BattleMaster Community
Community => This Forum => Topic started by: DoctorHarte on March 24, 2011, 10:04:21 AM
-
As you can see, I am mostly disliked here as many of the people here take my words the wrong way. What becomes of negative reputation?
-
Nothing that I know of. It is more an indication then anything.
-
We'll just /troll everything you say now 8)
-
I do tend to bring the worst out of some people ::)
-
u mad, bro?
-
there are no forum mechanics regarding reputation that I'm aware of, so aside from being visible, it does nothing.
-
Then feel free to dispraise me all you want 8) 8) Just makes me look more BA? ??? ::)
YESSSS it's at +4/-20 right now! I screenshot that !@#$!
-
I'm not sure if that's something of which to be proud...
-
It means you are powerful enough to make people unconfortable. And motivate them to click. That's a nice thing, I think.
-
I'm not sure if that's something of which to be proud...
As one BM's great stoner-players I take great pride to have accomplished something to the lengths of "420". Ah the day when I get a character to 420 honor ::) :P
-
It means you are powerful enough to make people unconfortable. And motivate them to click. That's a nice thing, I think.
Or people are just too polite to say something along the lines of "You are an idiot and every post you write makes my neurons scream at the injustice of the world".
Note that the above does not necessarily reflect my opinion.
-
It probably just means that some petty fool clicked it when you disagreed with them, knowing that you can't see who gives you reputation.
-
Just makes me look more BA)
Below average? ;)
-
It probably just means that some petty fool clicked it when you disagreed with them, knowing that you can't see who gives you reputation.
That's probably a good thing too. Though it might be better if karma actions could only be performed once on each member. For example, if I applaud/dispraise member A, then I cannot alter member A's reputation after that. Otherwise, maybe some guy would keep spamming the applaud/dispraise until at least one person here has +a zillion or -a zillion.
-
That's probably a good thing too. Though it might be better if karma actions could only be performed once on each member. For example, if I applaud/dispraise member A, then I cannot alter member A's reputation after that. Otherwise, maybe some guy would keep spamming the applaud/dispraise until at least one person here has +a zillion or -a zillion.
You can only give a player a rep change once every hour. It would require some serious dedication to make a huge difference, but then there is no accounting for how seriously some people take interactions on these boards, nor how much spare time people seem to have to waste.
-
Or people are just too polite to say something along the lines of "You are an idiot and every post you write makes my neurons scream at the injustice of the world".
Note that the above does not necessarily reflect my opinion.
Maybe so, but reputation doesn't do anything to me as a member and I encouraged some to do it. It's all in good fun as I see it, not a serious "You're an idiot" type of dislike.
-
I'm more interested to know how I can give others reputation. Seems I don't meet what ever the requirements are just yet.
-
You don't see the "Applaud" and "Dispraise" options under a user's Reputation? Perhaps you need to be a Freeman or higher rank to do so.
-
could be that, could be I need a certain total time logged in, or perhaps I need to receive a certain amount of good rep before I'm allowed to do it.
-
I'd put my money on posts. I was able to see them far before I had any reputation.
-
Seems that way. I just made Freeman and can now give rep to everybody. NEGATIVE REP FOR ALL
-
Seems that way. I just made Freeman and can now give rep to everybody. NEGATIVE REP FOR ALL
Psh, I should get positive rep for helping out a newcomer ::)
Though I seem to have made some forum-enemies already. They just fail at having fun :P
-
Perhaps being you Forum enemy is fun for them.
-
Perhaps for a few, but one of them thinks I'm a big idiot or something along those lines. They just can't grasp the logic and reasoning I put into my posts. Then again, I am a stoner.
-
The reality of reasoning and logic is that it is subjective. Sometimes no matter how obvious you think your train of thought is, it just doesn't gel with someone else. I would think the bigger issue is that when you have a disagreement with this person, you tend to be mutually antagonistic, rather then just accepting that you have very different opinions.
-
Recognition of differences in opinion does not necessarily lead to cessation of antagonism. That involves compromise, and there are times when recognition indeed necessitates compromise, and other times when such is not required, or not possible.
-
Rubbish. You can have a difference of opinion without antagonism. After all Antagonism is Antagonism is hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness. It is your choice to be hostile in response to a different opinion.
