and posted part of it. He included a comment from a friend that may have nothing to do with how McDowell feels and is probably inappropriate.
no wonder we hired Hunter Lochmann
and posted part of it. He included a comment from a friend that may have nothing to do with how McDowell feels and is probably inappropriate.
You may want to watch this account. I'm not sure if this is a guy that doesn't know English or a computer that is trying to generate relevant comments. He just necrod a post, though, which is what brought it to my attention.
I'm not sure where else to put this, and I'm sure it would get quickly buried in the fiery furnace of the umpteen threads about this.
I've been thinking, and this may not be a popular idea...
MGoBlog made money off of the Gibbons brunette girls MGoShirts. Might it be a show of goodwill (or, maybe just the right thing to do) that any proceeds that may have been generated from the sale of those shirts at the MGoStore be donated to something like SAPAC?
Whether or not MGoBlog has a "no politics" policy (it is a policy that I don't much like, but it is your policy to make), such a gesture would be political.
It would be a form of condemnation of Gibbons, and a tacit signal of support for the University's process against Gibbons.
Because as I understand it, what Bando proposes is a public donation of the proceeds. As a statement, of MGoSolidarity with The Process. And siding with the The Big U, in the Title IX War For Women.
I personally don't give a rip if anyone wanted to make a quiet private donation to any worthy charity. It's not any kind of charitable problem. If you were to quietly do what Bando suggests, such that neither Bando nor I, nor anyone else, ever knew about it and could not argue about it on internet discussion boards, I couldn't complain. But I don't suspect that that meets Bando's intent. I think Bando wants a symbolic public statement.
Using the phrase "Title IX War For Women" is also quite political. The rule exists here for a reason - politics is outside the scope and intent of this blog, no good will come of discussing here and these recent attempts by you to insert it into the discussion are being documented. This is not a democratic state and you are running low on chances right now, as far as I am concerned. I expect at least the pretense of adherence if not sincere agreement.
Knock it the everloving hell off.
I mean, I was going for the basic human decency angle, but... There's nothing new under the sun.
And, honestly, if there was any better example of why this is probably the right thing to do...
On the T-Shirts
We took those down over a year ago. You can petition Brian to do that but I would advise him against it for the moment. Understand, there was no criminal case, and we don't know if Washtenaw Watchdog's material is the evidence is the same that was brought to the SCRC, or that the student conflict resolution center's standards for determining guilt should be ours. I can't tell you for sure that he's guilty, and I am even less sure that what happened was the kind of thing where you completely disassociate from the guy. The Internet and the university's designated office for judging these things have judged one way, everyone who has ever known the kid are saying privately they think he was railroaded.
My editorical stance remains we need more information, and those who have it need to provide it.
Some Guidance on Title IX
Some people find can politics in breakfast cereal* I guess.
Title IX of itself is on-topic for this blog, however adding unrelated politics to it isn't, so that's been one of the gray area topics that we'll permit unless someone, e.g., adds "The War for Women" to the end of it. If the 99% of people who know how to discuss Title IX from the perspective of how it affects UM athletics are doing so and everyone is ignoring the one guy with extremist politics who doesn't know how to separate those from anything in his life, let the thread go.
*I mean other than sociology majors.
I don't know how anyone takes you seriously anymore.
Can we have a look at the string of Gibbons related threads? Now we've got one about the Daily reporters tweets. A major development is one thing, but we're just supporting their never ending battle to get clicks for a dying story.
Brian has delegated moderating powers to a handful of people and we're always looking at threads and comments.
I'm not trying to discourage a helpful tip or constructive criticism, but by and large we're here for a reason and moderate the board on our own experience.
It's only a "dying story" if you're of the opinion it should die.
From my perspective, being that the Athletic Department is intent on making sure the Daily still has things to report on in regards to the Gibbons fallout means it should be fair game on the board.
Reporters keep asking this stupid question. Each time Hoke offers a boilerplate response that people who believe there's a QB competition take to mean there's a QB competition. For the sake of everyone else's foreheads which have been self-smacked enough by this cycle, I killed the latest.
If Morris actually starts over Gardner for something other than injury I will videotape a personal apology to you wherein I eat something disgusting, and put it on the front page.
one hour later after your prior removal. http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/jennings-creates-fake-qb-controversey
Seven Things That Might Not Be Heard On National Signing Day
The OP requested the removal of this one, although I will admit I did get a chuckle out of some of the lines in it.
While I appreciate your thoughts and glad that it gave you some chuckles, I quickly discovered that the overwhelming sentiments of the community were more than sufficient to justify my request that you shut it down.
