Cratter Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Pretty tight leash around here. Can't talk about Dannys frostbite, complain about the mens hockey head coach, or talk about UND topics on another website. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Pretty tight leash around here. Can't talk about Dannys frostbite, complain about the mens hockey head coach, or talk about UND topics on another website. I'm NOT a moderator.... read that three times before continuing so that I don't get accused of putting words in Jim's mouth. Danny's Frostbite: At first, it was casual speculation then it got harsh. We started not to speculate, but to assume and from there, we went from assuming to accusing Danny's family of covering up and from there, added UND to the list of covering up entities. Speculation is only worthwhile until accusations start flying and then it gets ugly without proof. There is no proof. So the thread lost its usefulness. The Coach: I don't know why this one is moderated myself, but I can tell you that it is rather tiresome. Just because I find all this hate towards Hakstol unnecessary and rather unenjoyable doesn't really mean it should be banned. Maybe Jim should investigate adding a subconference just for the haters? They can go on there and bash Hakstol, wish for his dismissal, hope that he's tossed into a Chipper Shredder or whatever in peace and preach to their own choir while the rest of us discuss matters they find aggravating. I dunno. UND topics on other websites: Well... Gopher fans used to come here and troll complaining about our obsession with other teams' fans. We used to call them trolls and scoff them off the site. Now Jim cracks down on this and we're upset? I doubt the fact that we come up on GPL or Bisonville and we post on it is the reason why it is frowned upon here. Why? Those posts only last 2 or 3 posts into the thread before it turns into a bisonville/gpl/whatever bash fest. And what does that have to do with UND athletics? Just my opinion. Just my take on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I can find valid reasons to close a lot of topics. Doesn't it seem talking about UND topics on Bisonville is more productive than talking about an NDSU's student getting a minor? (especially when we don't even play that team). I have seen plenty of name calling/personal attacks in the Sioux name threads. Or a thread about a NDSU's coach with a lead foot doing traffic safety ads? It seems one of the most common reasons topics get closed is people say. "can we close this thread now." or "here we go again." Because people don't like seeing/reading them. Should people start posting I love this thread please don't close it? And with 3?4? moderators it only takes one who is unhappy about it for any number of reason to close it. It's self regulating. People wanna talk about things and they go to the topic. Boring topics fall off. At the end of the day its just talk, speculation, rumors, etc. As long as there is no personal attacks. If a subject goes off topic. Delete all those posts. Should I just start another Fire Hak thread? At least two have already been closed. bisonville/gpl/whatever bashing does nothing for UND athletics but people love it, that's why they are such hot topics. (even though I basically never do it) Just my opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Thanks for all the thoughts. While I don't think a few thread closures over the course of a season is that excessive, three within a month or so is noticeably high. A few thoughts- * It does seem true that we sometimes lurk on threads that contain a lot of controversy (Kristo, Fire Hak) waiting to shut them down as soon as the discussion "seems done", whereas less controversial threads are allowed to die a more organic death (as Cratter described). That we're responding to problems in them more quickly because we're paying more attention is good, to any extent that we're quicker to close them because we wish they would just go away is probably bad. * Part of it is a tax we pay for having multiple moderators. The first one who thinks something needs addressing will do so. I probably wouldn't have closed the Kristo thread yet (though can't blame whoever did), whereas someone else probably wouldn't have closed the Bisonville thread (which I did). So, there's going to be a little more moderation than there would be with a single person. We try to offset that by discussing controversial situations, for example we debated the Fire Hakstol thread for days before pulling the trigger. * Pleas to "close this!" are definitely completely ignored. I think the correlation you're picking up on is that a lot of people correctly anticipate when a moderator is likely to think a thread unsalvageable. * We try pretty hard not to delete. That really only happens when a post is illegal or offensive. redwing was pretty spot on with his analysis of the three situations, but I'll add my 2 cents. The Fire Hak thread was started for the sole purpose of stirring the pot, as Goon admitted in the thread, so probably should have been shut down immediately. However, we also didn't want to be banning criticism (as some people were calling for) so left it open for a lengthy debate and only finally shut it down when no one was saying anything new, were pretty far off topic, and were generally just attacking each other instead of discussing the topic. The Kristo thread went on for something like 450 posts and was open from before the incident hit the news to after he was released. The reasoning behind it closing was probably pretty similar to the Fire Hak thread. The Bisonville thread is one I'll take full blame for -- a while ago people would frequently drag arguments over from POI and USCHO and they were generally quite problematic, so I started cracking down on it. We aren't deleting them, so the notification that there's an interesting thread about UND on a different board is still there, and people who really want to discuss a thread on Bisonville can follow the link and do so there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Thanks for all the thoughts. While I don't think a few thread closures over the course of a season is that excessive, three within a month or so is noticeably high. A few thoughts- * It does seem true that we sometimes lurk on threads that contain a lot of controversy (Kristo, Fire Hak) waiting to shut them down as soon as the discussion "seems done", whereas less controversial threads are allowed to die a more organic death (as Cratter described). That we're responding to problems in them more quickly because we're paying more attention is good, to any extent that we're quicker to close them because we wish they would just go away is probably bad. * Part of