[MrBlackCat]

Splat, on 12 May 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

The reputation system works well, combined with some policing. That's my conclusion, after being very skeptical.

Well... maybe, but you have a big fat feces in your avatar. Just sayin'...

(hehehe)

I wondered if the Reputation System would be revoked. I wonder if it encourages others to try harder to communicate to avoid negatives. Lots of thoughts.

This book comes to mind... The No Assholes Rule

***edit***
Here is an online review of the book that is very brief... Here.

It is super cheap these days... it is a book to identify and deal with assholes, also explaining to the layman how to understand the destructiveness of these jerks. Most people do not understand this aspect of the wisdom. This books concepts has a lot to do with my arguments with moderators over tolerance. I do hate to see moderators with intentions of fairness, kindness, patience and a lot of other great characteristics get so confused on recognizing who has earned these things and who does not. This is my area, so I could type for days, but this is not my thread, nor do I think such a thread would be welcome here, so it ends here.

In summary, individual contribution to a forum, company, game or whatever, is only part of the picture. For a numerically quantified metaphor, if you bring 10 to the table, but disrupt 11, then you don't really belong.

Some people can not exist without being on a side... and they are almost always in a war... and everyone else is the enemy... and they tolerate you as a favor... and you will always owe them for it. This is the Asshole.

MrBlackCat

[trencheel303]

These ratings are complete garbage, IMO, and are counterproductive to the purpose they are intended for.

I've been downrated three times, all in one thread. Twice for purely asking a question that was relative to the topic, and once for providing factual information, with links included, as to why the general consensus in the thread was incorrect. I was downvoted once for all three of those posts, purely because I am one of the few people here who is not anti-microsoft. I also provided evidence in that post that one of the members who made an anti-MS post has a habit of posting garbage - perhaps that was a little harsh and it's why I got voted down for that, but being voted down just for asking two questions on a subject is complete bullshit.

All it boils down to is an opinion poll. If someone disagrees with the opinion, they'll vote it down, and if in my case it's a particularly unpopular opinion, it will result in negative votes stacking up. On the other hand, if you're one of these people who holds an opinion that everyone else agrees with - either coincidentally or because they enjoy being a sheep - the ratings will climb rapidly. Anyone who can't see this must be completely braindead.

Of course, the people with positive ratings are going to be for this system, and will whine about the whiners, just as the people like myself who have negative reputations will be against the system. We know this already - I just don't agree with the system and the bias it encourages. I don't even take the ratings seriously for these reasons - it just amounts to pointless willy waving.

if I had a -3 reputation because I'd directly insulted someone or posted factually incorrect garbage, I could understand it. It just seems these days that being right is wrong.

[bullerbullerseven]

I think that the idea of the voting system is great, and it could work really good. But people vote for different reasons, and therefore you get downvotes for posts that you wouldn't downvote other people for. This is the reason why it is a bad idea.
It is a good idea because people can vote depending on how you feel of the post.
Though another bad thing is that people usually don't vote because of the post, but rather because some specific person posted it (blackharted). He doesn't desever half of his downvotes.

We would be better off without the system, people should just reply to the post instead of voting.

[Forge]

I looked at trencheel303's posts and I don't see why he has a negative rep. He may have disagreed with the popular opinion, but he did it in a productive way.

jhect on the other hand probably receives negativity from posts like this:

Jhect, on 19 April 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

I hope ( for you ) that your wife is a cocksucker too ^^

Eh, i guess being a cocksucker really ain't so bad after all.

I kinda agree with high treason, you have 28 thumbs up, pretty much only because you are an admin. And for some reason you will keep the voting system even though people are misusing it...

You aren't the best admin i have seen, not the worst either.

blackharted posts the same way and then he doesn't understand why he has a bad rep?

just an observation

[CruX]

An accurate observation, too. While Trencheel was an (unfortunate) exception, people that get consistently downvoted tend to have it coming. Blackharted posted almost nothing but inflammatory bullshit. He'd necrobump ancient threads just to say that they were old, deliberately derail topics, and if you called him on it, he'd pretty much come right out and tell you he was trolling, as if that was some kind of bragging right. Might be speculation, but I'm beginning to wonder if that retard finally got banned, because I haven't seen any posts from him in a while.

