Meta: comment point bug
I think the solution to these issues is just raising the level at which one can moderate through the point system. 100 pts is not enough for someone to prove themselves as a quality poster.
I don't think it's just the short term posters who act on their emotions rather than how good a post is or not. Points don't make you a better poster or person. Just prolific. Or good at funny cat pics. (I mean, look at me!).
The whole thing is too complicated in any regard, but the biggest problem is the first person who posts something gets to label the post, rather than the majority. I mean, you could have a post "5", and be labeled "trolling", if I'm understanding it all correctly (which I may not be...like I said, it's way too complicated for just a posting board. I'm nerdy, but man, does everything have to be a computer programming session?!). Whereas with just points, if someone negged someone because they hate you, but 20 other people plussed because it was a great post, then it still looked good overall. (Not that if 20 people hated you you weren't in trouble, but that's another story). Now something gets these goofy, not really descriptive labels, and it's by a race who can post first.
Which means I guess aamichfan will be the one who gets to label everybody, because that cat is fast with a reply!
But really, we haven't even gotten the basics of the site up and working, and there's changes being installed? I don't know, since last summers "upgrades" all the changes seem to be neutral or negatives. The only improvement was how the posts are colored/readable now, which just basically changes it back to the readability level we had BEFORE last summers changes.
Not my site. Just my view on how there seems to be change for the sake of change.
I will never neg you based on your handle, or based on the fact that I may not happen to like you because of your previous posts.
I will never neg you because you once said something with which I disagree.
I will always distinguish between and separate you from your posts.
Therefore, I will always evaluate the quality of your posts based on your actual posts themselves and not based on the fact that it was you who posted them.
From now on, you will be known as Sir WatersDemos of MGoNation.
Haha, cheers sir.
I'm afraid my ad hominem detractors won't agree.
Of course, the vows are principly a response to "ad hominem detractor-ism" as such.
I am actually guilty of this in reverse. There are some posters I just like quite a bit, so I guess I'm predisposed to liking things they say, even if not particularly valuable.
The only people I "blacklist" or whatever term you want to use are the people who say things that are way out of line. When you start using (and not in a bad joke kind of way) racist or sexist slurs or something of that nature, you deserve for it to follow you.
I actually like some of the people I consistently disagree with, michgoblue and I hardly see eye to eye on everything, but I like reading what he writes because it's well thought out and it's good to keep up with disagreeing viewpoints.
So in way too many words, I agree in principle with what you've said, but I get away from it and I don't think a little deviation is such a bad thing.
The vows are a reaction primarily to negs and dismissal based upon who one is rather than what one said.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt and listening to them on the same basis is the opposite of dismissal. So I'm all for reverse ad hominem-ism. It can only serve to encourage listening, dialogue, and exchange of ideas. Of course, its opposite (which I'm warring against) serves only to shut all these things down.
You and BD often come in pairs, and you're both smart. Do you know each other?
Haha, yea I guess there is that reputation around here. BD and I do not know each other; rather, we are just fans of each others posts. Basically I interact with people I enjoy talking to (which, duh) and he seems like a good guy from what I've seen on here. There are a few others, like yourself, that I'll address comments to in threads because I know it'll be a good discussion, but it always seems like I do that with BD more.
Totally agree with the ad-hominem attack business. There's too much of it that goes on here. Besides using big words and throwing water[s] on the fire every now and then, I can't think of a reason anyone would have to follow you around negging (and even that is some terrible rational to begin with).
Wolverine1987, who, regrettably, I don't see very often anymore (great poster - funny and thoughtful), once had a "posting while Sparty" theory.
To the extent this is true, I accept it. However much I get to "know" a lot of you, it's still a rival's board, and I try to play by the rules (with varying degrees of success - e.g., obviously I don't have the deep-seated animus toward Boren that most of you have, so he appears to me to be just a college kid, and college kids do and say stupid things, and this isn't the same thing as violating a federal treason law).
EDIT: Also - I didn't say anything at the time, but I'm probably going to steal and pass off as my own BD's "boom realpolitik'd" line. That was some good shit. Let him know when you see him.
You gave me credit.
Not all lots reproduce you know. I was trying to be precise at the time.
I don't recall off hand what you said that I was responding to, but man it was warranted.
Wow this convo got pretty in depth. I'm glad the use of the word 'realpolitik' was appreciated and understood by the readership of this blog.
I don't think there's a question that between you, me and WD, realpolitik would get mentioned without us understanding the reference.
OTOH, it's going to force me to bring up "BOOM Machiavelli'd!!!" when it gets past realpolitik and gets real.
I'm not sure some people get that if you're arguing with them, it's not personal. If it goes beyond more than a post, it's probably because you think they have worthwhile reasoning, and can hold up a good discussion. There are less than a handful of people I probably really don't like, and maybe a few more who I really don't agree with at all, but think they at least are smart and form coherent arguments. And there's a much huger percentage of things I disagree with and argue about...but usually respect the person I'm disagreeing with.
Going by my Ultra MGoBoard, I have like 5-6 people who I really enjoy reading, 3-4 that I don't like at all, and everyone else is somewhere in the middle. You, for example, I think you bring a lot to the table; I don't always agree with what you write, but I recognize that you almost always have a valid point, so it's worth listening to.
Arguing about whether Denard will be better or worse under Hoke should only get personal if you're one of a handful of people (like...Denard, RR, Hoke, Magee, Borges) and other them there's no reason it should get personal.
that is good and all, but try telling that to the great mgoclique, who negs based on handle.
