Meta: Linking to Freep Articles
Lately there have been several MGoBoard spats regarding Freep article threads. OPs have started topics on Freep articles and either provided a link or left the link out. Predictably the Freep boycotters and Freep non-boycotters have then engaged in thread wars over the presence or non-presence of said links. When the non-boycotters have provided links they've been neg-bombed. When the boycotters have vented their spleen about the Freep, they've been taken to task for their perceived silliness.
I for one believe that all of this is tiresome and detracts from the enjoyability of the board. Thankfully, we can actually look to Brian for guidance on this topic. In his Jihad the Second: Tentative Results front pager, he said the following:
Until such time as Drew Sharp, Michael Rosenberg, and Mark Snyder are no longer at the paper, if you are a Michigan fan with a Free Press subscription you should terminate it immediately. If you link to a Free Press article it should be the print page and it should be nofollowed. If you visit the Free Press website, you should have adblock on. If you write for Michigan's Rivals site you should not write for the Free Press. It's not because they took a swing at Michigan's program. It's because they were blatantly dishonest in doing so.
Most of those shoulds are recommendations because they refer to behaviors entirely outside of the realm of MGoBlog. All except the bolded, italicized portion which refers explicitly to behavior that Brian desires on MGoBlog. Brian's guidance serves several purposes: 1) It reduces the ad revenue earned by the freep.com; 2) It provides a convenient way to discuss Freep stories that may have some relevance (sometimes there's actual news content to digest and share, sometimes there are examples of "Freepiness" or jihadi-like behavior to rail against (at least in the eye of the poster)); and 3) It serves to tamp down the frequency of MGoBoard spats.
Now, following this policy requires some discipline on the part of the MGoBlogerati and it requires that the Freepers (boycotters) and the anti-Freepers (non-boycotters) each give a little. The Freepers have to not reflexively react negatively when a thread is started about a Freep story and the anti-Freepers have to not go off on the Freepers about how stupid the boycott is. The bottom line is that both factions need to refrain from poking the other faction in the eye every time one of these threads appears.
Now let's say someone starts a thread and posts a direct Freep link. What's the appropriate response?
- Post a comment deriding the OP for his support of the Freep.
- Post a comment lauding the OP for not buying a Freeper tin foil hat
- Post a comment gently reminding the OP that the guidance is that we use print links for Freep articles and cheerfully provide him with that link
Ok, I'm sure that in this thread there will be some witty alternate responses and I'm looking forward to reading them, but I submit that the right answer is number 3. Number 3 preserves board civility and encourages MGoBlogerati unity.
Now, I'm certainly aware that the passions of the Freeper and anti-Freeper factions are driven by much more than whether or not an MGoBlog Freep boycott is effective. I know there has been some over the top language used on both sides and personal attacks mustered against various MGoUsers on both sides and as a result there are legitimate hurt feelings and abused sensibilities all around. I submit that if we follow this third or middle way, we will avoid much of the divisiveness we've experienced lately.
Your thoughts?
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
Go Blue
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
Until we dont have to have these kind of threads and can talk about football, not what type of links we can use.
Please get here quick football season!
Go Blue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
you can't spell knee-jerk without jerk.
This post is excellent. Thanks, Shoe.
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
Really, you're a little overinvested in this.
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
Testing something.
Paste your freep link here:
Click!
And here's your conversion:
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
Just don't tell the Iranians you stole their plutonium.
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
I think we should even take it a step further. I think all topics with opinions that go against the mainstream or with views that could be considered less than positive should be immediately deleted. Opinions can be very dangerous and should be sifled at all costs. Great idea TC!
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
Whatever happened to freewill?
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^
...still in Rush's set list. I have tickets to see them on Sep 18 and I really like that song.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
That movement was significantly less popular than the Free Darko! movement, but significantly more popular than the subsequent Free Amir! movement.
BTW, The Freep has an article (by Snyder) this morning about expansion and the Michigan - OSU rivalry but the link to the article says "Expansion Won't Harm MSU-OSU Rivalry." lol Freep? lol Freep.
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^
Has anyone else noticed a problem with the pozbanging/negbanging arrows, at least on this thread? I clicked an "up" arrow, and the points decreased by 1. Puzzled, I found a post that I disagreed with, clicked a "down" arrow, and it added a point. I then clicked another "up" arrow, and it added four points.
Are mgopoints becoming as fickle as life itself?
