question about the newest point system and your opinion.
If you give a down arrow for a post does that take away from the total points on the far left? Does it affect the total points that we have already accumulated over the past several months?
As a blog community are we going to give the down arrow to people we disagree with on a topic or is the down arrow meant to be used strictly on trolls that are posting nonsense or both? Just wondered with you all think....
I like the system, sorta, but I see a few contradictions and abuses that concern me. Here are a couple:
1. Cliques can vote en masse and not only pummel those with whom they disagree, but give themselves tons of positive votes, too, turning them into "upstanding citizens" with high point totals.
2. If a person is highly critical of another poster, it seems to get positive points. If, however, a person is critical of OSU or MSU, the post seems to get negative points and the person who criticized the poster gets positive points. In other words, you gain points for abusing a fellow UM fan, but you lose points for abusing your two biggest rivals.
I really wish that the system would somehow be tweaked so that only trolls were downgraded. As it sits right now, there is vitrually no difference between being a troll or being a UM fan whose opinion or persona isn't in agreement with a small portion of the community.
I'm all for neutralizing trolls, but no point system is really needed to do that. All a point system really does is turn fellow UM fans at a discussion forum into competitors and gives a small segment a tool to play anti-social games that most of us quit playing once we got to college.
Mgoblog had a repuation as the best of all of the UM-themed blogs just as it was; I don't see a tweak of this magnitude as being the least bit neccessary to retain its lofty status.
If anything, the point system will make people more afraid to give honest opinions because of being penalized for them by those who disagree. I really don't think that making people afraid to give an honest opinion about their favorite team should be the goal or end result of any forum.
Most of all, if the last few days of posting are any indication, the long-range effect of the point system will probably be to reduce diversity of opinion. Those who are savvy and want to get points by "fitting in" will see that being an echo chamber with a keyboard is the best way to do that.
I truly hope that the system is either scrapped or at least tweaked so as to eliminate the possibility of people being cyber-trashed for dissenting opinions or mindsets. I think that the collective intellect of any community is best demonstrated by its tolerance to diverse and dissenting opinions. Right now, intolerance, being in a clique, and parroting are being rewarded while diversity is being penalized.
I think Brian deserves a better outcome for all of the time, passion, and work he has put into this blog. Most of all, though, I think an intelligent community deserves better.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the points system without us being able to see the points we and other people have. That way it doesn't turn into a competition/clique thing, but Brian still has the ability to see, "Oh hey, this idiot is at -100, I should probably look into whether I need to drop the banhammer."
And yet, you have over a hundred points. No one is dinging you for past idiocy because you seem to be restraining some of the more trollish aspects of your posting personality (aside from slamming Ypsilanti wholesale). I think long-term, as long as people don't go off the deep end and post something inflammatory enough to lose all their points and move into the negative, this should work out okay. And really, you have to know when you aren't offering "diversity of opinion" and just being a big jerk. I certainly know when I'm doing it.
Without trying to sound too much like a d-bag, let me just say that I'm a moderator at the detroitpistons.com message board. I've posted there since 2004 and have been a moderator since probably 2006.
When I joined that board, there was a group of excellent posters who were very thoughtful and insightful. Anyone bringing poor posts were quickly weeded out and encouraged to either put some thought into what they posted or don't post at all. This was probably the high point of the board.
The Pistons got popular and the trolls, bandwagon fans, 14-yr old girls, etc came out en masse. It was overwhelming. The good posters were outnumbered by the new ones and poor posts couldn't be put down and discouraged easily. The board quickly became a cacophony of "OMG RIP IS HOTT" and "Trade Jon Barry for Kevin Garnett."
Quickly the quality posters departed. Those of us who stayed did our best to solve the problems, given only the power to move threads and delete threads, we were left with the latter option. Deleting threads and posts wasn't popular and the quality and populace of the board spiraled.
So, IME, some sort of control is good. I think that after a month or so, that point system and the posters' familiarity with it will level out and things will work fine. Maybe the point total to start a topic could be lowered, maybe not. The rogue negative points will become minimal so long as the quality posters discourage it.
Nobody likes change, but I don't think this is going to be much of a problem, and if it prevents the possibility of the board spiraling to a sea of garbage, then the positives outweigh the negatives.
...you are my #1 target. Let's get that straight. As soon as I figure out how to work this damn intertoobz thing, I'm going to spend half my day downbanging every single comment you've ever made, Tater.