-
And I will have to disagree on that. I'm sure you can find some cleverly constructed arguments bot for and against such a position, courtesy of the many philosophers who passed before us and who are our contemporaries. But, I think that would in fact deviate way too much from this thread, about reputation. This doesn't seem to be a place to discuss past and present arguments about the nature of antagonism and whether it is under conscious control, and so on. It will inevitably lead down a long place into which we (at least I) don't desire to venture too deep.
-
And I will have to disagree on that. I'm sure you can find some cleverly constructed arguments bot for and against such a position, courtesy of the many philosophers who passed before us and who are our contemporaries. But, I think that would in fact deviate way too much from this thread, about reputation. This doesn't seem to be a place to discuss past and present arguments about the nature of antagonism and whether it is under conscious control, and so on. It will inevitably lead down a long place into which we (at least I) don't desire to venture too deep.
As OPer I will give you the go ahead to deviate from this topic and discuss this philosophical point of view. I believe that it's too hard for internet-personalities to truly connect. You only read the text with no emotion, personality, motions, eye contact, tone of voice, etc. As the player who tends to disagree with me and give up trying to explain yourself I would like to see your point of view on this whole matter as I am curious as are others.
-
There seems to be two things asked of me here: The conversation about the nature of perspective/arguments/hostility/opposition, and how it applies to me. To the latter, I will say now that I will almost never reveal my actual viewpoints on any subjects online. Sometimes in person and in private, but otherwise, it should not matter what I really think about any topics. Maybe I'm being serious, maybe not. Maybe it's like some people think that I'm only here for attention. Maybe I'm just here to say whatever comes to mind about any topic on a whim. The fact is that I won't say confirm or deny any interpretation, and I really don't think I'm interesting enough of a member for anyone else to care.
As for the former, if one is really interested, I'm sure there are some members here who have extensive backgrounds in philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. While I could dig up some articles on sites such as Stanford's philosophy encyclopedia, I really don't have the interest in doing so.
And I have a feeling that someone out there might be tempted to call me out on that, saying I can't just make some claim and not support it. To that potential individual who at this moment is only formed in my mind, I say that I don't care. I generally try to remain civil, and at the very least refrain from using any profanities or other vulgar languages or actions on these public forums. Beyond that, I'm not big on arguing things, and I believe I only gave a mild implication of an insult in one instance to one member who was really annoying me (Not only on the forums either). Apart from that, sometimes I don't like it when posts go into meaningless directions, sometimes I like it, sometimes I try to discourage it, sometimes I contribute myself. There is no set algorithm for sorting the human mind, and I certainly won't try.
-
It probably just means that some petty fool clicked it when you disagreed with them, knowing that you can't see who gives you reputation.
QFT.
That's probably a good thing too. Though it might be better if karma actions could only be performed once on each member. For example, if I applaud/dispraise member A, then I cannot alter member A's reputation after that. Otherwise, maybe some guy would keep spamming the applaud/dispraise until at least one person here has +a zillion or -a zillion.
Rather require the person who gives the rep to write a comment. Right now they are thrown around like candy* on halloween, often for no good reason. So justifying the rep would make people consider what it was that irritated them, and require more thought than just a simple click. And allow the person that gets the rep to see for which posts they got the rep. Otherwise the rep is pointless.
As for rep being an indication...I disagree (as per my reasoning in my prior paragraph*).
-
Providing identities of those who provided reputations can lead to two likely outcomes.
One is that reputations would be less used because there is significantly less willingness to act in an uninhibited manner when one's identity can be determined. In this case, the current "anonymity" of giving reputation points means people have nothing preventing them from acting on their whims, grudges, etc. This goes for both + and -, as both would likely be reduced if users can be identified in regards to which reputation points they give to which player.
The second outcome is the development of player conflicts that arise when the dispraise button gets used too much on the wrong user. Some users might be more sensitive than others about reputation, and may seek to get personal with whoever gave them negative reputation.
Both cases are undesirable. While the current system is imperfect, the alternative of revealing identities of those who applaud and dispraise have potentially worse consequences.
-
An idea would be to applaud or dispraise certain posts, a bit like you do on /.
-
Unless someone is willing to right an custom extension for reputation behaviour, I recommend we look at what some of the existing extensions do in this regard.
