Moderator Action Sticky #3

Submitted by Brian on July 21st, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Hello. The previous mod action sticky was cumbrously long so this is a new one. What this thread is for:

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.

Update: There's now a Mod Action Sticky IV.



January 25th, 2014 at 9:41 AM ^

Doesn't so much bother me as it is an annoying sign that sometimes there are idiots in this place, and per Brian's earlier comments he wants to get them out of here before it devolves year again.  I've been here for years; a couple of posters with a hard-on to neg me with imaginary points aren't going to change that.  I'm actually a bit flattered that some people are chasing down my posts to neg me, even when they are totally innocuous.  Makes me feel a bit like Jodi Foster.


January 23rd, 2014 at 6:52 PM ^

Cops: Michigan State Football Recruit Body-Slammed Security Guard

There was a note that it had been locked, but it doesn't appear that this was the case. In any case, I came back to see that it had new comments, but it is old news here and the initial thread was locked after comments got out of hand. 


January 24th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^

I thought the basic rule for posting anything political (beside don't do  it), was that as long as we couldn't tell your political affiliation from said post, it would be fine.



Seems like a blatant violation of the MGoBoard rules no?


January 24th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^

Dan Dakich broke Dawson's hand

The link to the article here was also in the thread about Dawson's injury yesterday. I did miss this detail, however, so do check out the original thread if you are curious. 


January 26th, 2014 at 6:41 AM ^

Quite unsurprisingly, I had trouble getting reliable access to MGoBlog last night, so we'll do this now...

No Surprises from Drew Sharp

The only surprise from Drew Sharp should be that people still insist on reminding us that he exists when in fact he does not, at least for our purposes.

Izzo is a complete POS

Let us be gracious in our victory, no matter your opinion of Tom Izzo.

Nik Stauskas Swag District

I think this is a snowflake....I think. Honestly, I was a little tipsy myself last night too post-victory. 



January 26th, 2014 at 4:38 PM ^

My personal apology to mGrowOld

I will admit, I wanted to leave this up until it was accepted by the poster in question and it was, so before we start talking about the refs outside of the other threads available, this one has served its purpose and can go, I think. 


January 26th, 2014 at 8:40 PM ^

Thanks.  Ironically I was on the board all morning and wouldnt you know it that got posted about five mintues after I left for the gym & shopping with my wife.  I'm in the parking lot and check my phone to see if there's anything else about the game up and I see that post.

It certainly wasnt necessary but it was appreciated.


January 27th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^

MBB ranked #10 in latest AP poll

The thread right below this one was literally updated with the AP information seconds before this went up. Apologies to oriental andrew here for removing this one. 

Bando Calrissian

January 30th, 2014 at 12:02 AM ^

I'm not sure where else to put this, and I'm sure it would get quickly buried in the fiery furnace of the umpteen threads about this.

I've been thinking, and this may not be a popular idea...

MGoBlog made money off of the Gibbons brunette girls MGoShirts. Might it be a show of goodwill (or, maybe just the right thing to do) that any proceeds that may have been generated from the sale of those shirts at the MGoStore be donated to something like SAPAC?

Section 1

January 30th, 2014 at 9:41 AM ^

Whether or not MGoBlog has a "no politics" policy (it is a policy that I don't much like, but it is your policy to make), such a gesture would be political.

It would be a form of condemnation of Gibbons, and a tacit signal of support for the University's process against Gibbons.

Because as I understand it, what Bando proposes is a public donation of the proceeds.  As a statement, of MGoSolidarity with The Process.  And siding with the The Big U, in the Title IX War For Women.

I personally don't give a rip if anyone wanted to make a quiet private donation to any worthy charity.  It's not any kind of charitable problem.  If you were to quietly do what Bando suggests, such that neither Bando nor I, nor anyone else, ever knew about it and could not argue about it on internet discussion boards, I couldn't complain.  But I don't suspect that that meets Bando's intent.  I think Bando wants a symbolic public statement.



January 30th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

Using the phrase "Title IX War For Women" is also quite political. The rule exists here for a reason - politics is outside the scope and intent of this blog, no good will come of discussing here and these recent attempts by you to insert it into the discussion are being documented. This is not a democratic state and you are running low on chances right now, as far as I am concerned. I expect at least the pretense of adherence if not sincere agreement. 


