Meta: Increase Point Total for Board Topics?
September 30th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
Also, cosined.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
Also, tangented.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^
I dunno if I'm ready to go there. Just secanted
September 30th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
Yet, I still agree.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
over the interval from zero to FREEKING ABSOLUTELY
September 30th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^
definitely agree. I say between 500-1000 range. Some of these posts are ridiculous.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^
Yes, please.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^
To shamelessly promote this, I will upvote anyone who agrees with me in this thread.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
I agree with you.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours...20 point deduction for reposters.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
Only 20 points? What are you, some kind of soft-on-crime liberal pinko hippy?
September 30th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
An increase in the requirement to post would probably help address your concern as well. There are so many posts that if you miss one day you have to go back 15 pages to see what you missed. And not all post titles are informative.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
It sounds like an "elitist" requirement to me (as there are probably many new contributors that have much more to add than seasoned veterans) but I'll agree as long as the point total is less than 1000 . . .
September 30th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
Even Borat supports an increased point total? But how would I find out about the dreams other dudes on the internet had about our upcoming opponents? Or help others resolve dilemmas about what to do with their day?
September 30th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
I agree with your sentiment whole-heartedly! I just wanted to throw in my vote in the event that the tide has swung to installing a minimum (as long as the minimum is >1000). Some of my favorite threads have been what some would consider pointless or ultra-OT. I, for one, love weighing in on someone's vacation plans and other personal matters. Who wouldn't love telling people what they should do!?
September 30th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
last week i think that there have been a lot of posts. some of them overkill. i do not have enough to post right now (atleast i dont think so?) and i am in favor of raising the bar. i was neg 87 a couple of weeks ago and i was determined to go positive. so i started reading and listening to what the veterans were typing. i am learning as i go and it will take time to accumulate points. however, in that time i will be more aware of what is good content and worthy posting. All in for More MgoPoints to post! Go Blue!
September 30th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
but a jump to 500 or even 1,000 as some have suggested seems extreme.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^
Ditto
September 30th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
agree
September 30th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^
Yeah, it should be at 3125. I kid, I kid. Maybe posts should enter an approval stage or something for users not flagged as normal contributors?
September 30th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^
I like this...it'd be like a post purgatory, except with mods doing the judgment.
September 30th, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
Please implement the "are you serious" button after anyone hits "save"
September 30th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
I'm hoping for roughly 500-1000 req. Given the fact mods can bump someone up to the threshold if they're a legit poster concerned about not being able to post content in the coming weeks, it should be no problem... still up to Brian though
September 30th, 2010 at 9:56 AM ^
500 would be perfect, I am not totally in agreement for 1000 though, as is fairly obvious.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
IME should not really have a threshold. That way new guys can participate right away.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
There couldn't be a limit for replying for topics. Otherwise, how could you earn points?
September 30th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
Only those who deserve them would know how
There couldn't be a limit for replying for topics. Otherwise, how could you earn points?
September 30th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
Troll factor has increased substantially since the start of the season.
500 works for me, though I'd settle for 250.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
I could live with 500-1000 with some sort of vetting process by the mods for anything lower. I pity the poor fellow given that task, but as far as the question posed by the meta is concerned, count me among the 'yays.'
September 30th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
me gusta!
September 30th, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^
I've been meaning to ask you... what is/where did you get your avatar?
September 30th, 2010 at 9:37 AM ^
Cropped it from a poster called "Blue Money Shot" (i think). Great site. You can even make your own posters. I used to do that a lot, but now the site is block at my work.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
But there have been some doozies in the last 24 hours. I agree with you. Maybe from 20 to 50 or 100. Although the mods might be bored.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
Now that we've reached the B10 part of the schedule, its going to be troll city around here.
September 30th, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^
...should cost 1000 points to post...
Trust comes at a price.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^
I will totally agree with you. I say at least 50 points or even 100 points before starting a topic on the board. I especially hate when people post the same story within a few threads. Just look at the MGoBoard damn it!
September 30th, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^
But the problem with 50 or 100 is that it is such a low cut-off, that just about anyone can post. I assume that the posts that prompted this are the same posts that we all found annoying. With only a few exceptions, the posters had b/w 100 and 300 points.
I say if we are going to raise the threshold, it should be somewhere around 250. The problem is that in the new MGoPoints format where upvotes are free but negs cost you a point, total morons have easily been able to reach 100 by posting crap. In the past, these morons would have been negged and they would not have reached the format.
Just my $.02
September 30th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
some might disagree with you as is seen from the guy who posted "Dee Hart?", he lost his ability to post topics fairly fast, although I do somewhat agree that replies don't get negged quite as frequently with the point loss.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
Put me in for 1000 to start a topic. Everything relevant eventually gets covered anyway, and raising the threshold that high would keep the more savvy trolls from having it easy.
Under the current system, someone could respond five times to each thread and get 100 points a day. Not only that, but there have been a lot of low-quality posts by people relatively new at posting lately. Let them "pay their dues" in the comment fields long enough to amass 1000 points before subjecting the board to their inanities.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
If you can't post a new topic, but have an important link or important thought, you can post it in an existing thread that is tangentially related. I can't fathom having some completely new piece of information that isn't related to anything.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
After reading what you said, I agree with you a hundred times more than I agree with myself. 1000 points would at least take a few weeks to amass, and by that time we may be able to see whether the user is worthy or not of making good topics.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
Elitist? 1000 points, that's a little excessive.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^
This needs to happen. The board has just been atrocious of late.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^
But yet, I keep coming back.
Damnit this place is so addicting.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
An increase in the points required to post a thread would be telling.
(I'm so sorry, but you walked into that one).
I agree with you though for that it is worth.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^
But, if the points weren't increased, it would also be telling. :)
September 30th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
Mucho agree-o. <--- TOTALLY LEGITAMATE SPANISH