jimdahl

It's time to upgrade the software that runs the forum. I was originally planning to roll it out after a potential name change when I thought that might occur this summer, but now that it seems that's not happening, I'd rather get it done before the seasons begin. So, I'm currently planning to give it a shot Sunday night. It will involve some downtime because people can't be using the forum while I'm backing it up. I figured a Sunday night in August would be least disruptive, and if all goes well the downtime should only be an hour or so.

No nickname discussion in the football forum, no accusing people of being nazis in any forum. Thanks.

Stay awesome, dumpster fire thread, stay awesome. (I'm not making fun, I'm serious, this thread is fun to read).

Not saying there would've been no backlash, just less. If they'd just announced "it's time to choose a nickname", it would have been like pulling a bandaid. Instead, they left people feeling deceived by stating that no nickname was still on the table, dragging that out for months as no nickname continuously polled as a clear favorite, then dropping it with the bizarre explanation that they felt their remit was to choose a nickname (despite Kelley having clearly stated at the committee's formation that no nickname was still on the table). I'm pretty sure that a non-zero amount of the yelping is because people feel deceived by the process by which ND was strung along then eliminated.

I think they tried to do it right -- the committee was supposed to represent almost all stakeholders (SiouxSports.com notably unrepresented ), there was a public call for ideas, the committee attempted to clearly define criteria and analyze the names, and they held public meetings to winnow the list. I still believe the individual people on the committee had the best of intentions. But, as a group they severely botched the execution and messaging. So, I completely understand your disagreement.

I'll play... much less. If they had just announced "It's time to choose a nickname", I don't think it would have generated this backlash, as everyone kind of knew the day was coming that they'd choose a nickname. Instead they announced "Time to decide whether to choose a nickname or just stay North Dakota", but then dropped North Dakota despite it being a clear fan favorite. That made people feel deceived, and gave a pretty well-organized process the appearance of being a bit of a sham. I think people are really as upset about feeling deceived as about ND being off the table. Poor execution.

To be frank, UND is no SEC team. That might matter in our fans' perceptions of nickname candidates. We felt embiggened by Fighting Sioux in a way we don't by some of the more "generic" candidates. Nonetheless, I'll be cheering for the UND Whatevers, but I do wonder about the correct strategy to maximize the retention and growth of the fan base.

If you want to turn UND message board posts into exciting, start looking the UND nickname candidates up on urban dictionary.

Nailed it. Told you I was being pedantic tonight

To be fair, 50% is really high. There's no question the state nicknames are somewhat associated with the state in a way that some of the other options aren't.

If we're going to nitpick, I'm actually pretty good at math. I think your complaint is with one specific member's post, not the community. I'm feeling pedantic because I'm on nickname thread duty, generalizations are kind of weak, and I'm watching this thread closely because I've been warned we must. I will agree that I haven't been disappointed. It has lived up to the hype. No question there's some passion (a word I've used a lot today) here.

Thanks, I started writing that just wanting to call broader attention to the point about how ex-Indian mascot teams always get steered into ____Hawks. Then I found myself re-editing it because I was worried that I would be perceived as endorsing, or slamming, the name, while I actually find it just acceptable. That's when I realized that Fighting Hawks might win because it's safe rather than loved. It's been so under the radar and is so generic that it has generated no controversy. It's not clear that a name that generates no passion is what I want (at a minimum, it's very different from what we're accustomed to with Fighting Sioux!) Now I'm worried that Fighting Hawks is more suited for a lesser institution than the state's namesake university. I'm even starting to wonder if, in the long run, I'd prefer any of the bolder names (even those I dislike), because they'd eventually become uniquely associated with UND athletics given their uniqueness and strong ties to the region. Shameless plug in case anyone missed it, the post: Fighting Hawks – the safe, unimaginative, generic, dark horse nickname that finds itself a front runner

I'm a little surprised people are questioning the integrity of the committee members. If a fix was in, perhaps in the composition of the committee (such that one constituency was outnumbered), but the committee seriously debated the names and did their best to follow the process. Dropping North Dakota was far from unanimous, and there were numerous attempts from the expected constituencies (athletes, students) to keep it alive.

Letter to the Herald, anyone?

This has been discussed/questioned a bit here in the past: Full Herald article: http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3801860-undnorth-dakota-out-committee-forwards-five-nicknames-public-vote

To say the fix was in on sundogs would be overstating it, but the PC crowd has been positioning it since long before the majority of us here, on Herald polls, or at large in G.F. believed the Sioux name might really go away. It had a big head start. Some of the opposition from old timers is that Sundogs was already being positioned as the successor to Fighting Sioux back when people believed it didn't matter because Fighting Sioux would stick around, so Sundogs became sort of synonymous with the anti-nickname movement.

This thread's been toeing the line for some time, but really went off the rails this weekend. I rather hoped it would veer back on its own, but hasn't. Can we drop the national politics?

Exactly. It was someone on the losing side of the "just North Dakota" vote making one last hail mary to back door keep it alive. It didn't work.

He means Anna's tweets are old. Including it to "see what the public thinks" was discussed, but rejected by the committee.

I assumed someone would take offense at that I just meant that it consistently polled well, and certainly generated a lot of chatter. It was quite polarizing, some thought it the only reasonable choice, some thought it insane.

You know how after something dies, sometimes some limbs keep twitching; or in a horror movie, how the bad guy jumps up one last time after you're sure he's dead? It's like that...

That doesn't even make sense -- why would you measure what the public thinks if it's out of consideration? If it's back in the vote, it's back under consideration, no matter what they say.

And we're down to five, with fan favorite "just North Dakota" having been eliminated. What now?

Pay attention, it's Rough Hawks

I know no one likes it, so we try to minimize it, but the practice of closing threads really does generally achieve its goal. The first weapon in the moderator toolkit is posting "hey stop this particular line of discussion", but someone often continues it (either because they haven't yet reached the moderator's post, or because they just can't resist trying to get in the last word). Closing a thread results in the legitimate discussion picking up in a new thread, but leaving the garbage behind because it can't be directly responded to. That said, we definitely intentionally let the on topic woofing go in pregame threads, especially for big rivalry games. So, given that we actually hold them to a bit looser a standard, they're particularly challenging to moderate.