[MrBlackCat]

trencheel303, on 13 May 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

These ratings are complete garbage, IMO, and are counterproductive to the purpose they are intended for.

if I had a -3 reputation because I'd directly insulted someone or posted factually incorrect garbage, I could understand it. It just seems these days that being right is wrong.

They aren't garbage to everyone though. In some case they seem to really fit certain peoples posting style.
And, you aren't "right" (e.g. "right is being wrong"). It isn't that simple. Feedback isn't necessarily associated with being right or wrong anyway.
I don't like Microsoft or Windows by the way... how each of us react to that is different however.

You did say IMO... but quantifying "counterproductive" and defining the purpose of the feedback system I have not really seen. While I would like a "definition" of how the system should be used (because I would follow it) not everyone would, and it is not enforceable. It has to be "an honor system" almost.

Again, some people will give you feedback simply because they don't agree with you. I have not received a handbook on how to use the Feedback system. Such would be a waste of time because it would have to be enforced by like-minded persons.

Why do you incorrectly assume it even has some kind of universal pattern to use?

What I have observed so far:
Positive Reputation score can mean:
1. Your ass is being kissed.
2. You post funny stuff.
3. You are a complete asshole, but you are skilled enough textually to completely shroud your arrogance and uselessness in your one sided elitist MFing posts from most members.
4. Your posts are valuable in multiple ways.
5. You are being a COMPLETE arbitrary ass, but it is so skilled an intelligent it is still appreciated. (Like appreciating skill in art though you don't like the art itself)
6. You have been here a long time and are simply popular.

Negative Reputation score can mean:
1. Your screen name is Blackharted. (hehe)
2. Members can see you are a jerk from hell and give you negatives no matter what you post.
3. Others can see you are right and due to feelings of inadequacy issue vengeful negatives from the closet.
4. Others can see you are shallow, one sided and a douche and they want to sure like minded members can see the same.
5. Your posts are abrasive to a near infinite number of subjects or areas that others take neurotically serious for both valid and invalid reasons.
6. Because your posts violate that others believe is an unspoken standard of fairness, understanding, open mindedness, and general communication Etiquette in a way the is of no benefit to the forum as a whole and it members as individuals.

I personally choose several of the above when I am the candy striper.

The reasons people issue feedback is very interesting to me... I have learned a bit about reasoning from reading this material.

I still stand by the idea, that the system can be used as a reference because it is no more random than the human minds that choose so many different reasons for for passing out reputation votes. Again, I believe it is just a compatibility meter for the most part.

As for your statement

trencheel303 said:

Of course, the people with positive ratings are going to be for this system, and will whine about the whiners, just as the people like myself who have negative reputations will be against the system.

If I had a neutral or negative reputation, I would be posting basically what I typed above. The only difference being that if I was getting a lot of negative feedback, my nature wouldn't allow me to "punish" those around me with my views, so I would not post as often, or leave.

I personally would not likely have given negatives for the posts you received them for... but when I believe the system is being abused, I have been known to issue a positive to negate the vote of someone who uses the system fundamentally different than myself.

In closing, I would like to say that your post implies there is a universal reasoning and standard or something for how the reputation system should be used, interpreted, and controlled. I don't agree... due to evidence expressed in this thread and the other locked one, which demonstrates reasoning for feedback I would never have guessed without seeing it myself.

