Freedom of speech
Brian
I posted two diaries "Reason for so many injuries", "Improving athletic performance", which were well received and generated a great amount of informed opinion from comments which people made. I emphasized the importance of having a cordial conversation even when we disagree.
My reason for taking the time to do this is because, as a professional, I know there are better ways to prevent injuries and increase athletic performance than what is being done in our current S&C program. Then I posted a third diary "Why our Strength and Conditioning program is failing" and I immediately received inaccurate negative comments from BiSB and his clones. I responded with patient, thoughtful, courteous replies.
Then BiSB made a comment about "Concern trolls gonna' troll", and the diary was removed. It can be viewed on Google as an "unpublished post". I polished and reposted the diary, and it was removed again. Why?
I've followed MGoBlog regularly. I'm not heavily invested in getting points, but I am truly concerned about the welfare of our team. What motivated me to speak up was a great diary by m1jjb00 "Analysis of football injuries in the Big Ten".
Arbitrarily removing thoughtful diaries that generate intelligent conversation does not lead to making MGoBlog a more substantial outlet for real news. Such censorship contributes to relegating this blog to the realm of inconsequential chatter. The direction this takes is your choice to make.
Peace
BIGBLUEWORLD
November 12th, 2014 at 2:12 AM ^
Their motivations are what they are. You may disagree or agree with what you think they are but question? Say it like it is - you disagree with what you think they are. No passive aggressive needed. Some of us may walk a thin line and get comments removed just as diaries are removed on occasion. We learn, adapt and then repost with the new and improved comment or diary or you start your own blog titled MgoSame Wait, why are we having this discussion - isn't this common sense?
November 11th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
The first was generally well received/interesting. The second, not so much. It was like you intentionally beat a dead horse while making completely unprovable accusations.
If you had a source or reference that told what the s&c program at UM is, that would be one thing. But you don't.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:32 PM ^
If you don't care about mgopoints, why are you bringing up a point? I mean, you wanted to be commended for your hard work and writing skills. We all do.
Someone else put it perfectly, write an email for an explanation. If you don't like it, go write it on Twitter and hashtag it. I'm sure there is someone who would agree with you.
PEACE,
MGoJohnStamos
November 11th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
Point of information: they were not well received. People violently disagreed with many of your claims, the vast majority of which were completely unsubstantiated. I'd humbly suggest that this is the reason for the deletions.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:06 PM ^
At what point should a post/diary be considered "not well received"? When 50% of the responses are in disagreement (perhaps violently so) or snarky? 75%? When the first poster says "this will end well" or posts popcorn.gif?
Or is the mod evaluation intended to be more qualitative and subjective, like, this discussion/idea/proposal is "below" a Michigan Man?
I've seen a post removed one week (due to a 50-50 split of support, along with seemingly constructive discussion) that was endorsed a couple weeks later simply due to a change in the wind of prevailing public opinion. It conveys a sense of inconsistency and groupthink.
But...as many here have suggested, this is Brian's world, and we're just squirrels tryin' to get a nut. Or, at least *I* am.
(Note: I take no issue with removal of a post/diary that wasn't well-constructed and/or substantiated.)
November 11th, 2014 at 2:17 PM ^
Generally, a well-written and reasoned post will stay up, as long as the take is within shouting distance of reasonableness. And it usually doesn't have much to do with "support" so much as with people thinking it is a reasonable topic of conversation. You can call it "group-think" if you want (many do), but stuff that is WAY outside the mainstream just leads to fights and retaliation and general pissed-offedness, which gets threads pulled anyway.
I pulled a couple of "Fire John Beilein" threads in the middle of the 2012-2013 season (yes, THAT season) because the opinions expressed were just stupid. Call me the thought police if you wish.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
To further it a little bit, in the last several weeks in particular, we've also left a fair number of threads which, while heavily downvoted, didn't cross lines necessarily or make strange claims or things like that. Particularly during football and hoops season, someone will inevitably write a board post which, while not expressing a popular viewpoint, expresses their point well enough and soundly enough that it gets left standing. There is indeed a large chasm between a mere unpopular viewpoint and diatribe.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^
First, a lot of the times a thread is taken down over "popular sentiment" is just saying people in the comments make a good case about why something shouldn't be a thread. Second, there are both seasonal/daily issues (a thread left up in June probably won't stay up on a game Saturday) and just the simple fact that individuals will see things differently. There's not a mod handbook and LSA, BiSB and I are going to come to different conclusions sometimes.
November 11th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
OK - I am going to say something serious for a change.
Yes this is Brians blog- there is no freedom of speech rights here.
Yes he and mods can take down whatever he wants.