Because aside from shopping for a personal masseuse online, I've got nothing better to do than confirm your worst delusional paranoid fears.
Feel better?
Do you think people would be more selective in using a troll button compared to a simple down arrow? I do think that some folks have been a bit too liberal in how they use the down arrow; perhaps this pattern would change if the actual button made it unambiguously clear that it is to be used for trolls only.
Just a thought.
I agree that defined parameters would help and a visual reminder is a good idea but I don't think that "-1" should be reserved for just trolls.
Sometimes there are bad posts that reach a "-1" level. These can include inappropriate and overly offensive remarks (I used "inappropriate" and "overly offensive" because, sometimes, people deserve to be called dicks). Other times, there are not just flawed arguments but ridiculous arguments like, "I bet you couldn't bench as much as _____ or run as fast as _____ so I'm right and you're wrong."
With this said, I have yet to use the thumbs down button since the masses deliver justice pretty swiftly.
I initially thought that the down arrow should be reserved for trolls but I now see the need for it in other cases. But, like you, I don't anticipate using the down arrow much given how quickly others get at the idiots.
is ONLY to remove trolls. it's to encourage thoughtful discussion and rein in moronic, derogatory or inflammatory statements. M fans are just as capable of this as sparty fans. we just use better vocab in doing so.
not to mention, if points are such a concern that you don't want to post your epinion, oh well. just to let you know, points have no value. they are not legal tender. you shouldn't really care how many you have. example:
ime, the tigers suck. there i said it.
I largely agree. People generally shouldn't care about their point totals, in which case the system should work.
The one exception, however, is the 20-point threshold for starting topics/giving thumbs. For those of us who rarely post (despite reading daily), 20 points seems like it'll take forever to achieve.
The threat of losing points because of an errant or unpopular comment then has a huge chilling effect. I find myself choosing not to post on topics that are controversial (e.g., playoffs) because I'd like to someday get safely above that 20-point barrier. Of course, the self-censorship just makes it harder to reach that point.
And lest you think that my fears are overstated, I lost 6 points (despite only starting with 5) on the first day of the new system because I asked why I wasn't able to see the thumbs up/down controls and I hadn't noticed that the question had already been asked and answered previously.
but the points have to have some kind of perceived "value," otherwise they wouldn't have the impact you ascribe to them in your first paragraph.
…but I think this board did a fairly decent job of encouraging discussion and reining in morons before the point system was in place. The installation of the point system seems to have been a direct response to the growing troll problem (which seems to have been abated for the most part).
Whatever happened to the old days where inflammatory remarks got reined in with a simple, “calm down, asshole”?
I think there’s some utility to having a point system but the issue of point allocation should probably be addressed in more detail by Brian and users at large.
Part of the problem is that there are a lot more posters on the board than there used to be. Don't get me wrong, having more people on the board will encourage more discussion, but a certain percentage of the new folks will be morons/trolls/whatever. As their numbers grow we need more effective self-policing tools, or Brian's going to be spending more time using the ban-hammer than he does writing posts. Nobody wants that, not even the trolls.
What's in place right now is just a starting point that will be refined as Brian tweaks the system (and we posters figure out what to do with it).
I see the need for such a system, I just think it should have been introduced with a bit more discussion around it than a “Boom—here it is” type deal.
I also understand why some of the older users are annoyed by seeing so many threads on the topic, but that just speaks to the fact that a lot of users are concerned about this issue, and people should have their opinions (epinions?) heard.
I think it's unfair that you have the coolest pic, the WTF - Panda, that gets you points all by itself. I find myself laughing each time I see it and hitting the up arrow.
...and then Brian posted that image in one of his stories. I couldn't stop laughing, and knew that the WTF-Panda had to be me. Glad to hear that someone else finds it amusing.
Michigan Fans: Jerks with Thesauruses?
Oddly, I don't know that I'd find that statement offensive on a sparty shirt.
I am getting a T-Shirt. And a Rolex at 5000 mgopoints. Send me yours, please.
I've noticed that to say anything derogatory in re to Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, etc., or positive towards one of their rival teams, will bring negative comments. This is annoying, because this is a University of Michigan sports blog, not a State of Michigan sports blog. I already have self-censored, and just avoid OT headers re the Detroit teams, and any honest comments re those teams. Also can see the echo chamber thing happening. Or posters succumbing to the temptation to craft witty statements mostly for the purpose of trying to get positive dings & strokes. Whatever.
