I look forward to this feature every year...
Moderator Action Sticky 2017
New offseason, new sticky, because these get cumbrously long.
READ THIS FIRST:
What this thread is for: It's 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.
Don't comment in this thread unless you have to: if you leave an irrelevant comment in this thread it will be deleted (see: "cumbrously long").
Things we will moderate so hard that if we were the government you’d probably have a 1st Amendment case but we’re not so shaddup about your freedom of speech this ain’t no democracy it’s just a message board run by people who believe in democracy.
- Politics. Don’t you get enough of this everywhere else?
How moderation looks from our end.
- Noise. We ask our moderators to try really hard not to censor ideas, but we do control noise. If you’re getting a substantial amount of downvotes we’ll look to see if you’re posting an unpopular opinion that you can support. If you can’t support it politely and rationally, or if you don’t acknowledge the holes in your argument, it’s noise.
- Useless content from other sites. There are a lot of sites feeding a lot of Michigan content out there, and a lot of that is good stuff. But more than ever these days a lot of it is just stuff which tries to tickle your fancy or make you mad about something. 247, WTKA always get the benefit of the doubt.
- The Drew Sharp Memorial Don’t Feed the Professional Trolls Rule. Pete Finebaum has taken the place of the late Sharp. Valenti and Chatsports are the other two on the ban list. By the time you have enough points to post an article you should know that some people make a living off of trying to get the legions of Michigan fans angry enough to click.
- Bewbs and general misogyny/objectifying of women. We tried one year of this and our female readership shot up after being really low. This means it’s a good rule: however much you enjoy cutting loose with the guys, we have tens of thousands of readers it drives away.
Hall of Stickies Past:
Great Moments in Moderation:
- "MODS: Please activate Death Star and obliterate this post."
- He's going to Eastern Michigan
- No Assclowns.jpg
- Most. Offseason. Thng. Ever.
- Where "Snowflakes" comes from
- BiSB is THE KNOWLEDGE
- That's not how the internet works, profit. NEG!
- Bad at spam
- We lost to who?
- This is funnier if you imagine it's Hoke and DB fighting.
- On politics in general and that one really political guy.
- Seth on censorship vs. noise.
MGoBlog strives to be a politics-free zone. We all have plenty of reminders elsewhere, and the consensus among readership is a strong preference for being able to come here knowing there aren’t going to be political triggers over having the freedom to discuss things of a political nature. This of course leaves a lot of gray area, and that gray area fluctuates based on factors like how relevant is it to Michigan and college sports, how well people are behaving in that thread, whether it’s off- or in-season, and, unavoidably, the political biases of whoever’s moderating.
Points will be deducted based on severity and how much trouble it caused us. The typical punishment for a blatantly bad idea is to lose your ability to post new threads until the day after the next election. Whoever initiated a particularly ugly thread will get it as bad as the worst responder. If the moderator determines someone intended to start a political argument the user will most likely be banned unless there’s a good reason not to.
You may get moderated even for accidental politicking, if it’s blatant enough to trigger a political flame war. If your biases are so strong that you can’t tell when you’re needling someone who thinks differently than you, then you don’t have the chops to be posting.
Views expressed by individual authors are those of the author and not representative of the blog. Moderators and people who work for MGoBlog are exempt from the politics rules because we have to answer for it in other ways (loss of job, readership, etc.) and it doesn’t make much sense to dock MGoPoints from people who can adjust them.
Mods and employees are asked to abide by the same political policies as the readers when posting anywhere on mgoblog.com, but are free to be ourselves everywhere else. This includes, notably, our social media accounts, for example @mgoblog is Brian Cook, a cranky internet person who lives in Ann Arbor and runs a Michigan blog, not MGoBlog the website.
Examples from moderation past:
- A well-known political figure tweets something about Title IX: Thread deleted, poster docked points ONLY if it got political. This topic has been hashed so much it's not worth the flamewar except when it involves Michigan specifically, which is bound to happen often enough.
- Poster uses a political buzzword in reply: If a new-ish user, delete the thread after their post if it got political and replace with a warning by moderator in that thread. If an older user or a repeat offender, treat like it was an overt attempt to political up the thread.
- Harbaugh wades into politics: Original post should include JUST THE FACTS and a link to a reputable* source, discussion allowed to survive until someone takes it ugly, at which point the thread will be locked and the offender moderated.
- Well-known political figure says something about Michigan/Harbaugh: Original post may be moderated to just the facts, all comments will be disabled.
- Something political happens at Michigan and even though we don’t want it on the site, it’s the kind of thing that will just keep getting reposted if we delete the thread: Original post moderated to the simplest just the facts, comments disabled.
- Sports figure well known to us runs for Political Office: Thread allowed, discussion of the sports figure in the same terms we normally discuss them allowed, thread watched closely for a turn to POLITICS and if it gets out of hand the thread gets locked.
- Something political happens in sports, like when Kaepernick kneeled. Original post should include JUST THE FACTS and a link to a reputable* source. Discussion allowed to survive until someone takes it ugly, at which point the thread will be locked and the offender moderated.
- Just once can we have one thread to get it all out? No. Those don’t help at all.
- HAPPY [religious holiday]! And by the way sorry not sorry that I put religion on here I know SOME PEOPLE find this political! Delete the part after “Happy Easter!” that is just unnecessary trolling for victimhood, which is a political thing.
