- Joined: Jan 20, 2010
- Last Login: Sep 17, 2021, 1:39pm EDT
- Posts: 7
- Comments: 647
Share this profile
Comment 3 recs
i (still) have concerns regarding the new comment system
(this is mostly copied from my original comment on POD a year ago with identified edits)
- first, while i can appreciate the concept, i’m concerned about the ability of the site’s user base to essentially shadow ban other users without the oversight of moderators or structure of regulations. for example, imagine a user who is a strong and supportive fan and plays by all the rules of the website, but one time expresses a minority or unpopular or controversial opinion on things only tangentially related to the topic. if the user base de facto bans that user by the en masse use of the mute function, that user’s contributions actually related to the site’s topics will never be witnessed by anyone other than that user. obviously this is an extreme scenario with a sped-up timeline, but i think there’s real concern over time that each site turns into an echo chamber, i.e. a tyranny of the majority. from a business and site traffic perspective, all that does is suppress the user base through stigmatization, which likewise kills revenue-generating traffic. i think having a time limit on it – a snooze rather than an ignore – is the wiser choice.
2021 edit – in this site’s history, recall the discussions re: Datsyuk’s religious choices or, less controversially, the discussions regarding the appropriate value of "grit" in a lineup. regardless of where one may fall in those debates, users are entitled to hold divergent beliefs; whether those beliefs may (or even should) be expressed on the SB Nation sites was well controlled by the moderators. consequently, i believe a user-driven snooze feature limited by time and a continuation of the moderator authorities is the better choice and prevents devolution of the site and users.
- second, having viewed each of those other sites where the system has gone live, there’s a legibility issue. i can’t quite put my finger on it – maybe it’s the
grey background(resolved), or the narrow font(resolved), or compressed character spacing, or the extreme contrast between the bolded font and the normal font (more on this below), but it makes the comments more difficult to read than they are in the current system. i tried one of the sites in multiple browsers, just to make sure it wasn’t my overlaid font settings in my preferred browser; the same issue appeared in each browser, though not to the same severity each time. i think if the system is adopted, they should hard-code in font settings that browsers cannot override and make it so that it’s more legible across all systems. as i recall, the font choice was a struggle when the current page format was adopted, but was slightly tweaked for legibility as time went on, so this isn’t unprecedented.
2021 edit – other than the color coding being improved by restoration to match the current system’s, and the narrow stylized font returning to more standard width fonts, the above issues still persist. the contrast in font weight between bold and normal has been improved, but because of the structural style issue below, the problem still remains.
- third, related to the second but different, is that now the user name is the heading for each comment, each reply begins by identifying the user, then a line citing the user who posted the parent comment, and then finally the substantive text
(in somewhat more difficult-to-read font). each time a username is cited, it’s in a font that is significantly bolder than the normal font. that makes it much harder to follow the substance of the running commentary. furthermore, the (lack of) vertical spacing between the rows squeezes the substantive (comment) between the structural (usernames, reply framework, and then liking/sharing/etc options at the bottom), further de-emphasizing the substantive commentary. at least in the current format, the substance of the comment is first and foremost, with the user tagged in a slightly smaller (but still bolded) font below the comment. there are many ways they could rearrange this stylistically, but they’ve overloaded the comment with things not related to the comment itself.
2021 edit – as indicated above, some of the font and color tweaks have improved this overall. however, the structure of the comment remains a barrier to clear, concise reading and continues to deemphasize the substance of the comments. with the introduction of the black line connecting replies to the parent, it is superfluous to indicate who made the parent comment – except, bizarrely, due to the decision by Coral to stop indentation and line connections after what appears to be the third sublevel. after that point, the identification of the parent comment is useful, but only because they failed to implement a fix consistently, which created the overabundance of information that deemphasizes content; just permit additional indentation and line connecting, and a significant portion of comment legibility self-resolves with the removal of the "fix" (see Reddit for functionality of the lines).
i realize some of this is in the "old man yelling at cloud" vein, but these aren’t really difficult adaptations to ensure a uniform, predictable, harmonious UI and UX.
Comment 1 rec
Love the Dan Villari idea
They are apparently thinking of him in some sort of utility/hybrid/flex role anyway. Put him back there and let’s get wild!
Comment 1 rec
agree generally, but ...
What this alliance ultimately boils down to is three conferences coming together to say they still want a seat at the table and that the superpowered SEC will not be alone in shaping the future of college sports. But there’s not a ton of substance here. Any of the schools or conferences could break rank at any time to poach someone else or be poached.
I agree conceptually with this argument. What they’ve created is not a binding contract, just an informal agreement among conferences to work together. Anyone can still do, theoretically, whatever they want.
But I think it underemphasizes this part …
Future structure of the NCAA
Federal legislative efforts
Postseason championships and future formats
… which basically amounts to a statement saying "more than just having a seat at the table, we will be having a say in defining what, where, and how big the table is, or whether there even is a table, and have not ruled out petitioning governments as a means of doing so." Additional subtext might even be inferred that they would involve courts, if necessary.
Based on the recent landscape changes and some troublingly-consistent rumors and trends, this feels very much like a statement saying "no one conference (or any group of super-revenue-generating schools, which might otherwise include programs like USC, Oregon, Clemson, UNC, Ohio State, and Michigan) matters so much that it could individually carry enough votes to disband the NCAA and substitute a mega-conference above the rest of collegiate sports. Likewise, we collectively have more than enough monetary sway to enforce existing relationships and/or dissolve agreements with any noncomplying programs and prevent them from obtaining their goals." In the end, it’s not a huge difference, but 40 schools (plus fake ACC member ND, presumably) have agreed that they won’t accept hegemony.
So who wins?10,000 crows or 100 horses?
Comment 1 reply
fun, non-hockey question(s) for Karel or anyone who knows
I know Malmo SWE is just on the other side of the Oresund from Copenhagen DNK; I know there’s a bridge spanning it; finally, a map tells me it’s approximately a 30 minute drive (33km / 20.5mi) between the Malmo Isstadion and the Royal Arena Copenhagen (just landmarks to set distance). This is more cultural than literal, but could Frans conceivably live at "home" in Denmark and commute every day to his job in Sweden (ignoring, obviously, that he owns a house outside Malmo)?
I’m aware of the political and economic permissions via the EU, etc., but do Europeans commute across borders? Would something like the Oresund, given its size, be distinctly different from say, the Rhine river (Offenburg GER – Strasbourg FRA) or a non-physical demarcation line (Trieste ITA – Koper SVN), even if they’re all about 20-30 minute drive?
Also, good for Frans. Wish him the best.
Comment 1 rec
i think this is it. i think they see Bert as a foundation piece alongside Larks, so he’d get one A. and history tells us they like to split them up among the positions, so you figure it’s gonna be a blueliner. who among them is a foundational leader? well, maybe Hronek, definitely Mo (in time; as a rookie, you gotta figure he’s out).
DDK has been here and been a real warrior for us, but he might not be on the ice all the time. so i think a split between DDK and Hronek makes the most sense. after DDK retires? does that elevate Hronek to a "full" A? has Mo reached that point/is he enough of a "leader" on the team? dunno. but i see a time split with DDK and someone this season.