Moderator Action Sticky

Submitted by formerlyanonymous on December 1st, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Brian has requested that instead of deleting each individual comment in the Moderator Action Sticky, that we instead just create a new thread. It takes hours of less time, preserves the comments for future explanations, and just clears things up faster.

You'll notice that the previous thread is now locked, and will slowly fade back into darkness. For the time being, the link from the Useful Stuff menu will point to the wrong location. We're working on a fix for that.

This thread is an ad-hoc way of tracking what threads and comments get removed. Mods that remove a thread should post the title here with a brief reason as to why the thread is gone.

NOTE: if you leave an irrelevant comment in this thread it will be deleted.

New Thread.

Comments

Seth

December 22nd, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^

Sure sure. Comments are fair. Just keep the goals in mind:

  • Don't clutter the board
  • Don't post things liable to start fights or which are meant to antagonize Michigan fans.
  • Don't do things that reward someone for doing crappy and unfair things to Michigan.
  • Don't ever post any Sharp (he's a troll).

S.G. Rice

December 21st, 2010 at 9:56 PM ^

Indeed, as I had commented in the comment thread on said mgolicious item.

As indicated in the first line of the thread, I don't believe that I'm the only one who tends to skip over the Mgolicious section - particularly when something gets a blurb that doesn't come close to doing the subject justice.   Has there ever been a mgolicious comment thread with more than six replies?  I'm not saying that everything should get bumped to the board, but sometimes there is something so full of win that it should be.

But whatever.  Y'all are the mods and you do what you do.

Tim

December 22nd, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^

Come on. There's no possible way you thought this was appropriate content to post on a Michigan football blog. 

User relieved of all mgopoints, as well.

Seth

December 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^

OP took a snide comment about his post a bit too seriously and a flame-y thread started smoldering. Deleted retort and thread of ANGAR that went with it.

I know I'm not the best example of this, but if someone doesn't like your thread, shrug and move on.

Seth

December 22nd, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^

Other option was to lock the thread. It's a good thread.

Ever say something dick-ish and then a moment later realize "okay, I was being an ass there but now I'm committed."

Unrelated: ever completely blank out on the proper number of m's in "committed?"

formerlyanonymous

December 23rd, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^

Two threads started on the OSU allegations deleted. I mean, come on, there were like 5 other threads on the topic, all still on the front page of mgoboard and recent posts, as well as at least 2 of them on the mgoboard widget front page, something that went official 4 hours earlier.

wolverine1987

December 29th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

Serious question. Granted, others thought the same. But IMO it is ludicrous to take the POV that a saying a female B-Ball player is not as qualified as an ex-NBA player to call NBA games is somehow illegitimate opinion that can be deleted, and apparently delete the long term, previously respectable member of the blog 1000 points. This is a private operation of course, and can do what it likes, but that is completely ridiculous, and in fact, much more offensive to debate than any supposed harm from my post.

Geaux_Blue

December 29th, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^

because it claims that a female WNBA player analyst cannot be an authority while zero posts are made asserting any of the 5000 other commentary teams that don't have an NBA player in them lack similarly. this board has shifted quickly towards the "womenz < men" and taking a stand is probably a good idea.

wolverine1987

December 29th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^

Any human being, male or female, is less qualified to provide expert commentary on a sport that they DID NOT PLAY OR COACH. Whether that is WNBA, Curling, Baseball, women's soccer or any other sport. Saying it is sexist and therefore illegitimate to discuss is an insult to intelligence.  And a shorthand way of dismissal without engaging in a debate or having to make, you know, an actual point.

Also, please provide, not "5000" but 5, announcing teams that do not have either an ex-player or coach in them. You cannot. In fact, you can't name two beyond the one I identified.

OMG Shirtless

December 29th, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^

Did you see some of the responses in that thread?  Those type of threads generally spiral out of control and are removed.  

Ok, so no one cares what I think, and some/many may find this both a "get off my lawn" post as well as dare I say, neanderthalish. 

You all but acknowledged yourself that it was sexist, how did you honestly think that wasn't going to get pulled?

But the color/expert commentary role is always reserved for an ex-player or coach who knows exactly what is happening because they played or coached that sport. How exactly is a woman, no matter how talented at B-ball, qualified to do so?

By this rationale, how is a man qualified to do the color commentating on women's basketball?  

wolverine1987

December 29th, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^

a man provide expert commentary for a women's sport. That in fact was my point. There is a reason only ex-players or coaches provide expert commentary--because they are credible experts given their experience. I think it would be an insult to women's basketball to have a man do color for them. 

And to your other point, of course I expected criticism- but why should that stop me if I believe what I say? And I was surprised it got pulled--considering all the crap that stays. But I was not insulted that it got pulled. I was insulted and contemptuous of the fact that someone deleted 1000 points from me as some sort of punishment.

OMG Shirtless

December 29th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^

I obviously can't speak to the 1000 point penalty, but why on earth do you care?  You have more than enough points and posted a comment that borders right along the edge of politics (gender equality and all that jazz).  