If you celebrate Easter, have a happy one!
*Reputable is of course disputable—this is left up to the moderators. Typically if there’s a better source, the moderator will just change the link, for example if the OP has a HuffPo or FoxNews article linked and that article has some clearly political takes in it that would anger readers from another political viewpoint, maybe that will be changed to a local article that doesn’t. Certain sites [insert your own example] are not considered news sources because the question of whether they’re even news starts a political argument.
Thanks for the comments on politics as regards where it intersects with Harbaugh being Harbaugh, Politicians referencing Michigan, something political happening at Michigan, or involving sports. Very thorough comments.
You did make the comment as regards Happy (insert religious holiday). Imhe, those things should be pretty innocuous.
However, there are a couple other areas I'd love to hear you expand just a bit.
- When coaches or athletes choose to comment on religion and faith. A recent example would be after the plane crash involving the Basketball team. In various interviews and articles, there were a number of comments about faith in God and what was important, etc. Is it fair to assume that if coaches and athletes bring it up, it is reasonable to bring up the facts and a link to a reputable source? Other examples include Harbaugh going on service trips, or Beilein talking about how important his faith is.
- When athletes (or coaches) reputably make poor choices, or are presented in the media as making poor choices. A recent example are reports on Jourdan Lewis and charges of domestic violence. Anything involving substance abuse or sexual behavior. What are the board guidelines on these threads?
1. Not understanding what you're asking here. The plane crash was big news. The reactions of those who were on the plane were covered in news stories. Athletes crediting G-d for things isn't news, just like athletes listening to music isn't news. Starting a thread just for that seems like advertising.
2. Just the facts, and we moderate strongly against ppl whp jump to conclusions that aren't very reasonable. The blog is not the place where justice is served.
To give some background, in one of the threads after the plane crash, SRK started a tangent about players and religion during and after the incident. It got sort of ugly and didn't need to be brought up to begin with, but he staunchly defended it as pertinent.
I'd also like to see some cleanup on posters with religious material in their signatures, from Bible verses to crosses and the like. But maybe that's a bit much. Just doesn't have a place here in any form, and I say that as a religious person.
The question I was asking had to do with what players and coaches said. I have never used this as a forum to preach religion. It just strikes me as odd that when players and coaches want to talk publicly about religious things, we say this is off limits for discussion. If they don't bring it up, or keep it private, it shouldn't be brought up. But yeah, I think the topic is a fair one when it is something they comment on publicly.
This isn't really accurate. You may not even notice when you do because it is your job and such a big part of your life, but you have certainly used MGoBlog as your soapbox to preach religion.
I think you're taking "it's boring" for "it's off-limits" for the purposes of generating a victimization that doesn't exist. That is politics, and off-limits.
Now I'm confused. Boring? Victimization? I missed something. I don't think I'm a victim, and I don't recall using the word "boring." I fully expect to be negbanged to the extent allowed by mgolaw by Bando and several other users. It goes with the territory. If I was that thin skinned, I wouldn't ever comment. Regardless, I have a good enough understanding of board etiquette. I will only reference religion should it be brought up by Michigan coaches and athletes in a public forum and shared by a reputable source. I can live with that.
Thanks. We're not going to moderate bible verses out of signatures unless it violates some other board rule. That would be unnecessarily moderating personal expressions of faith.
Thanks, and I would tend to agree about not wanting to over-moderate, I guess, but just to play devil's advocate here (which is a weird context in which to use that turn of phrase!)... How are "personal expressions of faith" OK in signatures, but not board content?
This seems pretty straightforwad. A signature is like a bumper sticker: it's an expression of who you are, not a conversation.
Religion should not be THE reason to post something, for the same reason that you shouldn't post something for the purpose of promoting a business. Advertising is for advertisers.
Religious topics are fine. If Jason Avant writes about his religious journey in the Player's Journal (he should, it's a great story), or if the Pope weighs in on the quarterback race next week (he should, it'd be a great story), those are board threads because our interest is in Michigan.
Personal expressions of faith in replies are fine. They're a perspective, if not one most people will appreciate. If we moderated every perspective with no basis in scientific fact we'd never have comments on basketball threads.
We're not going to ban religion--freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. But we're also not going to tolerate people actively trying to use this forum to preach something, because that annoys readers and counts as advertising.
Already miss Peppers
Speight is a poor YAC thrower based on Spring Game
I think we got our money's worth out of these....
How 'bout three 1-week trips to Bolivia?
That might be in store for the next one. What I think is going on here is that people don't understand what sorts of snowflake threads are preferred in OT Season. If it had been a "Sidney Lumet Snowflake Thread" or a "Francis Ford Coppola Snowflake Thread", nobody would blink. Hell, even an "Expressing My Dog's Anal Glands Snowflake Thread" might have stayed longer.
Changed title and moved to forums.
In the board's defense, we've seen several threads regarding accusations against players (including rival players) run through the front page with civil discussion and respectable discourse.
The thread about Gareon Conley is not one of those threads, could probably stand for a lock.
That thread has officially jumped the shark. One user accusing others who desire due process of enabling rape culture. Meaningless speculation, including the accuser's motivations and veracity of secondhand reports. Lots of heat but not much light...