On further review, it probably wasn't as funny as that ESPN commercial that shows the recruit saying that he'll be taking his skills to "The University of Ole Miss," and it most likely won't be as funny as some of the comments that we'll hear tomorrow from the high school students who will be basking in the glory of media attention.
I apologize. I didn't mean any harm. I was afraid I might cause some problems for the Board, but decided I'd take the risk, with the hope that the community wouldn't explode in anger.
Whenever I see one of those high school students make his recruiting announcement, I'm reminded of this sad story: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/7525340/kevin-hart-recruit-lied-california-golden-bears-sign-missouri-western-state
Instituting a "no George Zimmerman" policy in case it didn't exist before.
Yeah, a thread posting an article which contained shots of Nik Stauskas and his girlfiend was ill-advised. Indeed, someone in there revealed some details which should not have been revealed, underscoring why such threads are ill-advised. That user is now an ex-user.
To the OP, just don't do that again, please. Creepy is not a motif we would like to promote.
Michigan MBB at Iowa Game Thread
There is already a game thread, but seriously (and I am sure the user knows who they are), a duplicate is not worth calling another MGoUser "retarded". Simply remind the OP of their faux pas and move along.
Can someone explain how threads end up on the sidebar instead of the main forum list? It caused some confusion with the game thread today. I'd always seen them on the main forum list, now it's sidebar? One poster started a second thread after I nearly did myself.
Semi OT: Missouri's Michael Sam potentially first openly-gay NFL player
First and foremost, I hope there is a day when an announcement such as this one does not cause people to lose their crap over things. Because the thread was veering into areas that are far beyond the scope of this blog, this thread should come down now. I do appreciate what the OP was trying to do here, however.
Why not just delete the ugly responses?
In my experience, that always feels like it leads to more disagreements because all of a sudden you have these half-responses that nobody knows the context for. I'm fine with it being pulled, but it was nice that the first 2 dozen of so comments were reasonably positive. I could only imagine how a thread like that would have looked even 10-15 years ago.
Yeah, sorry. I figured it would veer that way, but it started out being reasonably respectful and friendly. Didn't mean to create more work for the mods on a Sunday night, but figured it was definitely relevant to college sports.
Thanks for letting it breathe a bit, though, just to see how it settled.
You do an excellent job explaining why you're taking a post down. +1
I'm a real agnostic on "no politics." It's not my rule. It's an MGoRule.
Just have the integrity to apply the rule across the board. And, literally, across the Board. I give you credit for having done that, although you appear to have done so reluctantly and under a very different reasoning than I might have employed.
I didn't see, or post in, the now-deleted thread. If I had the chance -- I would have liked the chance -- I would have written just three words: "This is politics." You can't seriously claim that taking sides in the culture wars is not politics. I don't care what anybody's substantive views are. But no matter what they are, it is still politics.
By the way; if the casual/operative test* is whether a reader can tell who a board-poster voted for in the last election... I think I can tell.
*A test that I think is boring and restrictive.
You're so brave. Your matryrdom does not go unnoticed.
I don't agree with your classification of this as part of the "culture wars." But even if it is, there is a huge, gaping cavern between "politics" and "culture." We discuss culture here every damn day, and people are permitted to do so freely until they drag the conversation into a verboten topic like politics or religion.
That said, you're still wrong.
LSA's integrity is just fine without your judgement on whether it's reluctant or not, thanks.
As the OP of that article, I'll admit that I figured someone would have posted "this is politics" because I'm not idiot and nobody seems to be able to discuss issues like this without delving into tropes about the color of their state or where they get their "news". But it is telling (and a bit sad) that a sports blog can't discuss a rather prominent player coming out of the closet (regardless of your feelings about whether or not this should occur, or if that closet even exists), without the same tired responses that started to take hold in that thread after about a dozen people said "that's great" and "good luck to him on a difficult road ahead."
But the intent was never to stoke the "culture wars", nor do I think it should have veered into that direction. And let's be honest; there are LOTS of posts here that could have become politically-tinged if the definition employed is relies heavily on an undefined culture war.
If you want to discuss "culture wars," Title IX, "Obama's Department of Education," and all of the other little buzzwords and pet causes you exasperatingly use to sneak politics into just about every single otherwise sports-centered debate on MGoBlog, there are literally hundreds of internet forums in which you can do so. Probably thousands, even. According to the MGoMods, this isn't one of them. What's so hard to understand about that?
We all have political opinions. Yet it seems 99% of MGoUsers manage to keep them to themselves without issue or incident. I'm sorry we can't have a discussion about the Michael Sam situation, but the mods are right to act the way they have. It's the 1%, both those who break the rules and then those who complain about the rules after the fact, who make politics an issue here.
