Thursday, June 28, 2012

MKMOT (June 28, 2012)

So you guys understand that I don't read every post and every comment anymore, right? I'm asking because I want to make sure that I ban anyone who may have dared to defend Chris Berman in any way. I trust y'all are better than that. You wouldn't be reading this here balog if you weren't, amirite???

We've been a bit monotonous in our discussion topics for the last few days, and that's fine. Traffic has been stupendous. However, please remember that any other subjects you may see fit to discuss are in bounds. I know for a fact that many of you have been a bit gun shy on that Bretton Woods debate you've been bursting at the seams to delve into. Don't be. This is your forum.

I don't care what you talk about. Just talk. Round here, you're in control. Round here, I wouldn't dare post a Counting Crows video before I tell you that underneath a better selection, it's open.




73 comments:

  1. Look, the gold standard may be an ancient relic at this point, but if anyone thinks we're not living in a world of dollar hegemony, I have a bridge to sell them in Arizona! DEBTORS AND CREDITORS ALIKE must change their practices in order for a global economy to maintain a healthy sense of free market capitalism and international trade without devouring itself!

    Also, not a fan of the kinja. I haven't seen a system so dependent on clicks since the days of Hobbes and Locke, amirite!?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the long run, aren't you dead?

      Delete
    2. Old economists never die, we just cease production.

      Delete
    3. You mom knows a Laffer curve when she sees one. (Hint, it's mine.)

      Delete
    4. Guy who is Arthur LaferJune 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM

      Not to nitpick, but it's Arthur Laffer.

      Delete
    5. Not to nitpick, but I'm not an economist, I'm a video game character, with a curved dick. Google me!

      Delete
    6. I Like Cheap BeerJune 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

      I'm not surprised that a proponent of eugenics dislikes the new commenting system.

      Delete
  2. Talibs Rap SheetJune 28, 2012 at 8:29 AM

    Solid chuckle early in the morning. +1

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, that's mean! You'd better take that BACK BACK BACK BACK BACK BACK BACK BACK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please, you think "trickle down economics" is when your forehead sweat drips onto your paycheck!

      Which reminds me, sign up for direct deposit, will you? Christ, even your method of compensation is bloated, outdated, and only appeals to a mysterious segment of the population of which I know no members!

      Is this thing on?

      Delete
  4. In case you care and aren't already aware or on Twitter:

    SCOTUS decision on ACA expected around 1015. Follow it live at:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just so you guys know, that link takes you to a video of SbV8 wearing a cadaver like a catcher's mitt and singing Gene Kelly's "Good Morning" part. Pretty good, actually.

      Delete
    2. I like to think of myself as a "dark ventriloquist".

      Delete
    3. Great way to start the morning.

      Off to the beach. Take good care of Spin till Monday for me.

      Delete
    4. Yeah...just made my weekend. And CNN shitting the bed added some welcome humor to the entire situation.

      Delete
  5. I woke Monday morning and my star was gone
    Turned on some music to start my day
    I lost myself trying to give plus ones
    Part of me [died] and I clicked away

    'Cause we didn't need this (we didn't need this)
    Writers are commenting, we've lost our way (we didn't need this)
    I keep on clicking (we didn't need this)
    This just helps Denton's Logitech stake
    It just helps Denton's Logitech stake

    So many pinkos have waited long
    Their burners change as the days go by
    Yet I still recall as I wander on
    I fear the funny is about to die

    'Cause we didn't need this (we didn't need this)
    Writers are commenting, we've lost our way (we didn't need this)
    I keep on clicking (we didn't need this)
    This just helps Denton's Logitech stake
    It just helps Denton's Logitech stake

    [Passionate guitar solo]

    I can't retire, I'm not that old
    I hope we still use it, improve each day
    And think of a world we used to know
    Keep asking why our stars slipped away
    Stars slipped away

    'Cause we didn't need this (we didn't need this)
    Writers are commenting, we've lost our way (we didn't need this)
    I keep on clicking (we didn't need this)
    This just helps Denton's Logitech stake

    ReplyDelete
  6. The +1 thing. Today, I, and many others, have simply started writing shit like "I like this comment because it was funny" instead of "+1."

    As I understand it, in the current algorithm, an extremely funny comment with 14 "+1"s would rank below any "conversation," as "+1"s do not apparently give any extra weight to a "conversation." If we all gave Bev a +1 (like we used to) for his hilarious oven joke, his comment would rank below a "conversation" like:

    Fuckdick6969: fuck deadspin you stupid writers suk

    poopdickballs45: yea wtf! this place sux

    I love(d?) the +1 system, but at least writing a sentence reply moves the best comments to the front of the line. Just my $.02

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition, replying to the reply seems to be valued as an interactive "discussion." I noticed a few people simply saying 'thank you' to a +1, which seems to work.