My greatest concern is what happens to posters sharing true yet negative news . . . stuff we really want to know about, but hate to hear. I'm thinking back to all the traffic when Michigan was searching for a new coach. Or when McGuffie was thinking of transferring. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I was glad to hear the news, even though I wasn't always happy about the news I heard. Just scrolling through today's posts, I saw something about Gardner that may possibly have a grain of truth, yet isn't something UM fans would want to hear. No way should the poster be trashed for bringing the news. This would be the problem with the point system. If a regular contributor came by inside info on a potential recruit not favorable to Michigan, would he want to post it? The possibility of negative hits is a disincentive.
I agree that delivering negative news to the board could potentially become a problem. I think that there already was an example of this a few days ago when someone posted they heard that the Penn State coaching staff thought Gardner would decommit if Forcier had a good year at QB. Now, this situation may differ from future situations in that it was a newer poster and about an event that wouldn't take place for a couple months, but many critisms were about the vality of the claims and trying to "stir up the board" which could be made for just about any instance of trying to spread bad news.
Maybe these are the teething problems we should have expected with the switch to the MGoPoints system, but I hope that our focus on the points subsides soon, and that members give/take away only because of larger emotional responses than, "eh, I guess I agree with that: +1," or much much worse, "eh, I don't think I agree with that: -1." Minus points shouldn't be for subjective viewpoint differences; trolls/serious offenders only. Hopefully either better judgement or sheer laziness will urge members to be less point-happy.
Personally, I've only given down arrows to blatant trolls, or people that go over my own little self-defined line. I hate when people trash players or public figures with nothing other than message-board rumor mongering to back them up, so I negative pointed the guy who called Odoms "worthless", and I negative pointed the person who obliquely alluded to, but never outright verbalized, corruption on the part of a player's parents.
Further, to Tater's point, I won't negative point someone for knocking MSU or OSU. I will do it if it's something as mindless and banal as "LOL $UCKEYE$ PAY THEIR PLAYERS", or something that just talk about how dumb people from Ohio are. It's played and dumb, in my opinion.
However, I had a "debate" with people regarding the Pistons and Tigers lately, and didn't "down arrow" anyone. Disagreement is fine - it's what message boards thrive on. Just have a point.
I gave you a THUMBS DOWN because you are a little girl.
OMG THE CLIQUE IS VOTING AGAINST EACH OTHER
I could be persuaded that all dex posts deserve a -1. But the WLA outnumber me, so scratch that idea.
So by the criteriayou agreed to below, I should down arrow this (I did not). Seriously, if you think that we're going to have a meeting about who to collectively down arrow, you can disabuse yourself of that notion. There is no conspiracy here.
That was humor. I hope.
Read Tater above though - he seriously thinks that we're a sinister cabal tinkering with the MGoPoint values of innocent posters - possibly to advance a pro-MSU/OSU agenda? It's like we're the fucking Free Masons or something.
OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people -- under the supervision of the reverse vampires and WLA -- are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner.
We're through the looking glass here, people.
+ 1 million points
of course, on principle i had to give you a thumbs down
OMG I GAVE YOU +2 THE WORLD IS GOING TO EXPLODE
-1 for using "opinion" and not "epinion"
Personally, I have been very cautious about using the ability to give and take points. My criteria are pretty limited.
Plus = Something original and insightful that actually adds something to the discussion. I have no requirement that I actually agree with something to give it a positive mark, just that it's well thought out and defensible from some view.
Minus = Basically being a dick. If a post is personally attacking someone and doing nothing constructive, I will give it a thumbs down. I am also tempted to give negatives to the condescending police posts that people have, though I haven't done this yet.
I think your Minus criteria are perfect. I agree wholeheartedly.
I think the system works well. I have an irrational like of my mgopoints, and I have stopped myself from being overly aggressive on more than one occasion.
I am expecting Brian to roll out some clarification on the system soon, what kind of T-Shirt I have won and another important clarification: the use of diary vs. board. I know it is pretty clearly spelled out in the FAQ, but the Diary has been a little cluttered with board-type material lately. I would even suggest expanding the diary to ten topics.
but I don't know where the button is....lol
I agree with that system and is what I try to do for the post part, but I also try to give positive points if I feel that someone was given negative points unjustly.
My hope is that Brian is tracking the backside to see what is going on. ie: Finding the user with the 21 points who has voted thumbs down three thousand times already. Then check the content this user finds offensive. If the guy is voting thumbs down for no good reason then I hope Brian will "curb" this behaviour.