it is a tax we pay for having multiple moderators. The first one who thinks something needs addressing will do so. I probably wouldn't have closed the Kristo thread yet (though can't blame whoever did), whereas someone else probably wouldn't have closed the Bisonville thread (which I did). So, there's going to be a little more moderation than there would be with a single person. We try to offset that by discussing controversial situations, for example we debated the Fire Hakstol thread for days before pulling the trigger. * Pleas to "close this!" are definitely completely ignored. I think the correlation you're picking up on is that a lot of people correctly anticipate when a moderator is likely to think a thread unsalvageable. * We try pretty hard not to delete. That really only happens when a post is illegal or offensive. redwing was pretty spot on with his analysis of the three situations, but I'll add my 2 cents. The Fire Hak thread was started for the sole purpose of stirring the pot, as Goon admitted in the thread, so probably should have been shut down immediately. However, we also didn't want to be banning criticism (as some people were calling for) so left it open for a lengthy debate and only finally shut it down when no one was saying anything new, were pretty far off topic, and were generally just attacking each other instead of discussing the topic. The Kristo thread went on for something like 450 posts and was open from before the incident hit the news to after he was released. The reasoning behind it closing was probably pretty similar to the Fire Hak thread. The Bisonville thread is one I'll take full blame for -- a while ago people would frequently drag arguments over from POI and USCHO and they were generally quite problematic, so I started cracking down on it. We aren't deleting them, so the notification that there's an interesting thread about UND on a different board is still there, and people who really want to discuss a thread on Bisonville can follow the link and do so there. So anything about NDSU or Minnesota is off limits..got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 people who really want to discuss a thread on Bisonville can follow the link and do so there. So anything about NDSU or Minnesota is off limits..got it. Woah, that's not at all what I meant. There's a big difference between discussing the Bison and discussing a thread on Bisonville. Discussion of opponents or other regional teams is great, and happens all the time (as Cratter pointed out). What I said was not to drag arguments from other message boards to this one. For example, noticing a thread on Bisonville about UND and reposting it here is quite useful. Noticing a thread on Bisonville about UND and posting here about how stupid you think Bisonville and its posters are doesn't really contribute much to either board. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Woah, that's not at all what I meant. There's a big difference between discussing the Bison and discussing a thread on Bisonville. Discussion of opponents or other regional teams is great, and happens all the time (as Cratter pointed out). What I said was not to drag arguments from other message boards to this one. For example, noticing a thread on Bisonville about UND and reposting it here is quite useful. Noticing a thread on Bisonville about UND and posting here about how stupid you think Bisonville and its posters are doesn't really contribute much to either board. My thread was about how many topics there were on Bisonville about UND. How they haven't really moved on. Other people post about other message boards...heck there is one about LA Tech. Better shut that thread down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The Fire Hak thread was started for the sole purpose of stirring the pot, as Goon admitted in the thread, so probably should have been shut down immediately. However, we also didn't want to be banning criticism (as some people were calling for) so left it open for a lengthy debate and only finally shut it down when no one was saying anything new, were pretty far off topic, and were generally just attacking each other instead of discussing the topic. The "REASON" that I made the Fire Hakstol post was I was trying to illustrate how silly some of our fellow fans were being after losing one game to a future hall of fame coach; I even went on a local radio show and talked about it as well. I thought closing it was counter productive because eventually the topic will come up again, IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 I thought closing it was counter productive because eventually the topic will come up again, IMHO… Imagine if the Sioux don’t advance to the Frozen Four or lose somewhere in the NCAA’s there will people that are going to be disgruntled. By the way I am not unhappy with the way the board was run. I also see why you don’t want the board turning into a moronathon as well. Of course it will come up -- whenever a championship caliber team has a subpar season or tournament performance, the fans are going to discuss whether the coach is the right guy for the job. That's true of any team in any sport, and those are legitimate discussions. That's why we left that thread open for a long time to let people discuss how much pressure should be on a coach to bring home championships. We only closed it once it was quite clearly no longer about that, but just people bickering about each other and other somewhat unrelated topics (last page of that thread). Had the discussion still been about whether Hakstol should be coach or not, it would have been left open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 My thread was about how many topics there were on Bisonville about UND. How they haven't really moved on. Other people post about other message boards...heck there is one about LA Tech. Better shut that thread down. Good example, I probably should have a clear understanding of why I feel the two are different, or adjust our responses so they're the same for the two. My first thought is that someone posting in a Gopher game thread, "wow, GPL is sure melting down" (which people do all the time) is different from someone starting a thread to mock GPL and its posters (which we'd be more inclined to close). However, the Bisonville thread was something in between -- an attempt to point out a bunch of UND threads on Bisonville, but the reaction from other posters was for most of the replies to be nothing other than mocking Bisonville and its posters. The replies probably had a lot to do with it, in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 you do a good job ............I'm proof .....thanks for your patience with us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.