It's better already:
Great posters: returning.
Message Board: Readable.
Urge to smash my computer: Reduced.
It's better already:
Great posters: returning.
Message Board: Readable.
Urge to smash my computer: Reduced.
Clarkie just absolutely nailed it in a nutshell.
And as a reward for his insightful comment he got a brand new, shiny upvote from yours truly.
The board has already been noticibly more pleasant. Brandon Brown even had a thread that didn't devolve into pointless flamebait(!). It's been great
Best part is that I haven't seen a comment from that Gnarly Face guy in days
Amen to that.
Brian and BiSB had him taken out and publicly banned according to the state run MGoBlog. He was called a "traitor for the ages"
It gives you an "access denied" when you try to pull up his posting history
I was looking forward to watching him get downvoted like crazy.
In the meantime, it amuses me that your username is straight out of GoT and the first reply to your comment was by a Jon Snow. +1 to both of you for your usernames.
My fantasy baseball team was named, "Dire Wolverines." When is the next season/book arriving?
Moderating MGoBoard had to be just about the worst job ever for the past several months. Now, I think our intrepid moderators will have a bit of an easier time, leading to fewer ragequits. This is important because keeping the peace around here is a key difference between the smart and passionate MGoBlog crew and the insufferable dweebs on other sites.
While the voting has likely helped, I think that some of the trolling was due to losing. Without a loss this week to bitch about, there is less attraction for trolls. There are also less substantive posts to troll.
Behavioral changes the voting systsem won't change: me not wearing pants. Neg all you want, I ain't wearing 'em.
At a time like this you call for pants?!
Now, if HIS comment also said 'iPhone', the pantlessness would certainly be more interesting.
or it didn't happen.
now I'm confused.
Is it "points system" or "pants system?"
is there such a thing as an insightful snowflake?
Maybe lurkers will feel obligated to post more as if you just neg you could spend your points so you can't vote/post anymore, at least the ones that have enough points to do so.
I personally don't upvote the meme-y stuff unless I think it was really clever, but you may see a lot more of that from people trying to earn points cuz y'know its like money you can't spend.
WRT the jokes, I expect that the people I find funny will continue to be funny, and for some of them, points might even prod them to go the extra mile, which seems great!
WRT to gamethread dilution and such, I don't necessarily think that moment-to-moment thoughts really need much accolade, and insightful/useful information does more attention.
I think there will certainly be vocal contingents that share a (generally) popular opinion on the blog that others disagree with, but I don't think it will change the landscape of the forum/blog any from what it was 1, 2, 3 or 4 years ago.
Definitely agree with the gamethread point. The majority of those posts (I do it too when I join them) are just stream of conciousness ramblings. Like "Damn" or "Great play", not really thoughts worth more points, as they don't really leaad to good conversation.
Yeah, I definitely believe that de-emphasizing game thread posts relative to those that people actually read is a positive step.
I will continue to lurk mgoblog with limited functionality. Although the quality of the comments has already gone up noticeably IME.
I have to agree with you 100% on this. I really don't care about point totals (you can see mine), but there has been a increase in the quality of posts and threads in general. As this change coincides with a relative lul in sports-related things to talk about, we'll see if this trend continues as people get more to talk about with the basketball team's performance and whether or not the football team can execute in the bowl game.
I think the quality of posts has already improved considerably.
But I thought the rule was like fight club.
If you hold a contrarian opinion, and want to not get negged just becasue people disagree, include a gif of an adorable animal with your post.
I think that we are doing a decent job developing our O-line, and we will improve with time.
See. Now people can't downvote it. Because they don't want to be the asshole who downvoted the adorable puppy.
Putting in crowd-pleasing humor that overshadows crowd-souring opinions. An excellent test to see whether humor prevails over disag...ooooooh, a GIF!!!
"Scouring" a pretty generous term. I agree with most points of this post, but I wouldn't make it seem like a highly critical piece.
take that downvote and shit on your theory.
LET TOTAL CHAOS RUULLLLEEEE
you're a monster!
That adorable polar bear is dead. (It's Knut, who died in 2011 at age 4. Drowned in his enclosure as a result of an encephalitis induced seizure)
It really has had an immediate impact on the relative amount of trolling in the last few days. Some of the people who were very good at walking the line in that they trolled but not in a banhammer sort of way are getting what they likely deserve now. There are a persistent few, but there are some familiar names that I have not seen as much or at all in a few days now.
I will say, the "karma" system made trolling apparent in that you would look for masses of grayed out posts as a place to start reading, but it didn't really punish anyone unless they were caved or sent to Bolivia on a temporary basis. The advantage to this system is that it forces people to think a bit about downvoting (as it costs a point), but it does punish the trolls in a more precise way and limits their ability to vote and even post at all to some extent.