Seriously, how many times have I said this to you: start a blog. You have a different viewpoint than most of the people on here, and you are very passionate about it, and there are other people with your viewpoint, and it would be successful. This is the internet; if you can't find somewhere else to get into a political argument on any issue, I don't know what to tell you. If you can't find somewhere to get into a political argument about college sports and specifically how it's covered in the media, GO START THAT BLOG. Which I started for you. And is still here. http://michiganinthemedia.wordpress.com/
The majority of readers are not coming here for your passionate viewpoints but they will get drawn into a discussion and get frustrated by the fact that you're not going to change your opinions ever, and everyone who sees this exchange winds up having a negative experience. Even now you leave little kernels like "culture wars," and then someone calls you out on that, and in a few posts this place is as internet as YouTube.
To reiterate on politics for the rest of ye:
1. Go by feel.
2. Things related to college athletics and Michigan that have a political side to them should be assessed based on how relevant they are to college athletics and Michigan.
3. If an OP injects politics into a thread that doesn't need it and you catch that early, you can edit it out and then deal with the poster.
4. With Title IX in particular, stick to information relevant to college athletics and monitor closely for accusations/sweeping statements.
5. Again, if you can tell someone's political viewpoint by their post, it's probably politics. This is mostly for repeat offenders; don't just ban someone for, just to use the latest example, saying Ann Coulter is an example of a UM alumnus we're not proud of.
6. You can give secret points for being right. I don't mean they agree with you, I mean they're demonstratably and obviously correct right this second (e.g. Section 1 railing against Freep bias in August 2009).
With the Sam announcement it deserved a thread because he was a college football player as recently as a few weeks ago, and the way his teammates responded is an insight to what it's like to be part of a college football team in 2013.
However the first mod to see it should have the foresight to realize that comments were unlikely to be able to add any further clarity, and highly likely to blow up into political arguments. If there's big news that is obviously relevant and obviously doesn't need discusson, which discussion obviously wouldn't add much more than rancor to the discussion, turn off the comments.
I appreciate your outline on the MGoNoPolitics policy and I gladly accept whatever rules the site has. My main issue with how these discussions have gone down (from what I've read) is that people with religious moral standards have been ridiculed. I know that some MGoUsers can't represent their standards without being opinionated blowhards. That does not excuse blanket comments about people of faith being homophobes, ignorant, a-holes, etc. etc. People of faith can be intelligent and thoughtful individuals who have used evidence and their personal experience to arive at their faith. Faith and reason are not always mutually exclusive.
I'm not going to criticize a judgement call, but I prefer that these threads perpetuate themselves. It's sports related of course (college sports even) and is a bit of a landmark moment for the sport. It's too bad that in 2014, some people are still where they are. Let the exchange of ideas suppress the ignorant.
"Next time somebody tells you something that they believe, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably believe because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."
I won't make a value judgment here, but I'll admit this is a sports-related fansite for UM sports; it just isn't the realm for discussions about hot-topic issues like sexuality and the intricacies of religion.
On stuff like this, it all depends on how people react. If people can have a calm, reasoned discussion, it stays. If not, it doesn't. Here, a few people (cough cough IPFW_Wolverines) screwed it up for everyone.
I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm annoyed that these threads were taken down or the comments disabled.
In my opinion, this is no longer a "political issue" in the sense that each side deserves a voice. If someone wants to speak out against homosexuals participating equally in the NFL or any other part of American life, then we should delete their comments and ban the users. Those types of comments should be treated like overt racism, not like stances on actual political issues like abortion or capital punishment.
This is a hugely important, great moment in American sports. It's not a debatable political issue, and we should be able to celebrate and appreciate the moment. If people expose themselves as intolerant assholes, then I think you should deal with them as such, but removing/locking the threads altogether feels inappropriate.
In my opinion, this is no longer a "political issue" in the sense that each side deserves a voice.
I agree with everything you said, but you're always going to ge the faith-based baloney and the anti-PC contrarians. One of those groups are jsut assholes, the other makes it really hard for the mods to do what you'd like them to do.
Would you be less annoyed if the reason centered on a combination of seeing a lot of hate and thinking that the combination of Sam getting bashed on the site, policing both hateful people and the replys they generate plus trying to parse out who might be trolling the issue for e-ttention just not being worth the upside of a bunch of anonymous "this is huge" and "good for him" comments and a discussion on how his future locker room will behave?
I didn't take down the thread but I strongly suspect that's a possibility.
I'm not sure (and again, I think the mods do a really nice job around here).
I guess I don't know what the goal is. If the goal is to prevent any content from offending/hurting visitors to the site, then I'd personally be more offended by not being allowed to talk about this than I would by seeing one or two assholes post hurtful things among dozens saying "this is huge" or "good for him."