MrBlackCat

[bullerbullerseven]

I don't blame people for downvoting me. I just post my opinion and if people don't like it, then they should just downvote it. It's just too bad that you can't see who voted you, because that would should what the different people think of your post, instead of just a general popularity value.
I could asslick too. But it's just a forum so why would i even care of a popularity value that doesn't affect my life in any way. This is how i look of the voting system. So seriously. We should just stop caring about something like this xD

[MrBlackCat]

I agree Jhect... I can understand people suggesting the systems usefulness to them based on your view. Popularity Value is a good way to look at it. I chose the term compatibility... but to the same end I think.
Seeing who voted for or against your post would not work in my opinion. It would allow you to retaliate or support a given voter as opposed to giving the indicator a sense of "overall view". Really with as small a group of post votes as we are dealing with, it will have limited value compared to if every post was voted on by 20 different members. Because of this, I chose to only "vote" if the rating value (no matter what criteria I choose) is a 1-2, or a 9-10. (10 being positive, 1 being negative)

I won't stop caring about it though. I think it could help some members with delusional perceptions of their compatibility and imaginary status see the light.

At first I was shocked at my rating being positive because my perception of myself here was a somewhat abrasive, over-opinionated, wall-typing, antagonist. Still is. Now I know what positives mean.

I think it has become obvious the system means lots of different things to the members. For that matter I use it in different ways on different days, but I really don't use it that often. If I am in a silly mood, I am more likely to value comedic posts and give a positive for something inventive and funny to me. If I have been in some database or spreadsheet too long, jokes and comedy will go unnoticed. I am human... but I am not particularly reactive.

MrBlackCat

[Forge]

tbh, i don't even look at the reps when I'm reading a post. the reps have no sway on how I perceive the poster or the information they convey

if someone posts something abrasive, that's around the time I look over at their rep (and then understand why it's negative)

my basic method of voting is to look and see if the person received a negative vote for something that doesn't justify a negative vote (in my opinion), then give them a positive vote

or if the person posted something that was very helpful, then they receive a positive vote

i rarely dole out a negative vote, and not just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as me, (not even if they think i should commit suicide )

[Splat]

It sorta works on a psychological level, no one except the purest troll or ignorant douchebag likes a negative reputation. So they are more likely to adjust their expressions, maybe even subconscious. It also makes it easier for moderators. Less heated debates, because users can simply click minus to express their feelings for the words from another, and move on.
We just have to watch out for cases of two or more people who just keep voting each other down, no matter what they post. just because they can't stand each other for whatever reason.

[Hank]

Splat, on 13 May 2011 - 10:33 AM, said:

<br>It sorta works on a psychological level, no one except the purest troll or ignorant douchebag likes a negative reputation. So they are more likely to adjust their expressions, maybe even subconscious. It also makes it easier for moderators.&nbsp;&nbsp;Less heated debates, because users can simply click minus to express their feelings for the words from another, and move on. <br>We just have to watch out for cases of two or more people who just keep voting each other down, no matter what they post. just because they can't stand each other for whatever reason.

If the intent for the rating is to tone the discussion down a bit, the ability to hand out a minus point without a comment circumvents the requirement to discuss it in the first place. In short, this makes no sense to me. Friends will vote for their friends. There is no way, Mr BlackCat got 50 points with those long winded posts of his without them. Or TX. They have their friends and friends respect each other; and the other way around. In short good luck policing that.

[MrBlackCat]

Hank, on 13 May 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

If the intent for the rating is to tone the discussion down a bit, the ability to hand out a minus point without a comment circumvents the requirement to discuss it in the first place. In short, this makes no sense to me. Friends will vote for their friends. There is no way, Mr BlackCat got 50 points with those long winded posts of his without them. Or TX. They have their friends and friends respect each other; and the other way around. In short good luck policing that.

I kind of resented your statement at a first glance... second and third also. Is your view. The non-PC part of me would say it sounds like a projection of your own personal integrities onto others. So if your view is derived "Realism" or "Jaded" or something else, I don't know, but it does sound presumptuous to me.

I will not vote for friends. In actuality, I am LESS likely to even "vote" when the post is from a moderator (suck-up avoidance), or someone whos posts I like. Built in bias avoidance. Really, I don't have any friends here. The only two people I have even had non-public exchanges with I don't think I have ever voted either way on. Some mod can verify that if they desire I am sure... I can't remember ever "voting" for a moderators post either. If I did I didn't realize they were.

