Listening to Bennings Description of His Interview with Langs

[huskerfan2000]

So... You need your own guys to have a stated offensive philosophy. That's interesting.

The concern I have is that players don't even seem to understand the vision. How do you get alignment on a goal in that scenario?

now this is just plain being obtuse..

 

[Sargon]

Exactly.

So CM agrees with the previous post and gets 2 +1s, while the post with the actual observation gets 0?

Can someone tell me how this keeps happening?

Sure. The admins refuse to turn on -1 voting so dipwads dipsh*t away with near impunity and they +1 each other regularly.

 

[Redux]

Exactly.

So CM agrees with the previous post and gets 2 +1s, while the post with the actual observation gets 0? Can someone tell me how this keeps happening?

Sure. The admins refuse to turn on -1 voting so dipwads dipsh*t away with near impunity and they +1 each other regularly.

While the -1 would be nice, the same guys abusing the +1 system would use the -1 to hurt those they disagree with.

 

[Sargon]

Nope, Redux. This aint rocket science but it's a little bit of rocket science. -1 alone will show you a heck of a lot more than you think. But having said that you'd also imploy (definitely)automated rules that would limit your voting (earned) quota and would limit your voting on particular posters as well. For example a rule I'd use for sure is only one vote can be made from person A to person B in a thread. Boom. Herein ends the problem Guy was talking about in this thread.

 

[Swiv3D]

Nope, Redux. This aint rocket science but it's a little bit of rocket science. -1 alone will show you a heck of a lot more than you think. But having said that you'd also imploy (definitely)automated rules that would limit your voting (earned) quota and would limit your voting on particular posters as well. For example a rule I'd use for sure is only one vote can be made from person A to person B in a thread. Boom. Herein ends the problem Guy was talking about in this thread.

I think that's how it works on shaggy and Landthieves.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Oh I don't really care about the guy getting some +1s. I'm just asking his sycophants to have an ounce of self-respect.

 

[Redux]

Nope, Redux. This aint rocket science but it's a little bit of rocket science. -1 alone will show you a heck of a lot more than you think. But having said that you'd also imploy (definitely)automated rules that would limit your voting (earned) quota and would limit your voting on particular posters as well. For example a rule I'd use for sure is only one vote can be made from person A to person B in a thread. Boom. Herein ends the problem Guy was talking about in this thread.

If it could be properly regulated then sure. I just have my doubts that good posters wouldn't get dumped on by the negative nancy army.

 

[cm husker]

Speaking of sycophants, none of the Langs disciples have even tried to address the topic at hand.

Quite telling.

 

[Enhance]

Exactly.

So CM agrees with the previous post and gets 2 +1s, while the post with the actual observation gets 0?

Can someone tell me how this keeps happening?

Sure. The admins refuse to turn on -1 voting so dipwads dipsh*t away with near impunity and they +1 each other regularly.

I don't miss the -1. It turned off a lot of posters when they'd have one dissenting opinion and get -1'd into oblivion. Besides, the +1 works as a negative system as well. Conclusions can be drawn from someone with posts that aren't +1'd very often.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Exactly.

So CM agrees with the previous post and gets 2 +1s, while the post with the actual observation gets 0?

Can someone tell me how this keeps happening?

Sure. The admins refuse to turn on -1 voting so dipwads dipsh*t away with near impunity and they +1 each other regularly.

I don't miss the -1. It turned off a lot of posters when they'd have one dissenting opinion and get -1'd into oblivion. Besides, the +1 works as a negative system as well. Conclusions can be drawn from someone with posts that aren't +1'd very often.

+potato

 

[Enhance]

Speaking of sycophants, none of the Langs disciples have even tried to address the topic at hand.

Quite telling.

I don't think it's fair to paint people who disagree with you as some type of Langs cohort. However, several people did engage with the OP in the first few pages, so it's also unfair to pretend the entire thread has been a concoction of derailments because that is very far from the truth.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Speaking of sycophants, none of the Langs disciples have even tried to address the topic at hand.

Quite telling.

People have cut your logic to ribbons numerous times, and included compelling evidence, so it's not really telling that we don't want to take the bait of yet another weirdly phrased argument with movable goalposts.

And geez, dude, do you have any idea how many of my direct questions you've dodged?

Not sure sycophant or disciple are the right words for people who merely think you take every argument three ticks over the top.

 

[huskerfan2000]

Speaking of sycophants, none of the Langs disciples have even tried to address the topic at hand.

Quite telling.

two questions..

1) Do you believe Nebraska can only win with Tom system of the 90's?

2) Do you believe that Nebraska had the success it did because TO was a great coach, and made changes when needed, or do you believe it was the base system of running the ball?

Personally, I believe it was more TO than the system he ran, though I 100% believe we need to run the ball. If I am not mistaken TO said he likes aspects of the spread offense.

I think the combination of the two could be successful at NU!

 

[Sargon]

Exactly.

So CM agrees with the previous post and gets 2 +1s, while the post with the actual observation gets 0?

Can someone tell me how this keeps happening?

Sure. The admins refuse to turn on -1 voting so dipwads dipsh*t away with near impunity and they +1 each other regularly.

I don't miss the -1. It turned off a lot of posters when they'd have one dissenting opinion and get -1'd into oblivion. Besides, the +1 works as a negative system as well. Conclusions can be drawn from someone with posts that aren't +1'd very often.

Maybe you meant to say "me" when you said "a lot of posters when they have one dissenting opinion"

I don't even recall -1 voting here but it's like anything, you can do something well or do something poorly. Perhaps it was done poorly here (and I mean stupid program logic not stupid poster behavior. Good logic can remove the vast majority of that).

 

[knapplc]

I don't miss the -1. It turned off a lot of posters when they'd have one dissenting opinion and get -1'd into oblivion. Besides, the +1 works as a negative system as well. Conclusions can be drawn from someone with posts that aren't +1'd very often.

Maybe you meant to say "me" when you said "a lot of posters when they have one dissenting opinion"

I don't even recall -1 voting here but it's like anything, you can do something well or do something poorly. Perhaps it was done poorly here (and I mean stupid program logic not stupid poster behavior. Good logic can remove the vast majority of that).

I was part of the decision to eliminate the -1 option. The board works just fine the way it is. If you don't like someone's post you don't have to -1 it, just ignore it.