One of the most frustrating things under the old downvoting system was that having a different opinion than the general MGoPopulation would mean that your comments would be hidden with a lack of regard for the validity of the comment. Hopefully this new system alleviates that problem but I think that anytime you have a group of people together, you'll be vulnerable to groupthink.
True, but somebody who regularly comments in ways that resonate with the board (and thus get upvotes) will see their point total increase faster than those whose opinions don't resonate as much. The latter group may not get downvoted, but they will see their point total increase more slowly relative to posters with more popular opinions.
Obviously, this isn't a hard and fast rule; bald pandering probably will wear thin over time and posters who can articulate disagreement well will always be valued by at least a portion of the community. That's why I am not particularly worried about a "hive mind" here.
was excessive in the old days when it was free; several well-articulated opinions were mobbed with downvotes if the mob mentality got ahold of them.
I think the one-point toll for downvotes will curb the exhiliarating and undiscriminating generosity with which some folks used to throw them around.
Mob mentality is not the same thing as majority opinion. Conflating the two has been going on for a while on a board, and it's tiresome.
If your opinion is unpopular, it's probably not because you're the victim of groupthink. It may be the case that the majority feels differently for legitimate reasons. Or perhaps your opinion is uninformed or just plaind dumb.
There are many that share the majority opinion, which is fine. But there are inevitably some posters who like to "stick it" to the guy who is voicing an unpopular opinion, and they feel emboldened to do so because they know most people on the board agree with his opinion (even if he is being a complete dick about it).
My opinion is any sort of internet forum is prone to groupthink. Because we're a group of like-minded individuals...and humans inherently want to protect their group. So any dissenting opinion has a greater chance of being "flamed" for the sake of the majority opinion. Now, most people don't act this way on this blog, but there are some. And they were obnoxious this year.
I think MGoBlog has generally been one of the better forums out there in preventing the "groupthink" mentality, and this voting system was the biggest reason for that. Because there are many intelligent posters on this board who will downvote the guy who says "FIRE BORGES" the billionth time because, dude, we get it. Shut up.
And by the way, just because it's not a popular opinion doesn't mean it's uninformed or just plain dumb. That's kind of exactly what groupthink is...assuming that a small minority who disagree is always wrong and dumb because, hey, they don't share the majority opinion.
I guess you missed the part where I very clearly and specifically made the effort to state that unpopular opinions are not automatically uninformed or dumb. So congratulations, you set up a straw man because you either didn't actually read my comment or read it and managed to get my meaning exactly backwards.
I am assuming that your intention is sincere, but the way you led with "it majority feels differently..." and then closed with kind of the back-handed "or you're just stupid" kind of came across as saying "you're probably just stupid". I think CompleteLunacy was elaborating on his point and giving fairly realistic examples. JMO.
But I'm not going to use kid gloves. There are plenty of uninformed, irrational opinions spouted by people who then bitch that "groupthink" is holding them down, man. Yes, maybe I could have phrased my meaning slightly differently, but I thought I was pretty clear.
also plenty of legitimate and articulately-worded opinions that got bombed by people that thought downvotes were to be used as a sort of popularity contest.
It could be any of the three.
Stupid opinions are common on the internet (and IRL).
Groupthink is an actual scientifically-proven phenomenon. I certainly think that it exists on this board, the same way that it exists in almost all social settings.
And of course, sometimes its just majority rules. But not everyone is casting an up/down vote. Generally, people only vote on things they really like/dislike. And the mood of the voters depends on the general tone of the site. Two years ago, we loved Borges. Last year, we were split, but a Keep Borges post would probably not have gotten hammered because even the Fire Borges guys didn't feel that strongly about it. This year, a Keep Borges post will get you negbanged because more people hate Borges and the ones that do hate him do it very passionately and are more likely to down vote rather than silently disagree.
if you honestly think that the attitude towards Al Borges is purely contingent on the tone of this blog and not on what happens in real life, then you just aren't paying attention to football. I don't know what else to say.
I just used the Fire Borges thing because it is a hot topic around here. It was the same with RR, CC, etc. It can be anything. If Blue is Good is the majority opinion, someone who says Red is Good doesn't really deserve a neg so long as his opinion is founded. Only really fanatic Blue fans/Red haters would care to actually vote on it. That's all.
I suppose you knew that. Not everything is a Borges apologia.
caved for a short period of time, but that eventually enough people would vote it back to a positive number. That isn't a counter for the hive-mind, but there is no real cure for that other than disconnecting your modem.
I can deal with just about any of the negatives if it helps the mods to take out the trash.
And that's an advantage of the new system vs no voting. There are enough "good guy" posters willing to up vote someone who was unfairly negged that trolling down voters can be offset.
Without the votes, the "down vote troll" guy would instead post a stupid "you're a moron" comment that could not be punished without mod action (since responding would feed the troll).