I can only speak for myself, but for example: I have given Mr.Deviance positive and negative points over time when I thought it was appropriate. I am comfortable with my own objectivity in this area. I have no friends here to give points to.

I will admit a tiny bias for the underdog IF I believe they have been abused... as mentioned in previous walls. But it is small in the overall scope of the votes I have given.

In other words, I really don't play favorites... I'd vote my mother down if I felt her post was one that deserved it. If anything, I play favorites with my own idealistic fairness, not with the actual individual.

I would appreciate you not speaking for the personal integrity of at least myself. I doubt everyone is as biased as you suggest. But if you still choose to, I don't guess there is anything I can do about it... but I won't vote you down for it unless you are being a jerk about it.

MrBlackCat

[Master Fibbles]

Hank, would you feel better if I started voting down all of MrBlackCat's posts?

[Hank]

MrBlackCat, on 13 May 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

<br>I kind of resented your statement at a first glance... second and third also.&nbsp;&nbsp;Is your view.&nbsp;&nbsp;The non-PC part of me would say it sounds like a projection of your own personal integrities onto others.&nbsp;&nbsp;So if your view is derived "Realism" or "Jaded" or something else, I don't know, but it does sound presumptuous to me.<div><br>MrBlackCat<br>

Where did I question your rating method? Anyways, so noted, and I take it we shall not be friends.

b.t.w. I do not give red cards, event to blackhearted. It's a game forum. If you post something that cheers me up, you'll get a point, and the reason why.

@ Mr Flibble - No. Am I so far removed? Am I the only one voting, where ever possible, for my friends? Granted I have one here only, but still, I'm missing something.

[MrBlackCat]

Hank, on 13 May 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

Where did I question your rating method? Anyways, so noted, and I take it we shall not be friends.

b.t.w. I do not give red cards, event to blackhearted. It's a game forum. If you post something that cheers me up, you'll get a point, and the reason why.

@ Mr Flibble - No. Am I so far removed? Am I the only one voting, where ever possible, for my friends? Granted I have one here only, but still, I'm missing something.

I don't think you questioned my rating method directly... I was just stating some of my reasoning again, cause it evolves and if I stated my actual method in one post I would get banned for long posts people already complain about. But sorry that wasn't clear. I was rushed at the time and I always try to keep it short... as hard as that might be for anyone to believe. I should have made it clear where I was and wasn't referencing your post. Also there was not any negative tone to my post if that was not made clear either. I was just stating my case with relatively little emotion. It can be read in robot-monotone.

I just resented you saying my friends (which I don't think I have) voted for me/or my posts. I can assure you, I am more shocked than anyone that I don't have a major negative score. Part of me does not understand it as I stated because I do not perceive myself/my posts, here as received positively. They are long and sometimes unclear. I don't use much filler, so they are more like fact lists sometimes and I am aware of several personality types that don't like that.

It is a Duke Nukem forum... one liners should dominate, so I should be banned. (hehehe) Or maybe the opposite of what expected has happened because if people want One-Liners they play Duke Nukem, if they want multi-sentence posts, they read here? Hehehe... just kidding around.

You are welcome to be my first friend Hank. I added someone to my friend list a while back that asked come to think of it. Maybe that wasn't here. I never look in there. I don't think I have ever asked anyone to be my friend either though. I am kind of cold and stoic I guess.

See?! You used the system different than myself... and other people use it other ways. You give only positives, and to people that make you laugh, or to your friends.

I think you might be the only one here voting for your friends... yes.

Well at least you have one friend here and now people know how you use the system and will TRY to be your friend more so you can give them positives. I really hope you will be Blackharteds friend... then you can give him positives. <evil grin>

MrBlackCat

[Forge]

I can't complain. I have friends. Somebody even spoke to me the other day.

[MrBlackCat]

Forge, on 13 May 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

I can't complain. I have friends. Somebody even spoke to me the other day.

I can complain... I can even teach you if you like.