I should say, however, that I didn't see the original thread, so I don't really know how the conversation was going. I also understand that you guys have jobs and lives, so constantly refreshing the site to see if someone said something awful isn't how you should be spending your days.
The goal definitely isn't to prevent anything that might be offensive, but the tide is going to trend one way or the other on the "worth it" scale, and my (educated) guess is that LSA didn't think it was worth it to have certain comments on the site and didn't think it was something fixable with anything else in his toolbox, which going on a tangent, are some pretty blunt objects when you think about it.
Since this post is all personal anyway you should know that it's guys like you that keep us up and at it. Really enjoy your posting and I appreciate your kind words.
As JGB said, the tools we have in this role are pretty blunt - I was for a time actually removing entire sections of the thread which were going downhill, just as we've done with other threads in the past, but the problem that sometimes occurs is that the thread becomes so fragmented and unreadable that the risk of accidental disagreements, if you will, becomes high. The context of a lot of replies is also lost through this method, and it is the only one we really have to use. It got to a point where between how some people were reacting and how the splice job on the thread went, it was unfortunately too much.
Essentially, the options we have at that point are not many - we can delete it altogether, we can lock it with or without the comments displayed or leave it. As BisB notes, a lot of this depends on how people are reacting, but also the volume that reaction comes into play. In the case of this thread, you had a couple people being very vocal about their displeasure, if you will, and it simply got to a point where it was not salvagable. Granted, that's a subjective call and I would have enjoyed as much as anyone to leave it if there had been better behavior from a very vociferous minority of posters.
Also, just so I get this in along with my critique on this particular call, I think you guys (the mods) perform a thankless job excellently. Thank you for keeping the board readable.
Here's how that thread was always going to go:
Guy 1: Woohoo!
Guy 2: Amazing his teammates were behind him!
Guy 3: What a landmark! I'm officially a Mizzou fan
Guy 4: I don't know what you are all so happy about. I have sex with [animal, vegetable or mineral]. Throw me a parade!
Guy 2: What an asshole Guy 4 is.
You know what was the least likely thing to happen in that thread? Guy 4 confronting the overwhelming objection to his comments, realizing the error of his thiking, and changing his viewpoint to the consensus. You know what was the second-least likely thing to happen in that thread? A reasonable discussion that provides a framework for further discussion on the topic.
Is it possible we missed out on a great back and forth about how a college locker functions, or some insight from someone closer to the situation that would help us to see it in a clearer light, etc. etc. etc.? Yeah sure. I'm willing to sacrifice that chance just to avoid the inevitable discussion on what the first amendment really means.
FWIW I think it's kinda of a sad reflection on the board that we cant have a civil discourse on what agrueably might be the biggest sports story in recent memory. As Turd says - why would homophobes or other idiots be treated any differently by Mods than outright racists? We don't restrict discussion on issues of race (yesterday's discussion on Smart's shoving of the "super fan" being a great example) - why we do we shut down conversation on sports story involving sexual orientation?
I would suggest having a moderated open thread and deal with idiots no differently than you'd deal with a racist spewing hate. To me they are one and the same guy.
I can only speak for myself. But I could have a perfectly civil discourse on this subject. I'd wonder why anybody thought this was the biggest sports story in recent memory. A fourth round pick on the third day of the NFL draft. It is "big" only because one side in the culture wars wants to use it.
I never even saw -- much less participated -- in the thread that gave rise to this. On my own, I wouldn't have taken it down. But I certainly would have observed that it was political, much like the comments in this moderation thread are political statements; demonizing the cultural opposition.
This is my last word on the subject. I won't debate any of you here, because the mods have already laid down the law which is that they have unilateral subjective authority over how discussions are conducted. It would never be a fair fight, even if I wanted to contest it. The mods do a pretty good job of adhering to some general rules. But I realize, as they do, that the prime direcrive here is not the Oxford Debating Society but rather the creation of a certain kind of sportsfan website. Which is for the entertainment of the audience, and not to resolve social issues.
Can we ban this guy already? I'm pretty sure "being incredibly annoying all the time" has already been established as banhammer worthy.
Being annoying in the mod thread isn't the same as being annoying on front-end threads. I'm not saying this thread is Nam (it's not Nam; there are rules!) but I have considerably more patience with someone of a different/stupid opinion trying to plead his case in the mod thread than arguing with general readers.
Everyone knows Section 1 is a political dude. There's still a place here for people with political views so strong that they tend to infiltrate and color their views of other things, so long as they keep their shit in check.If he didn't also add positive things to the discussion on a rather regular basis in threads where readers go he'd have been long gone. I rather prefer to have Section 1 on here since his difference of opinion is useful and he therefore represents the edge of what we will tolerate.