No there is not a necessary reason for this (we are not running out of pixels)
But if the folks who run this blog want to criticize Dave Brandon and others for violating the values of the university then it is fair to ask whether this blog actually holds those standards for themselves. There could have been a warning or conversation with the diary dude- it would have been a more decent way to address concerns.
Hypocrisy is totally uncool.
November 11th, 2014 at 6:05 PM ^
Is your reply to me in particular or is it to a chain of mod comments?
I'm also a little vague on what standards were violated by a mod, not trying to dismiss your post out of hand, I think all of us welcome thoughtful feedback.
BiSB took down a diary he believed wasn't up to diary standards (I agree with him, FWIW) and posted a reason why in the mod sticky, the author put a similar post up with a freedom of speech tag and it was removed again, and then this thread happened. BIGBLUEWORLD can still post, he didn't have his points taken away or other material unpublished and BiSB didn't make a thread to ridicule him or anything else out of the ordinary. If every mod gave a warning or had a private discussion before taking down every post, this would be a full time gig and the board would be double and triple posts and snowflakes 24/7.
The general rule is to reply to his post in the mod sticky with some reasoning about why the mod's actions weren't correct and BiSB has a long history of being willing to show what his reasoning is and being clear about what the problem is and nothing he's done has been contrary to that.
November 11th, 2014 at 6:56 PM ^
It's uncommon but not unheard of for a user who demonstrates sustained jackassery over a protracted period of time to get the banhammer.
I've had comments of mine deleted (no posts or diaries) and regarded it as a lesson learned (and upon reflection thought it was the right thing for the mods to do). I didn't take it as a warning to conform to group think but rather a sign that something I'd written had crossed the line.
It's called being reasonable.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^
The (mostly rhetorical) point of my response being, popular reception of an OP probably shouldn't be the biggest factor in the determination of whether it's taken down. Which is not to say rabble-rousing and poorly-substantiated posts should be allowed to stand.
For the most part, I agree with the gut feeling of the mods.
November 11th, 2014 at 5:05 PM ^
Yeah...the gut feeling thing is why in the past when I've run message boards/forums I've laid out objective guidelines for what is/isn't acceptable.
The gut feeling thing is like Potter Stewart and "I know it when I see it" - an ambiguous standard that WILL (not might) be inconsistently applied per the biases of the judging party.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
Our team is experiencing a relatively high incidence of injuries. Their athletic perofrmance on the field is something we can all see and judge for ourselves.
This is an interesting topic of conversation. It is relevant to the welfare of our football players.
Why not utilize the combined knowledge of the people on MGoBlog to have a discussion about this subject?
Why not try to make a difference?
Peace
November 11th, 2014 at 1:47 PM ^
When will you stop saying "peace" at the end of your posts?
November 11th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^
Solution - We need Oregon's S&C facilities:
November 11th, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^
but as has been said, Diaries are held to a higher standard. Think of it like the difference between writing for the National Enquirer vs The Washington Post (not the best comparison but it serves my point regardless); posts in the diaries are held to a higher standard and require statistics, sources, something real from which conclusions may be drawn. Board posts can be about unsupported opinion (and frequently are).
November 11th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^
And as BISB pointed out, any given Diary takes up 20% of the Diaries front page.
Is what you are posting worth taking up 20% of the front page and knocking another Diary off the page to where it will likely never get read again?
November 11th, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^
You work in the field. The S&C staff isn't having the players do yoga. You don't think they're being trained right.
That pretty much sums up what you have posted 4 different times.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
...and a side of liberty cabbage while you're at it!
November 11th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
Why don't Americans know what freedom of speech really means and in what context it applies? That's what I want to know.
November 11th, 2014 at 6:49 PM ^
Couldn't tell you what the Bill of Rights is and you're wondering why they don't know what Freedom of Speech means?
November 11th, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
It seems as if you are aware that there is a freedom of speech, but may not be fully aware of what it means..
November 11th, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
Why is this a thread? If you're upset with Brian and the mods, write to Brian and the mods.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^
I understand our point. But, raising something in private hardly makes much of a point about the failure to raise concerns in public.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^
There is a permanent thread devoted to the topic, in which the mods painstakingly document their actions and the reasons therefore:
November 11th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
That sticky is "an ad-hoc way of tracking what threads and comments get removed. Mods that remove a thread should post the title here with a brief reason as to why the thread is gone."
1. The thread is almost exclusively posts by mods of what they deleted. Its a mod discussion, not a poster discussion.
2. It doesn't appear on the front page (unless you open up a category at top). I didn't even know it existed. It is a dark corner of this site.