I just posted this to say "Hey Forge" really though.

But I won't be giving you a positive for your post...

Hehehe... just kidding.

MrBlackCat

[Kathy]

The other interesting thing is that some +1 posts could be downvoted to 0 for being +1 when were they 0 they most likely wouldn't be downvoted. And vice versa. While I can't say for sure that people are downvoting/upvoting just because the post was voted before I can see that out of my 21 reputation points 8 were of this flip-flop nature.

[Master Fibbles]

I think that indicates that not everyone agrees here and that the system is balancing out the reputation.

[Kathy]

It's just that I don't really like when you have even number of + and - the post reputation looks like no one voted yet.

[Master Fibbles]

Yeah, that is deceiving, isn't it. You could have 6 votes but they balanced each other out. Could there be a way to show both the +1 and -1 votes? Or would that just make the post too "busy"?

[bullerbullerseven]

You can see if your post has been voted if you go to your profile and choose reputation. I think it would be awesome if we could see who voted you. This way there will be less downvoting for people that you simply just don't like. And you can actually see who likes your post
And hank does have a point. People vote up more for friends. I have never read one of blackcats full posts xD sorry hhehe so much text

[Forge]

Jhect, on 14 May 2011 - 06:22 AM, said:

You can see if your post has been voted if you go to your profile and choose reputation.

True, but who's going to spend the time going to someone's profile to see how the voting went on a post before they decide to vote? I don't think putting a small meter adjacent to the +/- will take up too much room.

Jhect, on 14 May 2011 - 06:22 AM, said:

I think it would be awesome if we could see who voted you. This way there will be less downvoting for people that you simply just don't like. And you can actually see who likes your post
And hank does have a point. People vote up more for friends. I have never read one of blackcats full posts xD sorry hhehe so much text

The problem with seeing who voted how will create the "vengeance/sympathizer" factor when it's not obvious who did the voting. If someone gives a person a negative vote, then there is the possibility of an unjustified retaliation negative vote. The same goes for positive votes where confidants will give + votes to each other to boost their status'.

I'm sure it happens now anyway, but at a reduced level.

[MrBlackCat]

Lotans point I am not sure about... What would be the purpose of knowing?

1. To the Post Author I can think of at least one way it would have some value... example: if they got 100+ then 100- they would know the post inspired much... but on second thought, what value would that have really? The end result is still neutral.

2. To the readers... why should it even matter how others voted on the post anyway? That seems like it opens the window for a MUCH wider range of "reasons" a post would be voted on. Reasons like Sympathy votes and my own rare "Underdog" votes. Not showing the vote at all would eliminate any counter-votes and Social Conformity votes.

Does anyone not think the voting process would be more pure if it were void of "group influence"? (This assumes purity is a desired criteria of course) If not, why?

In the above scenario, the individuals that wanted to research "the why" that doesn't matter to most people, could still look into profiles (their own, or others) and see the reputation source.

Jhect, on 14 May 2011 - 06:22 AM, said:

You can see if your post has been voted if you go to your profile and choose reputation. I think it would be awesome if we could see who voted you. This way there will be less downvoting for people that you simply just don't like. And you can actually see who likes your post
And hank does have a point. People vote up more for friends. I have never read one of blackcats full posts xD sorry hhehe so much text

What benefit would knowing who voted you make for reasons other than retaliation votes? At that point I wonder what is desired from the system. Is it an effective way to wage battles against each other? That would be the result of "knowing all" I think.

I believe I understand the value of knowing which posts produce which votes... but the value of knowing who I can not see being anything of benefit.

As far as not reading my posts, it is quite common I think. I have been banned from a forum a few years ago for no other reason than excessively long posts. They were defensive posts. I was PISSED! Because I was also "right"! Even though I ripped them a new one and took out their site and their provider even for a while. I got over myself though. I learned a valuable lesson about compatibility. I was irritating to the other members... the fact that my arguments (defenses actually) were "right" didn't matter. I learned never to help those who don't ask for it, and just how subjective helping out, is. Think of it as a whole forum of Blackharted and Mr.Deviance. Abrasive, noisy, but they were happy with it in their own way. The redneck in me thinks back to... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Forge, on 14 May 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

True, but who's going to spend the time going to someone's profile to see how the voting went on a post before they decide to vote? I don't think putting a small meter adjacent to the +/- will take up too much room.