Negged for not being in the clique. By the way, negs don't count, so you can relax. Also you should be still at -1,000,000, why complain? Andy didn't complain that the beach was too sandy when he busted out of Shawshank.
I see what you did there (I was asking for it, I suppose)! I'd plus 1 you if I knew who you were, but - oh, nevermind.
I must confess I have NO idea how to upvote, downvote, moderate or anything else anymore. The nice, simple voting system has been replaced IMO by something that 51 year old guys like me cannot understand anymore. And given that I have a job, wife, kids, etc I probably wont be able to find the gap in my schedule anytime soon to learn.
Right underneath everyone's signature tag there is a "moderate" button. Click it for a plain +1, if you want to neg or add that it was "interesting, informative or insightful" or whatever click that and then click moderate.
Good things are +1, flamebait, trolling, overrated are -1.
I don't know how many are in the same boat, but I have not been able to vote since ~ day 2 of the new system. I have no moderate button. Maybe that is tied into my karma (which is really annoying)? Anyway, I'm not 51 (as the guy above), but I share his feelings on the new system.
There are some things I dislike also; you voiced them pretty well in the reply to Brian's post, I thought.
A plus is that I can now moderate again, but I still can't adjust the comment thread to read newest first.
Thanks Justin. I gave you a +1 for being informative and helpful. Ok...maybe I CAN learn this thing yet.
Much appreciated!
You should have just shrugged disinterestedly and said "Who is John Galt?" when you didn't figure it out right away.
I'm John Galt.
Also (nerd alert) I happen to know you're not John Galt because his degree was not in music.
I'm sub-100, making this speculative... but don't you just select an adjective from a drop-down menu? A good adjective (insightful) upvotes, a bad adjective downvotes (redundant). I don't love it, but not because it's too complicated.
EDIT: you beat me
Whatever, you were informative too...just look at your post label.
I'm using IE 7.0 (yes, I know, IE sucks and should be destroyed but I'm at work and its all I have so STFU) and I have no ability to rate any comments. The drop-down does not appear at all. I am so confused! Help!
Plus, every time I post it gets automatically hidden so no one can see unless they hit that "infinity" symbol. WTF??
Don't know how to suggest trouble-shooting, Profit. Could it have something to do with the operating system or office-instituted controls? Even with my computer at work, where it's possible the IE is only #6, I can do most everything, even though the display does something a little quirky that I can live with. I can't download browser upgrades there, or switch to Chrome et al., because the new browsers do not service older operating systems. And, like you, Profit, the computer system isn't mine to futz with or replace.
But glad I'm not alone in the dark ages. When I previously made (what I thought was) a humorous introduction to a comment in an earlier post about still using IE, its purpose being to let Brian know that even with IE i had the correct color scheme, I was branded a troll. [Couldn't quite figure that out. Guess I have to check my virtual dictionary for variant uses of the word.] Maybe I should have used a "/sdh" (self-deprecating humor) tag.
I figured out the voting system, but if anyone could provide insight on the "infinity" or "link" symbol that profitgoblue references, please help. I have clicked on it and my screen has refreshed but I have no idea what horror I may have just wrought somewhere in the world.
That "infinity" or "link" symbol at the very right of the header is the permalink. If you click on it, it adjusts the page to put that post at the top. If you right-click on it, you can bookmark, open, copy, etc. the URL for that specific post.
It really doesn't have anything to do with making a hidden post appear (as profitgoblue implied). You can click anywhere in the header of a hidden post to make the full post appear.
Thanks for the info. Glad to know I hadn't inadvertently started WWIII by pressing the wrong button.
No, you did that too.
Skynet activation can NOT be reversed. We are all doomed!
The new comment moderation system is based on the one used at slashdot.org.
It bites there, and it bites here, IMO. Complete overkill for the simple task of saying whether you agree with a comment or not, and useless pseudo-tagging, especially with that most un-funny of descriptors: "funny".
Someone let me know when we go back to simple voting. Until then, I'll be hunched over my computer flamebaiting furiously.
I think I have bad karma, and the only reason I can think of was a double post I made at 3:00 a.m. (you do the math...). I haven't been able to moderate since the new system was implemented. Maybe this will help?
Thank you, whoever up-voted me. I promise I'll behave better in the future.
OMG POINTZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Why do all of you peeps get so worked about about this?
Please advice
Someone should do a diary type survey of users regarding whether they prefer the standard point system (up/down votes) or this new system.
I think a perfect system just needs to effectively combat trolls, reward insight and include a tacos for points redemption program.
a "here's-what-your-douchiness-looks-like-to-others"-temporary-mlive-subjection for negative points condemnation/rehabilitation program.
The MGoBoard is still the best in the business, but wow, what an overkill for a system that prior to the Coachacaust wasn't broken.
Change for the sake of change.
Bring back the old system.
I'm not sure we want to bring back the old system due to the fact that it became infected with internet trash and burned to the ground.
This scoring system is straight up 3-3-5, and Jeff Casteel aint walking through that door.
Bring back the MAN-board...Give me 4* comments or send me to Bolivia!
Even though you already have maxed out at a 5star funny rating I still moderated this funny -just because.
How do you get the quotation box when you reply to someone? I haven't been able to do it in the last couple of board iterations. There used to be a little command link for it, but I don't see it anymore.