META: How Might New Points Rules Impact Behavior?

Hive mind is already being reduced.  Now that my pretend points are at risk if I neg someone, I've found myself actually trying to relate with an opinion contrary to my own, whereas before, I'd rashly neg them and move on.  So I certainly hope this new point system is in fact encouraging contrarian (yet reasonable) opinions.

As for your 3rd point, I did and still do support an increase in minimums.  With the unlimited posbang system, a troll or an inexperienced mgoblogger can sit in the shadows, post 10 or so superficially great comments and then be able to create terrible threads.  I do believe that having to wait it out until they get to 500pts or so would take them long enough so that at the very least  they would then be familiar with the overall feel of the blog and would be able to properly sympathize with the general populous (a MGoStockholm Syndrome, so to speak...).

Good for removing trolls. But bad in a big way, in that the point system ends up leading to mob-rule and group-think. Minority dissent, or anything that goes against the common wishes and desires of the average M fan, inevitably gets voted down. Typically, down-voters say they're doing so because the dissenter "didn't make a good argument" when, in many cases, the dissenter simply disagrees with them. 

And now, as evidence, witness the down-voting of this post.

Many of the posters in the past couple of days joined Mgoblog in 2010 or 2011 or earlier. Most of the trolls seemed to be recent joiners for the sole purpose of trolling. At least that's what I've noticed. I think this is a promising development. 

I think we'll have a lot more POS-BANG threads now that POS-BANGING has more of a meaning. We already have two today and it's not even 12:30.

I think we'll also have a lot more posts that don't contribute much at all, just posts trying to be funny or with a Kate Upton gif because those always get upvoted.

Those are the two slight negatives I can think of.

I also think we'll have a reduction in trolls, because now that you can lose/gain points for the quality of your posts, peope will be less willing to be assholes/trolls because their imaginary internet points will disappear.

I also think we'll have a much faster rate of information being posted to the board. Everyone's going to want to be that person who posts the next "Hello: Jabrill Peppers"-esque post to get all those sweet, sweet, MGoPoints so people will be racing to post whatever information they can find that will get them those points. That potentially means more double-posts, but also more information being posted to the board.

the real tests will be tomorrow and the bowl game.  if the snowflakes threads don't end up in drunk rage territory, we'll know it's really worked.

for about a year until yesterday. I was tired of reading the fighting. I registered rather than leaving after seeing the effects of the voting system.

I look forward to getting to the 100 points so I can start threads. As an example I saw the top recruiting post on 247 yesterday but could not start a discussion on it. After I reach that level I won't worry about how many points I have. I will post when I feel I have somethng to contribute. I won't worry about being negbanged for an unpopular opinion but if I get to wrapped up in an argument and get negbanged I'd definitely reconsider my posting.

I think it's a great tool for the mods which is the important thing.

1)  Could actually encourage people to post who hadn't before, since incentives are up.

2)  Will DEFINITELY encourage most thoughtful posts, rather than "what is in my head at this very minute."  On second thought, so an internet board, maybe not, but one can hope.

But seriously...in general this is a slow time for the site...I have to admit to following more closely just because of this change.    I'm less likely to post about meta than sports as I think most posters are.

I'm looking forward the BWW bowl to see if this changes behavior or traffic.

The points system has had the standard effect: less trolling and more groupspeak.  I'll take that trade-off any day.  

I don't like the tendency for people using the neg button for letigimate Michigan fans who disagree with their opinions, but if it makes the board more civil, it's worthwhile in the long run.

Where I was going to respond to a user in agreement, but then caught myself from posting a completely inane response in favor of just upvoting them. In my mind, this has improved the quality of threads.

While points generally cause some form of groupthink, the nice thing is that I think there are enough responsible posters to understand how to properly use it, so maybe you don't come out the same as someone else, but once you get to a certain level you're talking relative numbers anyway.

Also, there will be a lot more gifs and funny pictures. There will probably be more poor attempts at humor in an effort to gain some upvotes. Trolls will be more limited. More posbang threads even after a while, but the number will decrease eventually. Probably more "Rah rah!" type posts, but those are better than negative nancy posts.

Lastly, in a socially weird but not at all surprising way, the point system will make people at least come together to a degree and not be such jerks to others. There is no longer a need to reply in snark to make a point for every post (guilty myself). There is no longer a need to get into a long chain of arguments, though that will still happen and sometimes rightfully if it's a good and legit debate. Strawman arguments will drastically decrease. And I can finally give a +1 to posters I agree with, which in turn makes me feel good like giving someone a Christmas present, and therefore I'm a happier person and post happier things, and generally the world becomes a nicer place because of a point system on a blog.

threads on the first page of the Board.  Substance?  Non-existant.   Wild point accumulation?  Absolutely.   

In the end, we have revealed to Brian our true nature.  We are all point whores.

[EDIT:  Department or Redundancy Department.  I see that many posters have made the same point while I was wasting time looking for this spiffy image.]

How will it affect behavior?  Bend over and I'll show you . . . POSBANG!

Impact of a downvote is disproportionate on those with a relatively small number of point compared to those whose count is in four or more digits. I probably delete four or five comments for everyone that I submit because upon reflection I decide that it does not meaningfully contribute to the discussion. As a result I have relatively few points, so the decision to downvote someone requires a higher level of offensiveness than if I had thousands of points.

In the same fashion the impact should someone downvote one of my comments is far greater that it would be on someone with thousands or tens of thousands of points. So rather than adding a comment supporting an opinion with which I agree it is much quicker to simply give them an upvote and reduce the number of downvote targets from those who hold a contrary view.