The problem with seeing who voted how will create the "vengeance/sympathizer" factor when it's not obvious who did the voting. If someone gives a person a negative vote, then there is the possibility of an unjustified retaliation negative vote. The same goes for positive votes where confidants will give + votes to each other to boost their status'.

I'm sure it happens now anyway, but at a reduced level.

Yes... these are excellent points. My same reaction for the most part.

MrBlackCat

[bullerbullerseven]

How did deviance get all his +votes? Is he using more than 1 account?

[Kathy]

No, he's supposedly say some valid things on DNF subforum since his pluses come from DNF related topics. Can't say for sure cause I have a DNF blackout. But once I finish the damn game I'm going to post a shitload of messages there.

[MrBlackCat]

Jhect, on 14 May 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

How did deviance get all his +votes? Is he using more than 1 account?

I have watched his feedback as I found it fascinating myself. I am still looking for the pattern myself. My only conclusion at this time is that maybe another member appreciates his posting style consistently. Whatever the reasoning behind the score it is completely outside my own at this time. I will resolve this in time.

To test my own thoughts. I reviewed a few other people with substantial feedback. I dumped the material into a spreadsheet and ran various sorts. I have to admit I was able to find a rational pattern to every other data set I used. None compare. The comparisons are limited somewhat by the ceiling of my own objectivity. What does this mean? I am intentionally not looking for a meaning at this time to resist pre-determination. Not trying to prove a theory here. Metaphorically there would seem to be an "AntiBlackCat" or a "Mr.WhiteCat" though.

MrBlackCat

[bullerbullerseven]

Look at me, i've recieved many +votes today. I have been posting stuff that people can only like, not hate. I got 1 downvote today when i said good job to yatta for all the work he has done. Not sure why people downvote me?
I am pretty sure that half of the +votes is from 1 person that felt like he agreed with all my posts. And it seems that i get to like the system more and more.

[Yatta]

Jhect, on 14 May 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

Look at me, i've recieved many +votes today. I have been posting stuff that people can only like, not hate. I got 1 downvote today when i said good job to yatta for all the work he has done. Not sure why people downvote me?
I am pretty sure that half of the +votes is from 1 person that felt like he agreed with all my posts. And it seems that i get to like the system more and more.

Nope, I checked and more than half of your +votes were from multiple people.

[MrBlackCat]

Jhect, on 14 May 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

Look at me, i've recieved many +votes today. I have been posting stuff that people can only like, not hate. I got 1 downvote today when i said good job to yatta for all the work he has done. Not sure why people downvote me?
I am pretty sure that half of the +votes is from 1 person that felt like he agreed with all my posts. And it seems that i get to like the system more and more.

Do you need to be sure why people downvote you?
I find myself trying to resist looking at who posted while reading to reduce my own personal bias, but again, people are going to use the system in very different ways.

What if voter is super elite language expert and only gives votes based on grammar quality in their version of language? And doesn't even care if the post is being non-beneficial to the forum and members?

What if voter hates a particular phrase and that is all he sees in the post?

The point is this... to expect to understand why every point is given is unrealistic. Maybe the reasons you think you understand are not the reasons at all, so when one seems to elude you, it is because the whole reasoning is flawed from the start.

Getting too far into the abstract, but still is relevant I believe.

There are many reasons why you might get positive or negative Jhect.
If you really want to understand the voting, it will require scientific research. Wondering and just asking will not give you he answers I think.

Unless some guidelines are directly stated and required on how to use the system, it will be used in ways neither of us will think of. As of now, there is no written right or wrong way to use it.

Does this help any Jhect?

MrBlackCat