      Delete
    2. Craggs has said that he's working on algorithm-positive +1s, which might, depending your perspective, be an improvement over even our old system. I think I'd be partial to the purely chronological order we used to have, just because even if +1s are rewarded in the avatar line-up, due to the other factors we don't know about, it's likely not going to end up being the most loved jokes in descending order anyway.

      Delete
    3. Any time a comment receives a few +1s it's moved to the front of the list, so the replies do count for something even when they're that short.

      I don't think we should change it. The longer form responses too often devolve into a tongue-in-cheek kinja mocking, which is just going to hurt the comment section.

      Delete
    4. @SbV8

      I guess I'll take your word on +1 replies moving a comment up the list. To me, it didn't seem that way, and with Tommy saying they were "Neutral," I assumed they didn't affect a comment one way or another.

      @anyone

      It seems to me the system is ranking the commenters. Some avatars pretty much constantly show up in the first 9 reply line-up. It's obvious that an automated system is not gauging the "funny," so how are they being placed? (Lord knows it's not chronologically.)

      I would prefer the +1 system. It's clean, it's easy. However, #sportstalkradio comments and other garbage tend to garner other non-sense replies, which the system sees as "conversations" and ranks higher. Writing a sentence of praise instead of +1 might be a good idea for right now, so "lower ranked" commenters who make jokes would be more visible.

      One more thought: with the commenters being ranked (am I off on this?), perhaps a +1 from one person could mean more than from another?

      Delete
    5. I agree with you both, here. On the one hand, I think it's definitively false that the +1 replies move comments up the list. Take a look at the TO post from yesterday. Obviously, the system likes comments and replies from staff, so Dom's posts are up front. But you can also see that there are 4 comments with no replies at all ranked ahead of Hume's and Dubai's, with 4 and 2 replies, respectively. In addition, both of those threads feature a reply to a reply, which is supposedly a plus in this system.

      But I also think the long form +1s come off as mocking or insincere. The key is an algorithm that actively rewards +1s or maybe a "view all" option, and maybe we'll get them.

      Delete
    6. BH: You're absolutely right...I had only noticed comments with +1s being moved up but that's a pretty clear cut example.

      But yeah, I still think it's better to keep the +1 and count on the system's evolution to get the comments where they should be (whether a new method of organization or chronological).

      Delete
    7. @Talibs Rap Sheet

      I'm fairly certain I have a negative score for my ranking. Which is how it should be. But I worry that anyone replying to an official Erg comment is going to have their own ranking adversely affected. Best to let the little suckers swirl around the drop box until they disappear.

      Delete
    8. Talibs Rap SheetJune 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

      @Erg

      You may be right, your funny en Bias joke this morning got pushed to the back of the line. However, it's pretty clear to me that the first couple of comments get penalized too, so I'm not sure if it's just you.

      Delete
    9. @@Talibs Rap Sheet

      Oh, I'm not complaining. From what I've seen the starting rankings seem to be mostly as they should be. I really would rather be placed at the bottom of the pile than have my silliness assigned the same rankings as the actual funny folks. Not fishing here, my references are too far back and my comedic writing doesn't approach true Deadspin level humor.

      Delete
  7. Is this just a hypothetical or is poopdickballs45 commenting again? He's hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've been trying to give it an honest effort the last couple of days, and I just feel like the fun has been sucked out of it, for me anyway. To see a reply, go to your inbox bugs me. Not being able to quickly scroll through to find a gem bugs me. I know it sounds like "ooh, scary change. Me no like" but I'm just not feeling it. Still reading the posts, and if there's a good joke right up front, that's great, but right now I can't say that I like the extra effort reading the comments entails.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm feelin' those lighters, y'all.

      Delete
    2. I Like Cheap BeerJune 28, 2012 at 1:49 PM

      It's the explosion in shitty responses that irritates me.

      Delete
  9. These pyramids are brutal when people reply to the wrong person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Talibs Rap SheetJune 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      Well, with more and more people replying to the lower responses, it become more like an actual pyramid ... ?

      Delete
    2. I apologize for starting this. I've created a monster.

      Delete
  10. The sighting of "Stafford Upon Avon" reminds me of something.

    Jaworski is doing some ranking of NFL quarterbacks thing on SportsCenter. He ranked Stafford #14. #14!!!!!!!!!

    Yet another former player shows signs of brain damage.

    /are we allowed to talk about sports?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. People just won't give Stafford credit with Megatron there. They think anyone could throw to him. The fact that the Lions utilized the 'jump ball' play with him last year, aka just throw it up and hell come down with it, didn't help that perception.