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
But, shhh.... Don't tell anyone.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
That's why I've been getting points! I hadn't been contributing anything to the conversations, so I figured it couldn't be because people liked what I had to say.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
The extra points thing is actually the accumulation of constructive interference caused by adjacent multiverse spaces with MGoBlog sites in which you did contribute.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
what you're seeing is asynchronous voting. points don't update dynamically, so all point totals are shown from the point you opened the thread. When you make a vote it will update (your display) of that post's vote total, including your new vote - if multiple votes have been cast prior to yours, you can see a jump anywhere from 0 to (likely) just over 2 billion.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
+2 billion to you, sir.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^
in the Matrix
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
There are 31 more days... hang in there everyone. We can make it.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
MGoShoe - Who are you? Are you a mod? Why are you so invested in the board here? You seem to have more of a presence here than anyone else - almost every thread I click on you have a smattering of posts throughout. You also put up thread after thread of links to other sites. And you put up well-thought-out, well-written more 'meta' posts like these somewhat often as well. I'm not complaining - I invest less and less of my time in this board for other reasons - but I do want to understand the trajectory of the board. People whose presence is so ubiquitous seem to shape the nature of the board. And I don't think its a bad thing in your case. But I am curious. Thanks.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
Who is MGoShoe?
try this out...
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/mgoprofile-volume-9
EDIT: I wasn't trying to be rude or offend anyone. I just thought the MGoProfile did a good job of giving insight to MGoShoe, thus answering blueblueblue's question. Sorry.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^
- I'm an alumnus (LSA '89)
- I'm not a mod
- I'm invested because I'm an avid follower of all things Michigan and this is by far the best place to do that
- I wrote this because I think there's been a sharp decline in MGoBoard civility lately (endless arguments and serial thread negging)
- I provide content because I think it adds to the conversation
- As noted above, every user here has the free will to participate or not participate in any thread and act in any way they see fit, but there are norms that should be followed, especially when Brian has indicated a preference
- If my ubiquitousness is bothering some (not you apparently), I'm sorry that's the case
How about you blueblueblue? Who are you?
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
How is this any different than just skipping over threads you aren't interested in? If you see a link and you don't want to click on it, regardless of where it comes from, just abstain from doing so. You're making a big deal out of nothing.....especially when you're expecting relative newcomers to remember what Brian wrote in an article that was written almost six months ago.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
...that's not the behavior that I've seen. What I'm suggesting is that everyone can maintain their personal opinions on the value or non-value of the Freep boycott, but one fairly simple action, the use of print links can help to avoid the spats that have sprung up recently.
If consensus could be reached (yes, I know that's naive), then we could actually sticky this post so that relative newcomers would be aware of the protocol.
Oh well. I gave it a shot.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
I'm not being a hater....I'm just saying that it should just be a choice and for all intents and purposes that's how it's been for a long time. I give you credit for giving attention to it.....I'm sure it has Brian's attention too and maybe this can be figured out once and for all.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
I'd like to state that I don't wear a tinfoil hat to block the government mind control rays, I wear it because its fashionable.
The fact that it does block mind control rays is just an added benefit.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
All of this is getting really old.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
live up to my name?
Regarding the free will argument--no, you do not have any on this site. It is privately-owned and Brian is free to ban/promote/whatever any discussion he wants. Feel free to voice your meta opinion but it ultimately does not matter. If you think Brian is unreasonable or we would be better served by more open or more closed discussions, then leave and/or start your own blog.
As Shoe mentioned, Brian's preference has been made clear. Obviously, he has more important things to do or he would actually enforce the policy or use mods that care to enforce the policy. Or, he doesn't feel like the issue is important enough to attach a ban/post deletion or whatever to it.
Either way, the point is--those arguing against the use of the expressed policy (whether it's "no links ever" or "just post the main links") do not have a leg to stand on. Go ahead and continue to argue what the policy "should" be...it's just annoying and pointless.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
Where has Brian's preference been made clear? Smack in the middle of a really long article written almost six months ago? It's not in the ethics section of the site, or the FAQ. If you could let me know, I'd appreciate it.
Note: I am being serious, as saying it's clear would imply that many of these people who have recently posted links to the site (not in an OMG Shirtless manner) that are pretty much new to the site should be aware that there's such a clear policy on Free Press links and what not.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
exactly what I am talking about. You are demanding clear, pre-established laws for behavior that will be evenly enforced. You will not get this. There is no due process. The rules are what exists in Brian's head. He put those thoughts in writing, and now everyone that read that post knows how he feels on the topic. Enforcement is also up to him. He can take a hard line or not really give a shit. Given that he has things to do, I'm guessing he doesn't care too much.
He is the one at risk for alienating users and driving them away. If his policies don't make sense and you do not like it you can vote with your feet. All Shoe is asking for is to stop discussing this idiotic topic. It clutters the board. Genuine concerns should be taken directly and privately to Brian.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
I'm not demanding anything. I said it should be a choice and that if people click on it, that's their choice and if they do, that's their choice as well.
