Poll - Mac or no more Mac?

[Casey T]

This is a poll to see what the Killerfrogs community thinks about continuing to post articles written by Big Steaming Pile.

This is not a request to have his content censored by the Star Telegram. The current setup on this site directly provides him with revenue and views, even though he is known for demeaning and belittling TCU and writing misleading articles.

I am not trying to convince people of this so I will not post examples. This is simply to see what everyone's stance is.

 

[Pharm Frog]

No option for more Mac?

 

[BrewingFrog]

No option for more Mac?

There's only so many boluses an (allegedly) human body can produce in a given span of time...

 

[HERBLER-FROG]

No more Mac why give that hater clicks. I can’t believe he was invited for a Poscast. Ban

 

[netty2424]

Mods censor everyone else’s posts, why not Mac.

For the record, while I rarely agree with his shock jock headlines and hit piece articles, but don’t think anyone should be censored here, Mac included.

 

[Billy Clyde]

As best I can recall it from Journalism 101, the purposes of that enterprise are to Inform, Persuade, and/or Entertain.

I truly don't recall his stuff doing any of those things, ever. Can't understand what legitimate purpose he approaches.

P.S. I miss Gallo

 

[Zubaz]

If I don't want to read something of his, I'll choose not to. I have zero interest in passing a rule that prevents others from enjoying that same liberty.

 

[FrogCop19]

My question is can you consider it "censoring" if we just request that he not be posted on here anymore? We aren't altering his content, we aren't preventing him from writing his trash, we're just voicing an opinion, and requesting that he not be posted here any more. That's not censorship, that's taste.

His articles rarely have any substance to them, they are never complementary, and they are purposefully inflammatory about the team we all love and are here to talk about. I've even read articles written by rival school's journalists and city newspapers that are more even-handed and fair-minded.

I am also not suggesting that any dissenting opinion isn't worth consideration. Just because someone doesn't like my team doesn't make them persona non grata. Hell, there are baylor posters on here that I tolerate more than him because at least they have a reason to be hateful. Plus it's funny when we beat them. I'm not allowed to beat Muck.

I know this argument has been presented a dozen times before. "Why don't you just not click on the article?" Well, that is one option. Another option is to stop posting his crap. Why even give that hack a platform? It's not like his writing has ever contributed to to a logical discussion, other than the multiple times we've tried to use logic in order to prevent the postings of his drivel. I know that there are some people on here that have a personal relationship with him. I don't question them as people, of course, but I *do* question those people's literary taste when they say he's a good writer.

He does nothing positive for discussions on this site. He doesn't share our love for TCU. He is purposefully inflammatory and borderline combative. I mean, this last "article" alone probably violates part of the User's Agreement to be a member of this site. My vote is to stop.

 

[BigPurple87]

Top frog is going to throw a temper tantrum

 

[Armadillo]

I've got an idea....DON'T CLICK ON HIS ARTICLES.

Seems some of you get triggered just by reading his headlines. So triggered in fact you have to post a poll to try to ban the articles.

Edit: Casey8ball, I generally respect your input, but you really should think about deleting this thread. Censorship is a very slippery slope.

 

[Horned Toad]

Seems to me that every time a Mac article is posted some of you create about 10 pages of complaints about him. That’s click bait heaven for a fan site. If I was a website owner I’d hope he wrote an article about TCU everyday. My revenue would be up every time that happens. Maybe the next time an article gets posted if all the posters who don’t like Mac didn’t post a reply telling everyone they didn’t like Miac, his posts would shrivel up an die of natural causes. But I’d bet a hundred that his next article will get the same reaction from the same posters ad nauseam.

 

[Mean Purple]

Need clarification.
Would we still be able to ridicule?

Heck, would it even be in context to ridicule at that point.

FOR EXAMPLE:
If there is no article and someone posts, "hey, muck, hows your wife with my kid", would it work as well as if there was an article?

 

[H-Town Frog]

but don’t think anyone should be censored here, Mac included.

I definitely don"t consider it censoring. It would be that kfc stopped promoting his content.

 

[JugbandFrog]

Down with Muck!

 

[satis1103]

I've got an idea....DON'T CLICK ON HIS ARTICLES.

Seems some of you get triggered just by reading his headlines. So triggered in fact you have to post a poll to try to ban the articles.

Edit: Casey8ball, I generally respect your input, but you really should think about deleting this thread. Censorship is a very slippery slope.

I agree censorship is bad. But in this particular case I would argue it's a majority request as opposed to censorship (assuming the poll remains quite landslidey and there are enough responses)

 

[Eight]

I agree censorship is bad. But in this particular case I would argue it's a majority request as opposed to censorship (assuming the poll remains quite landslidey and there are enough responses)

ah, so the right of mob rule so to speak

 

[Peacefrog]

Nope. No way. If you don’t think it’s censorship then imagine if the board decided to remove articles by a journalist you liked. Wouldn’t you consider that censorship? Removing news/opinions you don’t like is a quick way to censoring everything based upon the whims of a majority. And you end up in a really sorry, sad echo chamber where everyone simply agrees with everything said. Open debate is always better than closing the debate to differing points of view.

Don’t like Mac? Don’t read it.

 

[Billy Clyde]

I've got an idea....DON'T CLICK ON HIS ARTICLES.

Seems some of you get triggered just by reading his headlines. So triggered in fact you have to post a poll to try to ban the articles.

Edit: Casey8ball, I generally respect your input, but you really should think about deleting this thread. Censorship is a very slippery slope.

Sometimes a slippery slope leads to a badass ski jump

 

[Billy Clyde]

Nope. No way. If you don’t think it’s censorship then imagine if the board decided to remove articles by a journalist you liked. Wouldn’t you consider that censorship? Removing news/opinions you don’t like is a quick way to censoring everything based upon the whims of a majority. And you end up in a really sorry, sad echo chamber where everyone simply agrees with everything said. Open debate is always better than closing the debate to differing points of view.

Don’t like Mac? Don’t read it.

Posting his articles because, "differing points of view" on an AFFINITY website is like saying, "Hey yeah, I like Playboy and all, really love my subscription, but they really need a lot more Dick Pics, because, we have to recognize all points of view."

 

[Peacefrog]

Posting his articles because, "differing points of view" on an AFFINITY website is like saying, "Hey yeah, I like Playboy and all, really love my subscription, but they really need a lot more Dick Pics, because, we have to recognize all points of view."

I kind of get what you are saying but I don’t see this as an apt comparison.

Edit: do we also only want articles from writers that stroke off the program rather than having a critical view from time to time? Mac is not good at what he does but from time to time he does make a good point or two.