jimdahl

Game's not over, wait until you see what adjustments we make at the half

It seems like that number can only go up

NDSU forgot to hold in the backfield on that return

Can't complain about giving up 3 on that drive. Ugh.

UND held NDSU on their first possession, got a field goal on UND's first. UND 3, NDSU 0. 10:33 to go in 1st. Would have been nice to get 7 off that 54 yd punt return.

In cleaning out a profanity-laden tirade, I messed up the continuity of the thread a bit by removing some posts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Let's try not to get so personal, thanks!

Some report that deleting quotes can be a little strange in some browsers. A workaround is that hitting the source button in the upper left to switch from rich text editor to code gets you to the raw source that you can then delete (or modify if you're comfortable with the code). Then you hit the button again to switch back.

You have to be careful with computer rankings this time of year. If you were to just go by results to date in 2015, most reasonable systems would say UND is the better team. But that's probably not right, so all of the rankings guys bootstrap with historical results. So, what you're quoting is something resembling the probability of last year's NDSU team + 2 games of this year's beating a similarly constructed UND team. That's definitely more useful and overall more predictive than starting each season by assuming everyone is equal, but can't really be counted on for individual predictions, particularly if there's reason to think a team's quality has changed. I think most UND fans who claim there's a better than 2% chance of winning are optimistic that the teams' respective qualities have changed since last year. You might not agree with that optimism, and indeed it might be wrong. But citing those models as disproving it is incorrect.

I cleared out the forum and thread follows (that would send you an automatic notification for a new post) because an absurd number of them were obsolete and often leading to email bounces. If there's a forum or thread you want to follow, please go follow it again. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I appreciate them.

Majority don't seem to want them, and those that are "ok" with them don't seem to strongly desire them. After going a month without them and now a few days with them, I agree that they add a little personality, but they also really mess up the flow of reading a thread. So, back off for now.

It honestly didn't strike me as particularly bad when I first saw it; whether the game is on TV or not seems an on-topic discussion. In pondering it a bit more, you're right that point of it was probably just to aggravate so it is just trolling. We'll try to keep a closer eye on that. The football forum is especially tough for us, because so many posters in this forum think we should just ban anyone who isn't a UND fan, which hasn't ever been our philosophy. But, anyone who is solely here to try to aggravate other posters shouldn't be here.

Makes sense, that was also dependent on the forum login, which apparently changed. I'll remove the link for now to avoid confusion, but see if I can add some sort of user submission back into the new news page that's coming soon.

I know this is the dumpster fire thread, but your posts aren't even remotely about football. Keep it about the game, please.

I know it's tough when one of the big groups in the news calls itself "black lives matter", but please try not to delve into racial politics. Thanks.

Sorry about that, I assume you edited it in the last day? I've been playing with the settings to see if I could reduce them to two lines (as discussed above), but it turns out not to affect the ones people already have, but limits them to two lines when they make edits.

It's also much more obvious how to turn them off now, with the little x in the upper corner of every signature. Before you had to find the right spot in your personal preferences.

I'm not hearing a lot of support for signatures (though lots of people posting in this thread have lengthy ones ) We've survived the last month without them, just turn them back off?

Good catch. That said, if we mostly agree the signatures are mostly just junk/noise that all regular members are going to hide, then we should disable them altogether so less regular guests don't have to suffer. Another thought that occurred to me was that we could limit it to something like 2 lines so people could put in a favorite quote or link, but not the novels we see now.

Looks like if you just paste in the URL, it automatically turns it into a picture.

Looks like they were inadvertently turned off in the upgrade. That said, having read this thread both with them and without them, I think it was better without them.

My silence on this hasn't been me ignoring these comments, I'm still trying to figure out where the forum titles are stored in this new version. It's pretty crazy that I can't find them. I'll keep you posted.

Got it, should be fixed now. I had to reload the page a few times before I got the new one. Sorry for the delay, I haven't touched the user permissions in there for at least 5 years so had become completely unfamiliar with it. So, when the forum upgrade changed the information that was sent over, I had to relearn it all. I'll admit that I've not only neglected the wiki, but hadn't actually planned to keep it alive in this round of updates until people started asking. I thought it was a decent idea, but other than an initial burst of activity the first couple years, it never really took off the way I imagined it might. But, it's easy enough to keep the lights on as long as anyone's interested.

The little dot/star is the way its always been, BUT the update reset the "read" marks. So, until you open a thread for the first time in the new forum you don't see the dot/star because you have no progress in that thread.