I am not a fan of the neg/pos points. It is such a turn off from posting that I am trying to lose my addiction to this board and find another source for UM football news. It opens the door to a different kind of blog presence, the lazy coward, the person who does not want to take the time to show who is expressing displeasure and give a rational explanation. In that way, it has a perverse effect. I have seen neg points that are inexplicable with the content of the post. And not caring about point totals is a fantasy. Taking the time to think through a post, to make it as palatable as possible, and then not care about it inexplicably getting negative points is a unrealistic. The system will only serve to detract posts that express strong opinions, making the community here homogenous and dull. The board was great before. it took some time to weed out certain trolls, but weeded out they were. On the flip side, certain trolls were kind of fun to poke fun at.
A solution would be to only let veterans give neg or pos points - those who have been signed on for a certain time and who have a certain point total. Relax the points needed to start a topic (15? 10?), couple it also with a certain membership time. Being able to start a topic, which was only done once in a while by trolls (and was given continual life by people responding, not the troll himself) seems less impacting than the ubiquitous, nettlesome neg and pos points. The order of importance, and of restriction, should be reversed.
Another solution woudl be to lose the points altogether. Who needs more complexity in their lives? I vote for a return to normality.
you need 20 MGoPoints to start a board, but ZERO to start a diary. This kind of seems the opposite it should be, but Brian has his reasons.
Personally, I think that both should require a certain minimum number of points (but they don't have to be the same).
EDIT: And remember, normality a couple of months ago was the McFarlins, etc. running amok and starting a bunch of threads. I don't think that would be good for the blog.
I guess I dont remember things in the same way when several McFarlins were running amok. Yes, they started some threads, yes things got out of hand, but it was the posters here, many of whom were veterans and influential posters, who gave the threads life by needing to point out over and over how dumb the original poster was. And I thought all that died down before the thread topic point system (could be wrong there), but it definitely died down before the neg/pos point system. I thought most of that chaos went away with the non-point based ban of McFarlin.
and the points (massive negative ones) are to alert Brian more quickly (than with McFarlin, anyway) to problem posters.
You actually come to this blog for the MGoBoard, not Brian's posts? I like the MGoBoard, but I can absolutely live without out it and return back to the days of Haloscan. Good luck finding any decent boards out there. Rivals and Scout free boards aren't that great, and MLive and Freep boards are total shitholes in which your IQ drops a point for every comment you read. This board has its flaws but it's one of the better ones on the net.
I have posted more than twice on three forums ever, but I've made tens of thousands of posts on those boards. I'm extremely selective about the communities into which I immerse myself. MGoBoard passes the test.
This board is Plato, Socrates and Aristotle reclining on the grass discussing natural philosophy, rhetoric and mathematics compared to those other sites, mgopoints or no.
Point well taken. I have had little exposure to other boards.
But Dan, I have to comment on your picture or avatar or whatever you call it - it is really bothersome to look at. It destroys a little part of my brain every time I see it. It erases happy memories, only to replace them with the imaginary monsters of my childhood. Plus, it is nauseating.
Since I have a decent amount of points, and therefore have "sharp elbows", I'm going to give you a minus point every time you post until you change your picture. It's now my personal mission. This might be challenging, however, because you have more points than I. Thus, to enable me to keep giving you negative points, I will have to put up posts that are popular and will gain me points. Which will be challenging indeed. You had better watch out and start earning points buddy!! Or bow down now and give in to mgoblog bullying!!!
Oh, I do apologize if the picture is a self-portrait.
LOL! come on! Gothmog is my buddy.
Uh oh. Just expressing my amusement cost me a point.
Strong second on finding a better board. The point system is imperfect and could stand some tweaks, but the quality of discussion here is light years ahead of what you get from the....how did another poster put it?.....the "Parade of Idiots" that frequent places like Freep and MLive. It's refreshing to have a place to go to read up on U of M athletics and have adult discussions about issues that concern it. Plus the WTF-Panda picture is great....
I'm beginning to think MGoPoints should be eradicated so that:
a) People stop acting like there's a cabal of posters secretly voting up allies and down enemies (seriously people, this sounds like like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
b) We don't have to read a 17th forum about MGoPoints.
We can't eliminate them, because when you get to 1000, Brian buys you a 6 pack.
I thought is was a pony.
That takes 5000 and you have to buy HIM a 6 Pack.