Meta: Increase Point Total for Board Topics?
September 30th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
I found a lot of it to be whining, and frankly, overplayed. I did read it Junior year of high school, and have been told that I would enjoy it more now, but I'm not sure it's worth another shot. (The Major Major Major Major chapter was SO obnoxious I barely got past it)
FWIW I also hated "Catcher in the Rye" I thought that Holden was very whiny. Again, read it in high school, but really disliked it.
Maybe I just like different writings than a lot of people, but I dunno
September 30th, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
you're a phony
October 1st, 2010 at 7:03 AM ^
Having never read Catcher in the Rye, I can't speak to that.
But I'm not sure what's "whiny" about Catch-22. I suppose I can understand if some people find the humor a bit broad, but I'm still trying to figure out the whining part. What do you mean?
September 30th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^
I think to create an acount on here should be free, however to post topics I think there should be a one time $10 donation to U of M, if a troll really wants to pay ten bucks to start a topic thread then so be it, we can still negbang them so they can't start another topic plus they gave U of M ten bucks.
What are your thoughts on that, I would pay a one time $10 donation to be able to start topics would you?
September 30th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
just find a level that most people wouldn't bother to get to. I can sign up and just go "reply" to 20 posts and have my 20 points to start my own post. I can't see someone replying even "nm" to 200 or 300 posts... That would require someone to have been reading/replying for a while before posting.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
30,000 points to start a thread.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
Sounds a tad high. I mean, not way high, but like 7,000 points high.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^
wait, what?
September 30th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
Don't get all MGoElitist on us
September 30th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
500 points or a sliding scale of how long you've been a member and how active you are (points). i wouldn't want to lose long time members who just don't post very often.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^
consistent posters would be bumped over the threshold. LEAVE NO POSTER BEHIND! THESE COLORS DON'T RUN! SOMETHING TOBY KEITH SAID!
September 30th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
When you need him?
September 30th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
Needs to be photoshopped maize and blue
September 30th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
but I really want to go back to the old system where negs don't cost a point.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
I agree even if it would mean that I wouldn't be able to post anything soon. People need to get used to the board, so they know what to post and what not to and gain an appreciation for the right to do so
September 30th, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
Isn't a good post/board topic a really subjective thing? And, if a board topic is really terrible (or redundant), might mod removal be the best way to deal with it?
In any event, I think the points are kinda fun/addictive, but let's not pretend that high point totals = wisdom. There have been some great topics created by folks with low point totals. Are points really telling?
Look at some of the comments that garner the most points - pictures of cats, MS Paint drawings and, lately, I've noted the goggles/symbols thing getting well over 40 points for posting a couple of icons. It's almost like wanting to hear sports, but tuning into 97.1 to hear them talk about what topping they like on pizza.
Alas, my two cents says the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some prefer conversation about Michigan sports, some prefer conversation about Michigan sports only if they agree with the viewpoint and others like pictures of cats. In the long run, there seems something for everyone and it's really easy to skip past something you have no interest in.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
Take your rationality elsewhere, this is AN ANGRY MOB!!!!!!!!!!
September 30th, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^
WHERE'S THE TAR, FEATHERS AND PITCH FORKS DAMMIT!
September 30th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
I was going to come on and write basically the same thing. Then I figured that someone had to have already posted it, and here it is.
I'm not terribly opposed to increasing the threshold so if that's what people want, them I'm fine with it. However, I have seen some completely asinine/waste of time posts by plenty of folks with thousands of MGoPoints.
I think the point minimum to post was put in place to prevent trolls, not to guarantee quality. I agree with the folks who've suggested making negs free again, so that trolls can be eviscerated quickly. People are still going to post low-quality content regardless of what the threshold is, but perhaps if it's easier to make our feelings clear that we don't like the junk, they'll get the point.
September 30th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
I was also about to post something very similar. No offense to the mgowealthy, but many of the big shots contribute significantly to the mgobloating, both between and within posts. I also support free negs (for those with a certain minimum point total, maybe 100?), because otherwise we end up with a plutocracy in which only the rich can afford to neg at will. Sorry about the politics, but it seems the disparity between rich and poor is at an all time high. It seems like some folks feel a need to respond to everything, kinda like how my mom feels a need to forward every stupid chain email and youtube clip to everyone she knows.
"Just 'cause I don't run my mouth don't mean I got nothing to say."
-Mike Cooley, Drive-By Truckers
September 30th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
Absolutely yes.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
Something like 300-500 points would make sense, but I also think that some community moderation would also help. Maybe add the ability to "flag" a post as duplicative and/or crap (technical term) and then it is placed in purgatory until a Mod can approve/delete. A bit more work for the mods, but I for one would volunteer my time for the job if it cut down on some of the useless posts.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
I'm all for the increase.
Also would it really be necessary to institute some kind of point deduction for reposts? Aren't most of the reposts coming from individuals with less than 500 points anyway?
September 30th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
a 1000 points because I mostly just read the threads, with a comment here or there sporadically. I think I've only ever started two threads - Chili recipes and Stuff Not Important Enough to get it's own thread. So I'm okay with whatever the threshold gets raised too if it helps clean things up.
