what they're actually saying.
Gently encourage them to call people "Castro" instead?
Toss a coin...its six of one, a half dozen of another..
Tell them they remind you of Lou Holtz.
I'm going to guess this comment is at least partially directed at me given your last comment in the MSU thread under your old account. (I've been called many things in my life, and douchebag is among the least of them. I'm more appropriately an asshole.)
I agree that ganging up on someone for simple disagreement isn't appropriate, but I doubt that was the main reason for your negs. I suspect that some of your negs likely came as a result of MSU fatigue, which is less about disagreement and more about not being smart with your posts. (I did not neg you for that reason, fwiw.)
However, I strongly suspect that most of your negs came as a result of the tenor and presentation of your comments, rather than simple disagreement. Personally, I negged you on the Hitler comments because they were thoughtless. I made sure to express that to you. I also negged you on the blatant point grab afterwards. I felt that went without explanation given the history of blatant point grabbers. Those are the types of things that have lead to the vast majority of the negbangs I've seen. Not simple disagreement. That's the mistake diclemeg has yet to figure out.
Despite your invitation, I will not neg you on this comment.
I wouldn't really call it censorship, more like Brian being an editor of his site. That guy may have had a few good points, but in general it sounded like a drunken rant.
I just got done reading an article in the Washington Post about health care and I made the mistake of starting to read the comments...YIKES! My point being: We have great material to talk about around here and we should focus on good honest debate about college football.
I like the sig.
When I think of a dissent, I think of a finely-crafted research paper with charts and empirical evidence and snifters of brandy. This is just a big paragraph of farts.
since I like your posts. While I certainly have nothing over any other person on this blog, I like to think that I'm fairly well educated and write fairly well (despite, as I edited in, not doing paragraph breaks due to a screwup). I thought that was a serious post with a serious point to make, whether or not anyone agreed. You really thought it was poor?
No, dude, don't be hurt. I'd like to think that whatever popularity I hold on this site (and I appreciate your compliment, by the way) is precisely because I'm a ridiculous, boorish person. Every once in a while I will offer a serious opinion if the situation calls for it or if I feel strongly enough, but for the most part both I and everyone else on this blog seem content to read my non sequiturs and fart jokes. I think you're a level-headed guy and your complaints are valid; I just think you might have been better served emailing this directly to Brian, and even if you were compelled to make this a diary, you could have made it look snazzier. But instead of saying that, I called it a paragraph of farts. I also really wanted to say "snifter of brandy" at some point today and I couldn't find an appropriate place to put it.
My primary reason for coming to this site is information. That said it is nice when information is passed in a user friendly format and is grammatically correct. However, I get the feeling (don't have any hard facts) that information is withheld at times for fear of the mob.
I'm replying to you, but this is to pretty much everybody in this thread.
If "the mob" insults you or negs you or whatever because of some piece of "information" you provided, then maybe it's because, gee, it wasn't very good information.
I can't STAND it when everybody gets on some poster, and the poster gets upset and rants about how they're a victim, everybody is attacking them, or whatever.
If EVERYBODY is against you, maybe it's because you are WRONG.
And I should know I've been wrong a lot!
Not my point, I'm talking about information that turns into a Michael Knight.
The mob is fickle. Mistakes will be forgotten in a month.
jesus fucking christ
but no one should take any "attacks" personally. If you get upset with what someone on a message board say's then maybe you should be on one. I get negged all the time and dont care. I dont think less of those fans that negged me cause I dont care about those people. Besides i live in SOUTHERN OHIO and get waaaaayyyyyyyy worst treatment than I will ever get on here!
I'm so pissed off my reply about taking Dex to the prom was deleted.
Even though I hated this one I will still +1 you because damn... that made my morning.
Also the post after "Dex is dreamy" or something to that effect
Can we close MGoBoard for the day now? This is getting waaaay too meta for me.
"IMO a post discussing whether there is too much policing going on is perfectly legitimate."
Agreed, but this can be done without complaining about a particular incident involving the OP. Please try again.
"Censorship" is one of the most badly misused and overused words in the English language, and it's getting to the point where it doesn't really mean much anymore (sort of like "diversity"). Brian's pulling a diary he considers unacceptable isn't censorship; it's reasonable editing (particularly in the diary section, where expectations should be higher), something he's entitled to do (this isn't the public square; this is his house) -- and something I don't think he's done excessively to this point.
From wiki: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."
censorship laws only apply to the government. So unless Brian is part of the government with this site...
Censorship may have once been a useful term (as evidenced by the definition you posted), but now it's most popularly used as a incorrect defense by the shrill and the tactless. That's why I lament the use of the word censorship.
If it's not, then this is not censorship either. Brian is not a censor.
If you're going to go to a site to back up your claim, go to a professional and reputable one.
Some random dude (who could have been you) wrote that, it's hardly definitive.
For the record, I don't think it's censorship. According to Brian, it wasn't serving the purpose of the site, so he deleted it. Considering it's his site, his is the opinion that ultimately matters most.
OK, you certainly can criticize me for using wiki. But, you or anyone else did not provide another definition.
What is your source?
I looked up censor, and your definition is pretty much right. According to Merriam Webster:
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
But I wasn't disagreeing with your take on it. TECHNICALLY he is censoring. IMO censor has a negative connotation, hence the comments that it has to be done by something resembling The Man.
I think the word has taken to mean suppression of content in a 1984ish way. What Brian (and Paul, Tim, FA) do is edit the content so that the blog and the community can be focused in a positive direction. Content that detracts from the blog's quality gets cut.
So editing and censoring might have the same effect, the point people are making is that the reason behind the action is what is important. (I'm aware you only provided the def. and no judgement, I'm just throwing this all together in one post.)
Thanks, my post ("WRONG") was merely trying to dispel the idea that this was NOT censorship. By every definition I can find, it is.
I made no value judgment about whether the censorship was good or bad.
and in retrospect, since I hate overuse of words like that, should have used another.
I've read the technical writing of some average college writers and there is a surplus of bad grammar and shoddy spelling. While I never grade on grammatical criteria, I do inform my class that these errors are distracting at best and infuriating at worst. I believe that many of my students get their bad writing habits because they do much of their writing in the form of cell phone texts, instant messages, and informal e-mail. These media often lend themselves to abbreviations and other shorthand. Capitalization is ignored and punctuation becomes the tool for making cute smiley faces. To some point, this has become the standard for publishing writing on the internet. And this makes the educator in me weep.
However, there is also a common theme found on message boards, such as this one, where people who disagree often berate each other over this. It usually does not matter what sort of mistake was made. For example, a simple spelling mistake may get a reply along the lines of: "Obviously, you aren't a Michigan Man, because all Michigan Men can spell properly." Don't get me wrong, there is a difference between personal attacks and cutting debate. In some ways, the points are blind to this and can even encourage personal attacks, much in the same way margin of victory as a parameter in computer polls can encourage running up the score on an inferior opponent. Sadly, sitting behind a computer screen often makes us forget that we are speaking to and interacting with other people. And that makes the gentleman in me weep.
I'm just glad nobody has called me a crybaby!