Feedback: Post Game Basketball Threads
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Hmm, I guess it depends on if there is a real fire. Definitely not if there's a "fire sale."
I will say this: venting my frustrations through this board and seeing other people go way more overboard than me really helps me in coping with Iowa State's misfortune of underachieving sports teams (Except for this years football team! Give em heck fellas!) My wife would also rather I vent on here than get really upset at my house 
This is an interesting dichotomy to me. I've seen posters say we're soft, and others (almost equally) complain that we are too heavy-handed.
I will say that, in my opinion, bans seem to be handed out at an all-time high rate recently. That may be due to the growth of the site, but it is happening.
Am I the only one that thinks people are taking this far too seriously? We're all on a message board, which means what we have to say doesn't matter anyway, which is why we all post on a message board.
If somebody wants to start a thread and spout off now and then, who cares? Should they not be allowed this priviledge? Maybe they do have something valid that warrants a new thread, maybe they don't. If they don't, that thread will die and everybody will move on to the next thing. Everybody's favorite saying on this site is, "if you don't like it, you don't have to read it." I've heard that from mods all the way down to people that just joined last week. Now we're changing that stance?
Some people don't like the meltdowns and the doom and gloom. Well guess what, some people don't like the sunshine up their *** and the "faith is patience" attitude either. Who's to say who's right? Plenty of people whined about all the threads that popped up after we beat Nebraska or after Brackins decided he was coming back, but there was no collective mod effort, nor an all important thread from the site's publisher.
Nobody likes negativity and nobody likes being negative, but sometimes we all get in those moods where we just need to *****. Now, if somebody started a thread saying that Coach Rhoads should be fired because we should have beaten KSU & KU, does that make that individual wrong because they're being "negative" and "spewing hate"? I might make them crazy, but why shouldn't they be able to start that thread?
We're all trying to be constructive in our criticisms of this site and how things are being done, but why the "united front" against a bunch of people that aren't happy about a coach or team, who are just blowing off some steam on a message board?
It's like I said earlier, these are people's opinions and they're not hurting anyone. If somebody wants to call McDermott "McDud", who cares? Let 'em.
I think there are a lot of dumb threads on this site and even more stupid posts and even more stupid posters. People are going to say dumb things now and then in moments of aggression and frustration. Are you really going to take away an outlet that they've come to depend on because you think the main board is getting too "sloppy"?
If somebody wants to start a thread and spout off now and then, who cares? Should they not be allowed this priviledge? Maybe they do have something valid that warrants a new thread, maybe they don't. If they don't, that thread will die and everybody will move on to the next thing. Everybody's favorite saying on this site is, "if you don't like it, you don't have to read it." I've heard that from mods all the way down to people that just joined last week. Now we're changing that stance?
Some people don't like the meltdowns and the doom and gloom. Well guess what, some people don't like the sunshine up their *** and the "faith is patience" attitude either. Who's to say who's right? Plenty of people whined about all the threads that popped up after we beat Nebraska or after Brackins decided he was coming back, but there was no collective mod effort, nor an all important thread from the site's publisher.
Nobody likes negativity and nobody likes being negative, but sometimes we all get in those moods where we just need to *****. Now, if somebody started a thread saying that Coach Rhoads should be fired because we should have beaten KSU & KU, does that make that individual wrong because they're being "negative" and "spewing hate"? I might make them crazy, but why shouldn't they be able to start that thread?
We're all trying to be constructive in our criticisms of this site and how things are being done, but why the "united front" against a bunch of people that aren't happy about a coach or team, who are just blowing off some steam on a message board?
It's like I said earlier, these are people's opinions and they're not hurting anyone. If somebody wants to call McDermott "McDud", who cares? Let 'em.
I think there are a lot of dumb threads on this site and even more stupid posts and even more stupid posters. People are going to say dumb things now and then in moments of aggression and frustration. Are you really going to take away an outlet that they've come to depend on because you think the main board is getting too "sloppy"?
Honestly, as the community grows, I don't think you have any other choice but to become more active and harsh in moderating it. Just because the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech doesn't mean that it's the most effective way to run a message board.
I've seen it happen again and again to other message boards, and the boards that are able to remain appealing and successful do it by having little or no tolerance for posters who consistently violate the sensibilities of the majority of the populace. If you're going to appeal to the fat middle, you're going to have to avoid giving a voice to the fringes.
I know that I just avoid this board altogether after every loss for about a week these days, and I know I'm not alone.
Maybe have a special forum for threads that represent the vast minority view. Call it Jihad corner or something. Much like the politics board, it lets people who want to go there get all spun up without getting the rest of the board drawn into it.
I've seen it happen again and again to other message boards, and the boards that are able to remain appealing and successful do it by having little or no tolerance for posters who consistently violate the sensibilities of the majority of the populace. If you're going to appeal to the fat middle, you're going to have to avoid giving a voice to the fringes.
