jimdahl

Yeah, there's definitely a tension between wanting some new blood and fresh enthusiasm, but needing to make sure that the team can operate consistently (people get REALLY upset when moderation actions affect them differently than someone else). To that end, I've been asking the existing mods to think about it and help identify potential candidates. And, I'd really want a consensus. So, it's going to be a slow process. Meanwhile, the mods are trying to show their presence in the football threads more (those threads have always been monitored, but mods have generally just posted when they think there's a problem; now we'll post "yes we're here, and we have no problem with what we're seeing").

Thanks! As mentioned above, the primary concerns are better monitoring of the under-monitored football recruiting thread while ensuring consistent application of forum rules and moderation standards. If you think you're well suited to contributing toward those goals, drop me a PM.

Thanks so much for the offer! I'll move the public portion of my reply to the admin forum to try to help keep this thread on topic, as was the concern.

Thanks so much for the offer! Given that you raised these topics publicly, I'll respond to a few publicly. I appreciate the criticism of the existing moderation (the whole point of my offer was to try to realign moderation to better meet the desires of the community). But, I do want to comment on the suggestion that non-UND fans should be held to a different standard than UND fans--I wouldn't be comfortable sponsoring a site where posters were held to a different standard if they were UND fans than not (e.g. if UND fans got to refer to NDSU as FU, but where we punished NDSU fans for referring to our teams as Sue, or some other slur). But, if you are willing to help consistently moderate the forum and hold all posters to the same standards, we'd be thrilled to add you to the team. Let's follow up via PM.

There's been some concern in the football recruits thread lately that it hasn't received enough moderator attention, so I wanted to extend an invitation to the community that we're always interested in expanding the moderation team to include additional members who can help consistently apply the forum rules (while also having an increased opportunity to shape them).

If you look back a few pages, it was a UND fan who responded to a snipe about UND's recruiting stature with a lengthy post comparing the recruiting stature of UND to NDSU. It was a fine post because it was clearly relevant to the timely event, but of course NDSU fans are going to reply to that! It's pretty difficult to figure out how to exclude discussion of NDSU when they're competing for recruits, but if people really want us to try to make this thread an NDSU-free zone we can see what we can do. But it would apply to everyone. As to the concern that there aren't enough mods paying attention to this thread, I'd be thrilled to take an application from some regular posters in this thread who are interested in helping moderate the football forum. I've tried to recruit from active people in a cross-section of the forums over the years, but it's been a few years since we recruited new mods and it's certainly possible this particular discussion is underrepresented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Got it. That's maddening, the editor running in IE detects the URL and automatically turns it into a link. The only way I've found to work around it so far is to hit the "Paste as plain text" icon instead (the third one in from the right on the top row) and paste the URL into there.

I actually tested that myself. If I copy Ray77's link and paste it into a new post it doesn't work because it comes as a link, not just a URL. If I extract just the full URL and paste it into a post, it works. So it's nothing about the URL, it's something about the process. I also tried all the different editing modes, including plain text/WYSIWYG and HTML enabled, no difference. Can't imagine it's a browser issue, but I'll try to get in front of an IE 11 machine and try it. The reason I'm so focused on the exact steps is something (perhaps the forum software itself, but perhaps something you're doing) is converting the URL into a link (including the tags that make it an active link instead of just text). The forum feature that recognizes Youtube URLs and turns them into embedded videos intentionally ignores URLs in links.

That was just my guess, in that it was the only way I could duplicate the effect of your posts (a URL that turned into a hyperlink instead of an embedded video). What are the exact steps are you following? e.g. what's the browser, what exact clicks/keyboard shortcuts are you using to copy and then paste the link?

The thing that jumps out at me is that your URL is actually a live link. If you use the "insert link" button (or paste in the HTML for a link), it will render that as a link and not convert it to an embedded video. If you just paste the URL in as if it were normal text, it should convert that to an embedded video.

Fixed (it was an intermittent problem, so failed to trip my "is the site down" alarms). Thanks for pointing it out.

Ok, they agree now. I was including the exhibition game between Dartmouth and Brown (because I was just testing to see if both were NCAA teams). I'm now properly excluding exhibition games between NCAA teams.

But yes, historically when there are formula changes, USCHO is last to get it right. But there were no formula changes this year and apparently USCHO and CHN agree, which strongly suggests that I've got a bad score (or location) somewhere. I'll dig into it tomorrow and post an update before the weekend's games start.

Sorry, my PWR time this week has been sucked up by working on this (awesome!) article -- When to start looking at PWR (revisited). But, I'm looking into it. Because each is independent, If two of the three agree, odds are the third (me!) is wrong. Since the formulas haven't changed, it's probably a score discrepancy. Though I have automated double-checks of USCHO and CHN against my scores, now that neutral vs. not matters it's still possible to get the scores right but come up with different PWRs.

I'll open the inevitable discussion of the Pairwise Rankings with my (awesome!) new article: When to start looking at PWR (revisited) Which includes lots of awesome charts like this:

I have no problem with community fund-raising efforts.

A flaw was recently fixed in the software that powers this forum that could have been used to extract profile information about the forum's members. http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/404033-active-security-exploit/ I've run extensive log reports and see no evidence that there have been any attempts to use stolen credentials to access the forum, though you should always be sure to use different passwords on different sites (in particular, the password you use to access your email should not be used with your email address as a login anyplace else!) It's possible that any email addresses that were stolen could see an increase in spam. I'll keep a very close on the security of the forum itself in coming days.

We start immediately after Labor Day (by state law as put in place by the theme park industry) and I was pretty surprised that it goes into late June, but that's what it takes. With snow days, last day of school here was June 25 this year.

I agree, the original post didn't bring race to mind at all for me (though wow did it blow up today, eh?) Detroit has a long-running reputation as being a victim of urban decay and crime. I think Detroit, I think Robocop

Got it. Guessing Goon submitted the wrong story by mistake.

As a Caps fan, obviously a bad call.

Did you reply to the wrong topic? Were you trying to post in this one?

Two thoughts: 1) in addition to trying to look at posts in isolation, we also definitely consider a poster's history; 2) there are lots of warnings (see point #1) and occasional suspensions issued and they're never announced, some of us just know about one in particular because he announced it himself in other social media.

Great point -- agree 100%. Respect should be required; personal attacks, name calling, etc..., shouldn't be welcome from either side. We've probably been too lenient on that in the UND vs. NDSU discussions because we view them as "heated" so try to cut people some slack.

Oh, you've clearly got it under control It's the age old question on sports fan forums... is being on a rival's forum for the sole purpose of jumping in (where on topic) to provide a counterpoint being a troll? We all do hold rivals' fans to different standards than our own (e.g. if a UND fan had the posting history of the Bison fan in question, no one would have even raised an issue), but where's the line between troll vs. discussion participant with a different point-of-view? We tend to define trolls as people whose posting history indicates they're clearly only here to try to annoy or taunt (see the administrative forum for much more discussion on this). As I've said in other threads, for whatever reason NDSU fans definitely have a renewed interest in UND this Fall. That has clearly changed the tenor of a lot of these discussions. So, we're definitely keeping an eye on things and trying to figure out what's best for the community. We're making adjustments, but it's admittedly slow. It's also not on topic in this forum, so we'd all be happy to continue it via PM or in the administrative forum.