      Delete
    3. I admit to being biased, but this was way, way off.

      I'd probably put Stafford at 4 or 5. Conservatively, he is top 7. He also ranked Gabbert ahead of Tebow. I'm pretty neutral on Tebow, but come on.

      Delete
    4. I'd put Stafford in the top-10 as well, but 4 or 5 seems like a stretch. I agree with SUA though, he definitely gets less credit because of what a freak Calvin Johnson is, which is definitely unfair. Kurt Warner saw some of the same treatment thanks to Larry Fitz in Arizona, so I guess we can ask Kevin Kolb and John Skelton whether that criticism was fair or not.

      Delete
    5. I've always subscribed to the 'lists of top [insert position]' are stupid, but you're right, 14 is ridiculous. I'm also biased, however.

      Seriously, though, how do you not like a guy who coming out of college admitted that he washed his hair with bar soap?

      Delete
    6. @Stafford

      That may be part of it, but those people are idiots who apparently don't watch him play. He makes big time throw after big time throw, to a variety of targets. There were several games where Calvin was completely taken away by the defensive scheme for a substantial period of time. Matt definitely shouldn't be punished for Calvin's otherwordly ability.

      He threw for 5000+, 40 TDs, and broke records for huge comebacks. I don't know what more people want to see from him except for more of the same, which I'm fully confident that he'll deliver if he can continue to avoid being slammed on his shoulder.

      Delete
    7. @Hammerclaw

      If we're going off of last year's performance, he's only behind Rodgers and Brees statistically, and he couldn't have shown much more in terms of the "intangibles" that everyone likes to cite.

      4 or 5 is reasonable, anything beyond 7 is not, 14 is more absurd than I have words to express.

      Sports!

      Delete
    8. He threw for 5000+, 40 TDs, and broke records for huge comebacks.

      So if the Lions had a decent defense, Stafford's numbers would drop hugely. Interesting.

      Delete
    9. @Gamboa

      Prelude - SUA is right. These lists are frivolous and stupid. That being said, it's a nice distraction from the political talk going on everywhere else so I don't mind playing some #sportstalkradio.

      ------------------------------------------

      I agree that 14 is absolutely absurd. I'll even go so far as to agree with you on top 7, and as a Packer fan, that's not easy to do. Stafford did lead the league in passing attempts last year, so that definitely had an impact on the stats, but there is no denying that his 2011 season was incredibly impressive.

      The reason that I called 4 or 5 a stretch is because I think that Rodgers, Brady, Brees and Eli (Yes, Eli. I know that I am insane.) are top-4 guys, and then you could argue the case for another 3 or 4 guys for that 5th spot. Stafford is absolutely one of those guys in my mind.

      Delete
    10. Guy Who isn't ready to shoot his wad yetJune 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

      Can I ask why including Eli in the top four is "insane"? If Matt Stafford is allowed to get credit for breaking "records for huge comebacks," why can't Eli get credit for two late-game Super-Bowl-winning drives in the past four seasons, plus regular season performances that are pretty damn spectacular in their own right?

      Look at their numbers from 2011:

      Manning:
      589 attempts
      61.0 completion percentage
      4,933 yards
      8.4 yards per attempt
      29 touchdowns
      16 interceptions

      Stafford:
      663 attempts
      63.5 completion percentage
      5,038 yards
      7.6 yards per attempt
      41 touchdowns
      15 interceptions

      Both of them had insane years. Stafford threw for a crazy number of touchdowns, and that's great and all, but forgive me if I'm not going to view a +12 in touchdowns in one season as negating the fact that Eli Manning has made some of the biggest clutch throws in Super Bowl history and won two Super Bowl MVP trophies in the past four years.

      He's better than Stafford. Stafford's had one great season. Let's keep our hats on.

      Delete
    11. Guy - Thank you for agreeing with me and putting in the research to back up my point. I included the (Yes, Eli. I know that I am insane.) clause because I get the impression that most people do not feel he is top-4 quarterback, and would disagree with his inclusion on that list. I don't think anyone has disagreed with you yet though.

      Consider the credit to Eli that you are asking for "given."

      Delete
    12. I deleted my really stupid comment - carry on.

      Delete
  11. In the absence of a PM...RMJ=H, you can keep the "+1", but I liked that first one more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really?

      I also just dismissed a comment that was of a similar vein. (First dismissal ever, guys. Was I too hasty?)

      Delete
    2. Yeah, they're both funny. But, to me, that first one came across as an aggressively bad pun. Stev D-esque even.