3. It doesn't even contain the deleted threads. Even if people wanted to discuss in the sticky, they aren't able to access the topic of conversation.
4. It appears to be mainly just a bulliten board of warnings on what gets posts deleted. It is not about "discussing" why it happens.
That is not a public form to discuss things.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^
This place is private. There is no freedom of anything. There doesnt have to be.
It is run by an closely-knit group and having "open discussions" is not a primary concern of theirs. You must follow the Mgoblog group think or you will be marginalized or deleted.
The only way to survive here is to spend most waking hours checking the site (don't want to repost). You also need to use board-created lingo exclusively (yeah, that MOON game thing is really quite a nickname). You also don't want to disagree with a few popular die-hards who are always on here.
Its sad. Its not an open forum. Just a place to go along with the group.
It used to be a little different back in the day, but Brian got mad at a group of regulars and made the decision he was getting too old to put up with open dissension. That mindset has trickeled down to the regulars. Its too bad that banished group had to be such jerks, but we all pay for it now.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:54 PM ^
Disappointment in this site doesn't equate with feeling "upset" or "hurt" about it. Just sad to see how things "progressed." It's like seeing an old friend fall on hard times. I am not hurt or angry about it, just sympathetic.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:59 PM ^
Clearly you have some pent-up petulance in there.
I haven't seen much change in moderation. I've only seen changes in board population. There are an awful lot of whiny babies who think that the garbage they post is gospel, and thus they bitch and bitch and bitch and bitch when they get negged or have their rule-violating posts deleted. Some people interpret this as the mods getting tougher or "having an agenda" (what a laughable, meaningless talking point). In reality, it's just that the board denizens suck more.
November 11th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^
once. Now you went and did it again. Don't disappoint...third time's a charm!
November 11th, 2014 at 9:57 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
is dead on, unfortunately.
November 11th, 2014 at 3:06 PM ^
The difference is not the fault of the site itself and its keepers, but of it's members. No offense to newer folks on here (as most of you are just fine), but around the end of the RR era, we got a sudden surge of new folks who were just out to cause trouble. More order was certainly needed, the MGoBoard evolved accordingly: Over the top nonsense was not allowed, not following the written and unwritten rules was highly frowned upon, and comments over the line or nearing it were swiftly dealt with.
Additionally, the older members followed suit by hardcore self-policing, which in turn created an environment where over-dissenting and seemingly irrational opinions would be caved. When the point system went away, the mob mentality went to attacking overly dissenting posters through verbal means. Our current mods participated on the blog as posters during all of this and they now mod just as you would expect someone who went through that to do.
As the board has evolved and I've evolved myself as a poster along with it. My persona on here is nowhere near what it was a few years back, and I'm cool with that. No big deal, I feel like I can still participate without too many restrictions and the board provides me with plenty of entertainment still.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^
Stop whining.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^
USA. USA. USA.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^
Discussing the failures of our current S&C program is not about "whining".
It is about winning.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^
Perhaps, but you are certainly whining about your right to "freedom of speech" on somebody else's blog being violated.
November 11th, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^
November 14th, 2014 at 1:39 AM ^
doesn't stand for "Michigan"
It stands for "Meanies".
Yes, the mods are a bunch of meanie heads. They're the head meanies.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^
I have no idea whether Michigan's trainers are good, bad or indifferent, whether its weight-lifting practices are state of the art or lead to an injury state. I assume that the people in charge know about this stuff. And they take care of it.
Injuries happen in football. I don't think Michigan has experienced an inordinant amount. Every team in the conference has injuries, some to major players who were expected to have award-winning seasons.
How do you really judge this stuff? Whether or not there is a diary that outlines the reasons in a scientific way and offers valid evidence of issues or problems with Michigan's workout guy, i am not sure whether having had the opportunity to read it, I would be swayed one way or other. If you wanted to make a point about censorship it would have been better achieved in a publication that doesn't make its readers judge and jury over word published here, instead of appealing to the blog operator for a G or R rating.
The New York Mets who began an off-season training program at Michigan a year ago with a number of its players because of the program's college ties to the team's principal owner, Fred Wilpon and his family, are now moving this conditioning program established with Mike Barwis down to Florida. I assume this a good thing,and that many here thought Barwis was pretty good at building guys up. The Mets took advantage of the football trainging facilities last year to do some of their stuff. I guess it was helpful, but who knows. They didn't win 90 games like they were supposed to. Kind of like Michigan hasn't met its football expectations in recent years.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
dude, let it go.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^
this was a bad idea
November 11th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
I hear the freedom of speech in Bolivia is outstanding. You should go there.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^
face palm for the title. ugh.