meta: Free Press threads are banned.

Submitted by Brian on

From now on, any random threads about the Free Press or the people who work there will be deleted. Legitimate threads citing Free Press articles that talk about Michigan sports will stand, and they will probably draw some hur hur posts; that's life.

Threads about the Free Press itself will be deleted unless there is a major development worthy of attention.

The reason for this change is that those threads are embarrassing wastes of space and they make me want to die.

MGoBoard
Recruiting
meta

Section 1

August 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^

were really "against the grain."

Quoting Brain Cook:  There is "something we all already know: the Free Press is a laughable heap of crap." 

I agree, although I have a bit of a problem in thinking that a serious threat to Coach Rodriguez's job is "laughable."  Still, Brian Cook loathes the Free Press' campaign against Rich Rodriguez and so do I. 

You'll be hard-pressed to find any OT content from me in the history of this blog.  You'll actually be hard-pressed to find any more than a couple of Freep-related threads started by me in any week or month, and they are routinely directly related to the coverage of Michigan football and the NCAA investigation.

I should say this, too.  I have some serious concerns as to how more precarious might be the percieved public opinion of Rich Rodriguez, but for MGoBlog, into which my contribution is decidedly minimal.  No one can know, with any semblance of certainty; my gut tells me that Rich Rodriguez might not have survived the NCAA investigation without the supportive content he has gotten on the internet.  Few people in the media will ever acknowledge MGoBlog as a source.  But they are all reading MGoBlog; they are digesting it and they know they must deal with its content.  To the extent there is content, thanks mostly to Brian and his capable helpers.  They assuredly don't bother with random Message Board trashtalk.

The mere existence of MGoBlog is more important to my own substantive wishes than anything having to do with any content that I might insert.  Brian Cook knows that he'll get no problems and no disobedience from me respecting the Rules of the Road for Message Board posting.

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: 16535

BiSB

August 23rd, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^

Michigan Blog Seeks to Censor Free Press Content;

Long-time Poster Contemplates Transferring to MLive.

 

But seriously, folks, this is a welcome change that makes me happy.  We doth protest a little too much these days.

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 46071

UMich87

August 23rd, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^

resulting in ad hominem attacks, but so do certain writers and radio hosts (Valenti and Foster on The Ticket to name 2 recent ones).  There were also several threads dedicated to the Professional Hottie that quickly devolved.  I guess sometimes it is board-worthy news, like the PH's tweet about Tate or the Valenti/Webb Radio Throw Down regarding players that have left the program, and sometimes it is just a random drive-by or splittle-flecked rant that accomplishes nothing.  And sometimes it begins as board-worthy and turns South.

So while I appreciate the Freep thread ban unless it is applicable to the football program and its future, there is plenty of non-Freep flotsam of the same ilk that is tougher to define, but as Justice Potter said, "I know it when I see it."  I suppose that has to be eliminated on a case-by-case basis, but it sure would be nice if we were better at policing ourselves.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 4142

TSWC

August 23rd, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^

While (1) this is Brian's website and he can do what he wants; (2) it looks like a majority of users agree with the move; and (3) I'm fine with it because of #1 and #2...

I really don't get where all this vitriol is coming from. I don't mind Section 1's posts--actually, on a usefulness and valuableness scale I think they are clearly in the top half of the content that's been put up on the board (though lately that's not saying much). I don't read the FREEP--I didn't before the "Jihad" and I certainly don't now--so I don't mind when Section 1 puts something up like his most recent fisking. Actually I'm glad it is there. His titles, at least lately, are perfectly clear, so if you don't want to read his FREEP fisking, don't. I considered it worth having posted because: (1) it wasn't old news, it was something new; and (2) it wasn't just a name calling bash, it was a substantive breakdown. Since I don't read it, I'm happy that someone on the board is there to tell me that the paper is still at it (though I don't really get why anyone is still reading it).

As for the value of the content: is it vital to know? No, but over the last month (at least) most of the stuff on the board is less valuable. The stuff on the board that bugs me is: (1) when "should DG red shirt" questions are laced through six different board posts (or something like that) and 95% of them say 1 of 2 things adding almost nothing else--so we've got 100+ posts (or whatever) that say what was probably covered pretty well in two posts that could've been up or down voted to show agreement ; and (2) posts where the number of replies ripping on the OP completely clog the actual discussion (if a post is redundant, or whatever, one person telling the OP and maybe a mod should be enough, after that neg away if you want to).

Why are "what are you drinking tonight" and "Tiger Woods's divorce is finalized" posts OK, but a FREEP fisking is not? (I recognize that the OT stuff will be gone come 9/4, and I enjoy the drinking and other random OT stuff at the moment (I've participated in most of them) so I'm not saying they should be banned). IMO, the reason is at some point someone(s) put out the idea that fisking the FREEP makes us look desperate and bitter. I don't think that is true, not even close. There is value in showing that the paper is still biased and practicing what amounts to a smear campaign. If the posts were nothing more than continued FREEP bashing because of, and harping on, what happened a year ago, then yes, it would look desperate and bitter. And yes, desperate is bad, but what's wrong with being bitter? We have good reasons to be bitter.

In summary: I don't get (1) why people click on clearly titled board posts that they know they don't want to read just to say they don't want to read it; (2) why a legitimate fisk of a NEW story is bad and less valuable than 1/2 the other stuff that gets thrown on the board; and (3) why everyone is so settled to the point of nastiness on the idea that continued discussion of the FREEP (even when it pertains to new things) is a stupid thing to do.

Lastly: Don't be a jerk to our fellow board members. Maybe there's a history here that I missed, but from what I can tell Section 1 has done nothing more that put in some work breaking down stuff that he thinks is important to share with others. If you disagree with the value of the work, fine, but you don't have to be nasty about it. Unless a poster is doing nasty things him/herself, e.g. making misogynistic statements, bashing players, being an obvious troll, etc, etc, be nice. Please. I think we can all, and most of us do, express differing opinions politely, but some of us are just being asses about it.

Joined: 09/08/2009

MGoPoints: 833