January 31st, 2014 at 7:33 AM ^

On the T-Shirts

We took those down over a year ago. You can petition Brian to do that but I would advise him against it for the moment. Understand, there was no criminal case, and we don't know if Washtenaw Watchdog's material is the evidence is the same that was brought to the SCRC, or that the student conflict resolution center's standards for determining guilt should be ours. I can't tell you for sure that he's guilty, and I am even less sure that what happened was the kind of thing where you completely disassociate from the guy. The Internet and the university's designated office for judging these things have judged one way, everyone who has ever known the kid are saying privately they think he was railroaded.

My editorical stance remains we need more information, and those who have it need to provide it.

Some Guidance on Title IX

Some people find can politics in breakfast cereal* I guess.

Title IX of itself is on-topic for this blog, however adding unrelated politics to it isn't, so that's been one of the gray area topics that we'll permit unless someone, e.g., adds "The War for Women" to the end of it. If the 99% of people who know how to discuss Title IX from the perspective of how it affects UM athletics are doing so and everyone is ignoring the one guy with extremist politics who doesn't know how to separate those from anything in his life, let the thread go.

*I mean other than sociology majors.

Cold War

February 3rd, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

Can we have a look at the string of Gibbons related threads? Now we've got one about the Daily reporters tweets. A major development is one thing, but we're just supporting their never ending battle to get clicks for a dying story.


February 4th, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^

Reporters keep asking this stupid question. Each time Hoke offers a boilerplate response that people who believe there's a QB competition take to mean there's a QB competition. For the sake of everyone else's foreheads which have been self-smacked enough by this cycle, I killed the latest.

If Morris actually starts over Gardner for something other than injury I will videotape a personal apology to you wherein I eat something disgusting, and put it on the front page.


February 4th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^

Seven Things That Might Not Be Heard On National Signing Day

The OP requested the removal of this one, although I will admit I did get a chuckle out of some of the lines in it. 


February 4th, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^

While I appreciate your thoughts and glad that it gave you some chuckles, I quickly discovered that the overwhelming sentiments of the community were more than sufficient to justify my request that you shut it down.

On further review, it probably wasn't as funny as that ESPN commercial that shows the recruit saying that he'll be taking his skills to "The University of Ole Miss," and it most likely won't be as funny as some of the comments that we'll hear tomorrow from the high school students who will be basking in the glory of media attention.

I apologize.  I didn't mean any harm.  I was afraid I might cause some problems for the Board, but decided I'd take the risk, with the hope that the community wouldn't explode in anger.

Whenever I see one of those high school students make his recruiting announcement, I'm reminded of this sad story:


February 7th, 2014 at 10:22 AM ^

Yeah, a thread posting an article which contained shots of Nik Stauskas and his girlfiend was ill-advised. Indeed, someone in there revealed some details which should not have been revealed, underscoring why such threads are ill-advised. That user is now an ex-user. 

To the OP, just don't do that again, please. Creepy is not a motif we would like to promote. 


February 8th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^

Michigan MBB at Iowa Game Thread

There is already a game thread, but seriously (and I am sure the user knows who they are), a duplicate is not worth calling another MGoUser "retarded". Simply remind the OP of their faux pas and move along. 


Cold War

February 8th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

Can someone explain how threads end up on the sidebar instead of the main forum list? It caused some confusion with the game thread today. I'd always seen them on the main forum list, now it's sidebar? One poster started a second thread after I nearly did myself.


February 9th, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^

Semi OT: Missouri's Michael Sam potentially first openly-gay NFL player

First and foremost, I hope there is a day when an announcement such as this one does not cause people to lose their crap over things. Because the thread was veering into areas that are far beyond the scope of this blog, this thread should come down now. I do appreciate what the OP was trying to do here, however. 


February 9th, 2014 at 9:22 PM ^

In my experience, that always feels like it leads to more disagreements because all of a sudden you have these half-responses that nobody knows the context for.  I'm fine with it being pulled, but it was nice that the first 2 dozen of so comments were reasonably positive.  I could only imagine how a thread like that would have looked even 10-15 years ago.


February 9th, 2014 at 9:20 PM ^

Yeah, sorry.  I figured it would veer that way, but it started out being reasonably respectful and friendly.  Didn't mean to create more work for the mods on a Sunday night, but figured it was definitely relevant to college sports.

Thanks for letting it breathe a bit, though, just to see how it settled.