People may have some stupid belief that black males should not be allowed to be head coaches, that doesn't mean that starting a thread on the topic is acceptable.  While, some may debate the obvious differences between racism and sexism, neither are appropriate in this forum.  You've been around long enough to know that.  If you start a thread that's going to incite sexist, racist, or anti-semetic comments you're probably going to get dinged.  If you haven't noticed, a great number of the Pam Ward comments/threads get deleted and often come with penalties as well.

wolverine1987

December 29th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^

if ever get deleted. I don't care about points per se, it is the principle, as I see it, of someone punishing (little though it may be) someone for starting a thread that IMO is perfectly legitimate debate. I can't speak to what others contribute, or that a woman writes in "someday you may realize that women have a place in sports," which has nothing to do with what I wrote. It's annoying when a thread gets deleted and someone deigns to go beyond that to make a point that this shouldn't be discussed. Racism should not be allowed, period. Qualifications for broadcast should be allowed, but I've learned that only so many opinions, on an opinion blog, are legitimate. And more annoying still, is someone confusing a real sort of Ignorance (Black males not being qualified for something) with a principle that has nothing to do with sex or race and everything to do with legitimate expectations of who has the experience necessary to be an expert on a sport. We will likely never see a woman color commenting on the NFL--and that is for a real and legitimate reason that has zero to do with prejudice.

OMG Shirtless

December 29th, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^

I wasn't equating what you were saying with racism, just that sexism has repeatedly drawn similar scorn by Brian and the other mods around here. And just because you believe what you say, it doesn't mean it is appropriate to post about it.  If you had didn't phrase your initial comment like such a meat head your thread might have had a better chance.  If you had said, 

" I can't help thinking why the hell a person who never played in the NBA providing expert commentary on this game?"

rather than, 

I can't help thinking while the hell is a woman providing expert commentary on this game?

By the way,  Lesley Visser was the color commentator for Monday Night Football radio broadcasts in 2001, Howard David did play by play she did color with Boomer Esiason.  

She also did color commentary for a Dophins preseason game last year.

wolverine1987

December 29th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^

phrased. And yours is the kind of debate I would love to hear--rather than a shut down and a bunch of "wow" and "sexist" put downs which allow those who throw them to not think and instead call names.

And Leslie Visser is about as qualified to do color as my daughter, who knows more about M football than any girl her age--because of what I've taught her. And Leslie is not qualified, not because she's a woman, but because she is not experienced at playing or coaching, And because as anyone that has listened to her likely thinks, she's not that bright. Pam Ward on the other hand, is qualified to do what she does, because anyone can do play by play if they have a certain skill. She's just not that good at it.

formerlyanonymous

December 30th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

The whole thread was devolving into women can't call sports discussion without consideration to anything logical or non-stereotypical. Even the OP was "I'm not going to be sexist but I'm going there" (very loosely paraphrased), which opened it up to some of the more juvenile things below. While I don't catch every juvenile post, OP's that lead to many juvenile responses that I do catch get similar treatment. Ones who blatantly troll for stupid tend to get MUCH bigger deductions.

The 1000pt drop was more as a note that "hey, leaving an opened ended outlet for juvenile sexism isn't a good idea." I did only 1000 because you have plenty of points that it's not going to affect your ability to do anything. You still have a lot of points, and people that recognize your handle/picture will still hold you in... uh... regard.

Had you been someone with less than 1000 pts, you probably would had been dropped half your points so it still wouldn't affect your ability to post, but still grabbed your attention on the note. That's just how I deliver notes: a minor point deduction that doesn't affect your ability to post.

Summary: it was about how your phrasing opened it up to many juvenile comments. Point deduction was just to relay that message without affecting your e-status.

Tim

December 26th, 2010 at 11:14 PM ^

While I agree with the OP's sentiment ("stop making threads about a coaching change unless you have an actual reason"), this thread went downhill fast.

Seth

December 29th, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^

A guy had to change his avatar. His identity is protected because Misopogal just went shooting for her first time and I don't trust that look in her eye.

Seth

December 29th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^

Not Michigan-related enough to justify the inevitable (and already under way as of time of deletion) responses to anything FoxNewsworthy. Also, the chopper picture from the Simpsons is not cool.

formerlyanonymous

December 30th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

OT - Franks Furniture explosion in Wayne

Off topic

CC (But not skull-cracking CC): I Hate Doing This, But

Title should clue you in. Also, every putting me an my buddy were bored so... is a bad sign.

Lastly, hypotheticals of fairly large magnitudes are generally frowned upon. This one wasn't so bad (and this isn't a reason why it was deleted), but hypotheticals of "what if something bad happens", which is how some people would read this, tend to cause hysterics. Again, this wasn't why it was deleted, just thought this was a good place to remind that to posters at large.

OT: Red Wings live feed?

Threads asking for non-Michigan live feeds aren't important enough of local sports bits for threads. Just pose it as an open thread instead. (no points deleted, just unpublished and noted).

OT: News reporter says Michael Vick should have been executed

Second time this was deleted. This has NOTHING to do with Michigan sports.

On Topic - Favre Likely Not Starting

Not on topic. Lose 1000pts for trying to make it so.

 

formerlyanonymous

December 30th, 2010 at 8:42 PM ^

Tate out for grades - yes, I know it's been posted..

Desiring a player to be forced into a transfer because of not meeting university standards over one semester is not a fair practice. At all.

Aside: I realize there are a lot of VERY related threads right now. I'm letting the initial explosion die down. DIE ALREADY.

aaamichfan

December 31st, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^

Is there any chance we can get a banhammer for the guy posting as both "charlieblue" and "Bend it Like Broekhuizen"

I'm positive he's a troll from Mlive, and will probably go away with a ban.