      Delete
  12. Guy Who Thinks We Should Be At DUAN ForumJune 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

    FFS come on guys come to the DUAN Forum trolls can't touch us there. The DUAN Forum (http://www.deadspin.com/duan/forum). Guys it is linear and you don't have to worry about anyone else seeing you. c'mon IMG, SSE, BH, AW, SbV8, Phin, RMJ=H.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do not understand this reply, but it seems like it might be hateful, which I don't condone at all.

    http://deadspin.com/5922125/?comment=50468418

    ReplyDelete
  14. A $3 bill, and other nonexistent denominations, was once called queer money. With no other connotation than it was odd. Don't think that's the case here.

    /Hope you're just an innocent and I'm not stepping on something here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guy Who Thinks We Should Be At DUAN ForumJune 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

    PHIN and et al,

    I'm the ghost of Deadspin past. Someone who cares a lot about the Deadspin community. Someone who's been there, done that, and is just sick and tired of the changes.

    I'm Ukraine, Brianna, Lindsey, Chuck, 44 in a Row...

    All the greats that we miss. The greats who came before you. The greats we want to follow.

    FFS come on guys come to the DUAN Forum trolls can't touch us there. The DUAN Forum (http://www.deadspin.com/duan/forum). Let's gather there. It shows The Powers That Be how much we love the site and miss the site's old format. Don't let the site be in control; be in control of the site. Show them your preferred format. The linear, dialogue-creating format. See you all there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This mission, tone, and speech are truly bizarre.

      Delete
    2. It's not a bad idea, and it's actually kind of crazy how nice and functional it looks there, but I don't know if I have enough content to power my normal Deadspin comments, a Twitter feed, MKMUB comments, DUAN forum comments, controlling all the "guy who" accounts AND being Bill O' Reilly.

      Delete
    3. Hmm. I was just about to post a conspiracy theory, involving you (Duan Forum pusher), and the "Matthew Stafford" Deadspin discuss! post, as being attempts at wooing these comments back over to the mothership from this little here website. I'm not really sure why, there's only like 60 comments here, and most who comment here are also commenting on Deadspin. Maybe comments on the Gawker platform really will be worth serious coin??

      As SbV8 notes, your bizarre tone doesn't really seem to refute my poorly-conceived conspiracy theory.

      Delete
    4. Guy Who Thinks We Should Be At DUAN ForumJune 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

      I couldn't care less about Deadspin hits; I'm much more interested in keeping this community cohesive. I've been through a Deadspin community destruction before (as Sean/mac-cheese has alluded to) and I don't want that to happen again. So just trust me, guys: DUAN FORUM is great. (http://www.deadspin.com/duan/forum/) for all of you who don't want to click on the forum.

      Seriously guys. I want you to stick together. I've made friends before on Deadspin, and I've seen Deadspin basically not care about those friendships and connections. Do everything you can to preserve those. this site

      Delete
    5. The Real Phin, For RealJune 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM

      If you can't even tell us who are you, how can we trust you? What if that "forum" is some vortex that will make our Deadspin accounts self-destruct?

      Delete
  16. Well, the algorithm is definitely given a score for each commenter by someone (editors? moderators?). I'm guessing my Jezebel score is approaching zero, because even when I have a normal discussion with someone, I am put as the absolute dead last comment on the site.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey all, I'll celebrate myself for a moment. I turned 27 today, and it's also my last day working in Singapore before I move back to New York. I'm taking the next two months off, travelling to Bali, Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, and Norway.

    Somebody please tell me that my best days aren't behind me. Being now in my late 20s, as opposed to my mid 20s, feels weird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're best days are 27 to 34 or so. My best days are behind me, though.

      Delete
    2. Hell, I'm 62 and I assume my best days are behind me. But I still have a good time so who can say for sure?

      Delete
    3. Erg, are you really 62?

      Delete
    4. Yep. But it's an immature 62.

      Delete
  18. I've tried to +1 the "h/t" joke from EMS on the Harrison Barnes post twice now, but my replies seem to be disappearing into the ether. Is that what is supposed to happen until the reply is accepted or dismissed? I was under the impression the reply should appear until it is dismissed, but maybe I misunderstood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's not supposed to happen. They've done away with "Accepted", so a reply will show up until it is "dismissed", at which point it will still show in the ">>" box, which is stupid, in my opinion.

      But I have replied (+1'd), via mobile and desktop, several times to no avail, so if it doesn't show up in your profile's comments, keep trying. You're not alone.

      And we need those +1s.

      Delete
    2. it will still show in the ">>" box, which is stupid, in my opinion

      You say that like almost every other aspect of the system isn't also stupid.

      Thanks for the info though, I'll keep soldiering on. This must explain why I haven't received any +1's either. Yeah, totally explains it.

      Delete