You're the one who said his preferences were clear....when they absolutely aren't. Saying it's clear would lead one to believe there is some sort of rule on the site in dealing with Free Press links. There isn't.....which is why people continue to post links because they don't believe there is anything wrong in doing so.....and they unintentionally begin these flame wars because some of the veteran members on here don't want to see those links.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
it does not matter if you think there should be choice.
A front page post = clear preference expressed. That's not to say I blame newcomers for not knowing. They have no way of knowing and it is up to us to inform them in a way that doesn't devolve into a flame war. That means that people like you shouldn't say BUT THERE SHOULD BE FREE CHOICE and people like Tater or whatever shouldn't say OMG DONT POST FREEP AT ALL EVER.
It would be better if Brian posted the policy elsewhere but as I said, I don't think he cares enough to enforce it...which is also fine.
Remember how there wasn't a policy against using the word "Spartina?" Then someone used it and got docked 1 million mgopoints? There doesn't need to be a civil code promulgated by the MGoLegislature.
the MGoCode is secret, and changes at the whim of the Fearless Leader.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
Without commenting on the merits for and against the boycott (I do not support the boycott myself because I think it's pointless and counterproductive, but I can understand why one would), I think that a compromise to use print links designed to deny the Free Press ad revenue is wrong. Even if you consider the Freep a nefarious organization dedicated to knocking the Michigan football program downwards and an ardent supporter of MSU, they still deserve compensation when people consume their content. If you don't want to give the Freep ad revenue, don't read their articles. But if you choose to read their content, then they deserve compensation for you doing so, just like any other media outlet.
Here's my compromise...I will no longer conceal Freep links as Non-Freep links.
I'll be sure to note that they are Freep links. However, I will not link to the Print version of the story. That's just silly business and a waste of time.
If Brian comes out and makes a new statement regarding FreeP links that is not in the heat of the Jihad, I will kindly oblige. I have yet to see him critisize any poster for posting the Free Press link. I have no problem taking a serious neg bashing every time I post a FreeP link, that is deserved and understandable.
cutting and pasting the link in full http format lets people decide i guess. print link where available.
MGoShoe:
I must say, that I resent our blog being called out as "anti-boycott". You write a post asking for a consensus, and then rattle the cage? Come on.
The reason why I, personally (not anyone who writes for my blog, just me) hate the "boycott" is precisely why you wrote this post - I'm sick of this entire thing as a point of conversation. It's stupid. And annoying. And dull.
You don't want to read the FREEP? Don't. I really don't care. You think a boycott is justified? Fine. I'm not even arguing. Just don't get your panties in a bunch when someone links a frickin' article. You want to boycott? Fine. Don't foist that shit on everyone.
You claim to be "representing Brian". Until he shows up and tells a single one of the people who link the FREEP to stop, I'm going to assume that he, like most sensible people, doesn't give a fuck.
I also want to clarify ANOTHER misconception you seem to have: my needling of Section 1 has nothing to do with his opinion on a FREEP boycott.
i bunker down with cases of water, green beans and encyclopedias waiting for The Big One
Please don't try to bring any of the water into the stadium.
I'm thinking about changing my avatar to a picture of a kitten to emphasize the "cats and dogs, living together" aspect of this.
FWIW, I also agree with your point that posting a 1000 word sermon about the FREEP situation in order to quell the debate is laughably absurd.
i feel dirty.
You just had to mention HIM didn't you.
Prepare for yet another tl;dr diatribe, identical to every other tl;dr diatribe he's written for the past year.
I'm begginning to think he's a spambot. It's the exact same issue, over and over and over again, ad nauseam.
...if I offended you, I apologize. In at least one of the spats I reference, the posters going after Section 1 were you and several guys who seem to frequent your Uniscorn board, so the WLA reference was simply a bad joke. I'm not really trying to pin an "anti-Freeper" rose on your blog and I'm really trying to find a middle way.
I'm also not claiming to represent Brian. I reported what he said. Perhaps his lack of comment indicates as you and others have said that he doesn't give a shit or a fuck about this issue. Perhaps he's not going to wade into this because he's about to spring some new features that he thinks will make a lot of these issues moot.
Whatever the case, as I explained to Geaux_Blue earlier, this was an honest attempt to restore some civility to the board. I'm sorry if this seems absurd to you. And no, I'm not butthurt either.
this is STILL going on?
the Brain Cook will not be happy.
He can't throw a water bottle at you!
It's a print link