If I need to find out what Michigan theme to name my dog, I'll just post that in the Dee Hart thread.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
of the 300 D. Hart threads
September 30th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
wait until we are 8-0 and then watch what comes out of the woodwork. I vow to post no new topics until after I have 500 points or a good idea, which pretty much guarantees 500 points.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
Maybe Brian could somehow combine MGoPoints with how long they have been members. I.E. you must have at least 100 points and have been a member for two weeks to start a thread. That way trolls who show up would have to participate for a couple of weeks to learn the routine.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
Am I the only one that finds "trolls" extremely amusing (as well as extremely annoying)? The combination of amusement and annoyance is a great marriage to me and effectively closing the door seems like a bummer to me. Maybe we can have a 500+/- limit, meaning only people with more than 500 points or less than -500 points can be allowed to start a threat. Hahaha.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
But they would instantly lose all credibility if they don't follow through on that threat, right?
September 30th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
500 points should be enough. Anything higher and you get thoughts of elitism spilling through the cracks.
I think part of the problem is the format of the website itself. You see the MgoBoard on the side of the home page with only new topics appearing. This entices people to think if they post something it will show up on the home page for everyone to see. While it is convenient to have the board posted there, perhaps we should just direct link it to the actual forum page.
In this way the real posters would take the effort to go to the board and contribute, and the trolls who aren't so adept to our beautiful home, won't go perusing for trouble by creating stupid posts and pos-banging themselves.
This would really only be a deterrent, but it could help solve the problem along with a higher threshold. It would also get rid of this narcissistic mentality that posting on the board will get YOUR post up so EVERYONE can see.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
As a noob, I agree. The reason I started reading this site is because of the great content provided by Brian and the regulars. I don't mind voting, commenting, etc. but threads should be left to those with time and/or skills to post something worthy.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
IMO 1000 is excessive. Personally, I come to read the main page and the threads and occasionally comment (though I've been a member for a while). I guess you could call me a casually posting lurker. I know well enough not to post garbage/repost, but if I wanted to start a thread on a perfectly legitimate topic, I wouldn't be able to at all.
The trolls, however, are unbearable. I'd imagine we can usually pick them out by the time they get to 100 points through posts, so that seems like a reasonable threshold.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
I'm all for the 500. I think that would drastically increase the quality of the posts. I could care less about that sounding elitist. The one thing that made me fall in love with this blog is the quality of the posts. After reading a few threads and their subsequent posts, I said "I've got to be a part of this thing". Certain people are starting to make this feel like MLive or Blech-Report. As far as negging goes, I would like to see a return to free negging. Not so I could neg someone that has an oposing view; last I checked this was America. I believe that it would get rid of the clutter. If a person's point total is in the negative, it is quite obvious that this person is either a troll, or has nothing of value to contribute to the Mgo community, and the ban hammer should be dropped. Because of the negs costing us points, I think a lot of people are reluctant to neg, which gives them the chance to wreak more havoc.
September 30th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
The problem is far too many of the negs on this site are because of disagreement of opinion, rather than actual trolling or whatever.
September 30th, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^
I think negs are ok for a difference in opinion, although the piling on can be excessive (and I'm no stranger to taking those lumps), but the "you're a troll" thing is retarded. I'd guess the actual number of "trolls" is a tiny fraction of the imagined problem. Disagreement certainly does not equal trolling.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
I wonder if there are other sites that have had similar problems that we could learn from, instead of re-inventing the wheel. Either way, 20 points was too low, but I think 500 is too high. Either way, trolls will be trolls, and regardless of the point total to start a new thread, the trolls will probably still exist. Trolls are if nothing else dedicated to trolling. I'm pretty new to the mgoblog community, but I feel like I am a member of the community now, I think the time limit of 2 weeks plus a 100 point to start new posts makes the most sense. If we make the point total 500, or 1000, trolls can easily get that in 2 weeks anyways, the dedicated ones anyways, but the drive by trolling won't occur as much. At least that way we should only get the really dedicated (and often more amusing, though still annoying) trolls. Less total trolling, and easier moderating. As for quality of posts, I agree with what a lot of people are saying, quality doesn't come from a lot of mgopoints, and quality (value of a thought) of a post is not the same thing to everyone. Anyways that's my 2 cents. Got the e-mail a few minutes ago abou the point total being raised to 100, and even though I'm below 100, I don't have a problem with it.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
I think I should be the only one allowed to post
September 30th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
A higher point total, say 100 or even 500, seems fair to me. However, I must admit that I do enjoy seeing people get roasted when they start a retarded thread.
September 30th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
Let's up it to 100 points.
September 30th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
The only thing better than a cosign is a DOUBLE COSIGN. Which I will give to the point in the OP's post.
September 30th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
Maybe the place needs a quick WLA inspection. The crew really has been the best patrol of stupid this board has ever had, even if you dont like style.
E-pinion
September 30th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
Ruthless, but effective.
September 30th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
I think if nothing else, that would just be really fun. Let the WLA be guest mods for a week. Hopefully they lay down the law and learn us a lesson. Maybe even put an end to this annoying goggle eye fad that seems to be all the rage with the kids these days (i.e., this week).
September 30th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
500 pt. minimum + free neg bangs. I understand what Brian was trying to do with the lose a point for a neg, but it has reduced the desired effect of self-policing. I don't care about losing a point at this point, but I think if you're going to raise the minimum to start a post, you have to get rid of the lose a point feature. Otherwise, people who may be valuable board members, but not regular contributors, would not want to neg some random troll who rightly deserves it.