Section 1

February 10th, 2014 at 9:23 AM ^

I'm a real agnostic on "no politics."  It's not my rule.  It's an MGoRule.

Just have the integrity to apply the rule across the board.  And, literally, across the Board.  I give you credit for having done that, although you appear to have done so reluctantly and under a very different reasoning than I might have employed.

I didn't see, or post in, the now-deleted thread.  If I had the chance -- I would have liked the chance -- I would have written just three words: "This is politics."  You can't seriously claim that taking sides in the culture wars is not politics.  I don't care what anybody's substantive views are.  But no matter what they are, it is still politics.

By the way; if the casual/operative test* is whether a reader can tell who a board-poster voted for in the last election... I think I can tell.


*A test that I think is boring and restrictive.


February 10th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^

I don't agree with your classification of this as part of the "culture wars." But even if it is, there is a huge, gaping cavern between "politics" and "culture." We discuss culture here every damn day, and people are permitted to do so freely until they drag the conversation into a verboten topic like politics or religion.

That said, you're still wrong.


February 10th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^

As the OP of that article, I'll admit that I figured someone would have posted "this is politics" because I'm not idiot and nobody seems to be able to discuss issues like this without delving into tropes about the color of their state or where they get their "news".  But it is telling (and a bit sad) that a sports blog can't discuss a rather prominent player coming out of the closet (regardless of your feelings about whether or not this should occur, or if that closet even exists), without the same tired responses that started to take hold in that thread after about a dozen people said "that's great" and "good luck to him on a difficult road ahead."  

But the intent was never to stoke the "culture wars", nor do I think it should have veered into that direction.  And let's be honest; there are LOTS of posts here that could have become politically-tinged if the definition employed is relies heavily on an  undefined culture war.

Bando Calrissian

February 10th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^

If you want to discuss "culture wars," Title IX, "Obama's Department of Education," and all of the other little buzzwords and pet causes you exasperatingly use to sneak politics into just about every single otherwise sports-centered debate on MGoBlog, there are literally hundreds of internet forums in which you can do so. Probably thousands, even. According to the MGoMods, this isn't one of them. What's so hard to understand about that?

We all have political opinions. Yet it seems 99% of MGoUsers manage to keep them to themselves without issue or incident. I'm sorry we can't have a discussion about the Michael Sam situation, but the mods are right to act the way they have. It's the 1%, both those who break the rules and then those who complain about the rules after the fact, who make politics an issue here.


February 19th, 2014 at 12:03 AM ^

Seriously, how many times have I said this to you: start a blog. You have a different viewpoint than most of the people on here, and you are very passionate about it, and there are other people with your viewpoint, and it would be successful. This is the internet; if you can't find somewhere else to get into a political argument on any issue, I don't know what to tell you. If you can't find somewhere to get into a political argument about college sports and specifically how it's covered in the media, GO START THAT BLOG. Which I started for you. And is still here.

The majority of readers are not coming here for your passionate viewpoints but they will get drawn into a discussion and get frustrated by the fact that you're not going to change your opinions ever, and everyone who sees this exchange winds up having a negative experience. Even now you leave little kernels like "culture wars," and then someone calls you out on that, and in a few posts this place is as internet as YouTube.

To reiterate on politics for the rest of ye:

1. Go by feel.

2. Things related to college athletics and Michigan that have a political side to them should be assessed based on how relevant they are to college athletics and Michigan.

3. If an OP injects politics into a thread that doesn't need it and you catch that early, you can edit it out and then deal with the poster.

4. With Title IX in particular, stick to information relevant to college athletics and monitor closely for accusations/sweeping statements.

5. Again, if you can tell someone's political viewpoint by their post, it's probably politics. This is mostly for repeat offenders; don't just ban someone for, just to use the latest example, saying Ann Coulter is an example of a UM alumnus we're not proud of.

6. You can give secret points for being right. I don't mean they agree with you, I mean they're demonstratably and obviously correct right this second (e.g. Section 1 railing against Freep bias in August 2009).

With the Sam announcement it deserved a thread because he was a college football player as recently as a few weeks ago, and the way his teammates responded is an insight to what it's like to be part of a college football team in 2013.

However the first mod to see it should have the foresight to realize that comments were unlikely to be able to add any further clarity, and highly likely to blow up into political arguments. If there's big news that is obviously relevant and obviously doesn't need discusson, which discussion obviously wouldn't add much more than rancor to the discussion, turn off the comments.