I know that I just avoid this board altogether after every loss for about a week these days, and I know I'm not alone.
Maybe have a special forum for threads that represent the vast minority view. Call it Jihad corner or something. Much like the politics board, it lets people who want to go there get all spun up without getting the rest of the board drawn into it.
C
Cyclone42
Guest
This is basically my attitude. This is why I sometimes don't take the "mods" seriously, even flaunt them a bit sometimes. I really don't see why it matters all that much. This isn't life-or-death.
I can see it from their viewpoint also, though. Hence my idea for a forum for this meltdown threads. Let people make as many as they like, in that forum. It'll all be contained there. Let people vent, without their postings being totally lost in a billions-and-billions-long message thread.
Oh, better yet, why don't we change the name of the site to Cyclone Groupthink Fanatic.
What some people fail to realize that this has nothing to do with trying to get people to think a certain way. The only goal here is to streamline the site so everyone has what they want without making a mess of the site in the process. You ask who cares if someone starts a new thread? I think there were like 32 Fire Mac threads started after the Cal game or something? Who cares?...the thousands of members that lurk and post on here that want to read about the game and not just hear about Firing Mac but can't find a single thread with any real discussion in it. For those people that are on here all the time, it's really not that big of a deal but the people that pop in for a few minutes and don't have the time to search through every thread it is a serious problem.
There's plenty of room for rational discourse (and, for that matter, discord) without the emotionally charged knee-jerk reactions that 80% of the post-game threads turn into.
And the vast, vast majority of the cyclone fanbase doesn't feel the same way as those threads.
So do you want the board to appeal to the vast vast majority of the fanbase, or the crazy minority? I mean I know the board is Cyclone "Fanatic", but the question you have to ask is do you want Fanatic to mean "Fan" or "Crazy fan".
I'm trying to imagine how it could be limited, other than simply rolling all the repetitive threads into three or four, and dishing out reminders, warnings and then temporary bans. I'm sure that kind of thing would keep the mods quite busy.
I suppose you could limit thread creation during the postgame for whatever forum's team just had a game, to only mods being able to do it.
I suppose you could limit thread creation during the postgame for whatever forum's team just had a game, to only mods being able to do it.
Let's get some perspective on how serious of a problem it is. If you have to merge a thread every now and then, so be it. You're a mod, you signed up for that. It's like I said earlier, some people bring up arguments that warrant a new thread. It is possible to have several threads about one issue that all discuss different angles and bring up different points of dicussion. I don't see one "Insight Bowl" thread going. Don't penalize people because the threads they're starting don't always paint the best picture.
Well I guess it's not really up to you and I what the rest of the posters on this site do. We put up with the good posters just like we put up with the bad posters and we keep coming back.
I think the best chance to improve the message board comments is to get McDermott to get the team playing hard, rebounding, running an actual offense and winning some games.
You really have no idea what it's like, do you? Funny that you choose to belittle people that have donated hundreds of hours to the site that you like enough to choose to frequent.:no:
I would never say that I don't appreciate the effort of the mods, because I know you guys do a ton of work that goes unnoticed and to the best of my knowledge, you're not getting paid for it, so obviously we're all grateful for your efforts in making this a better site, but it's like you said, you're donating this time. If you don't like the work you're having to do, you don't have to do it. Lots of people are always petitioning to be mods (not me, because I have no interest), maybe it's time for some turnover - a new guard if you will.
No, it's really up to the people that own the board what they want to do with it. And they are now asking for feedback.
A free for all only works for so long, and when the quality of posts and posters go down, so will the board - eventually.
IMO, there need to be guidelines for what is and is not acceptable, and that needs to be set by the board's owners and enforced by the mods. Right now the standard seems to be no swearing, politics, religion or rivalry talk where it doesn't belong.
I don't see why adding "meltdown threads go in the meltdown forum" to that list. I think it's important to at least somewhat marginalize those threads as people letting off steam, which is mostly what they are.
I think this is the hard part to get across to people. You guys see pretty much a finished product - or what little bit you might get to before the mods take action.
There were maybe 3 or 4 mods on board last week after the UNI game. And it was quite literally everything we could do, constantly for as long as an hour, to keep up with the threads.
So to say "once in a while", doesn't even scratch what we're talking about.
I don't have a count handy, but I really don't think there have been many threads moved, deleted or merged in recent days. So "ideas", aren't so much being stiffled. What's being asked is what is the best way to allow people to post, vent, rant or whatever - without impacting the valid converstations.
I'm not a fan of a mega-thread. I think some variety in topics is a good idea. At the same time, I don't care to see 25 "coach sucks" and "we're screwed" threads either, and the ensuing pissin' matches that follow in each. And that's probably a conservative count in just the immedate 5 minutes after the game.
And I think there's a big difference between controlling converstations of various topics - ie travel, tickets, matchups, etc about the bowl game, and shouting wildly that you don't like our ball club.