-
It is interesting to watch certain peoples negative rep increase when ever certain other people log in. Since our forums don't generally have that many people online at anyone time, it is pretty easy to work out which players are being childish with their little feuds.
-
I tend to only rep people if they have negative, offensive posts or they have good ideas and interesting points or facts that they bring to the discussion. But many people's rep are just messed up due to spammed rep.
-
I tend to only rep people if they have negative, offensive posts or they have good ideas and interesting points or facts that they bring to the discussion. But many people's rep are just messed up due to spammed rep.
Exactly, you use rep for the purpose it was designed for. Others seem to just hit neg rep every hour cause somebody dared to disagree with them or said something mildly offensive at one time. Gloria's idea to restrict rep to post would fix this. That way at least you would have to go to the effort of finding new posts by the player if you wanted to continue your feud.
-
Providing identities of those who provided reputations can lead to two likely outcomes.
One is that reputations would be less used because there is significantly less willingness to act in an uninhibited manner when one's identity can be determined. In this case, the current "anonymity" of giving reputation points means people have nothing preventing them from acting on their whims, grudges, etc. This goes for both + and -, as both would likely be reduced if users can be identified in regards to which reputation points they give to which player.
The second outcome is the development of player conflicts that arise when the dispraise button gets used too much on the wrong user. Some users might be more sensitive than others about reputation, and may seek to get personal with whoever gave them negative reputation.
Both cases are undesirable. While the current system is imperfect, the alternative of revealing identities of those who applaud and dispraise have potentially worse consequences.
Ok sure, but so far the above has not been suggested, and I don't think it will be.
I tend to only rep people if they have negative, offensive posts or they have good ideas and interesting points or facts that they bring to the discussion. But many people's rep are just messed up due to spammed rep.
QFT
An idea would be to applaud or dispraise certain posts, a bit like you do on /.
Somewhat what I was suggesting. It's rather amusing, but due to the fact that another forum which I used to frequent always had rep per post, I assumed it was the same on this side (thinking that when you clicked their name next to the post, it was from that post). But I guess not.
So use your idea and mine together - have it per post, but let the people who get the rep see which posts they got the rep for. This way, if they cared about rep at all they could use the posts as general indicators (the comments would also help here). Of course if the people who are giving rep are being retarded...well something could be figured out regarding that also I'm sure.
Unfortunately it might get a bit more complicated with this system, unlike the current no-strings-attached simple (abusable) system.
-
I thought reputation had no real effect on anything whatsoever... ie. no consequences for negative rep and no benefits for positive rep.
So... why the heck does it matter, yall?
-
Because some people may not know that and may get confuzzled about it ::)
Dunno, something to talk about it, I guess? Who cares..
-
While Reputation has no programmed effect in the forums, it does have an effect. Just like some people worry about their reputations in RL, there are going to be those people that worry about their reputation on the forum. Those little numbers should be away to gauge how your posting and behavior is received on this board, and allow people to self moderate if they believe it indicates that they are behaving in a way the rest of the forum deems unacceptable. At the moment all it seems to indicate is that you annoyed someone that is persistent.
-
Personally, I would rather see the system used in the astroempires forums. Yes, I know, that other game. Hear me out though. By taking out the dispraise option and keeping track of which posts got repped, along with who repped them, you get rid of the problems of rep antagonism. You would also reduce the number of spam reps and make people think more about repping a post.
-
Personally, I would rather see the system used in the astroempires forums. Yes, I know, that other game. Hear me out though. By taking out the dispraise option and keeping track of which posts got repped, along with who repped them, you get rid of the problems of rep antagonism. You would also reduce the number of spam reps and make people think more about repping a post.
I would like a system where individual postings can be praised, it would do a number of good things. Find me an SMF mod that does this and I'll probably install it.
-
I would like a system where individual postings can be praised, it would do a number of good things. Find me an SMF mod that does this and I'll probably install it.
I suspect most people would prefer this system. Definitely a good thing.
-
This mod perhaps fits the bill? This will allow posts to be rated, and the rating for each post is displayed
http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1890
A different option is this one, which limits how many times you can apply karma to a use from a individual post
http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1308
A different option would be this final mod, which replaces the current Karma system entirely, Seems to have a lot of features, including the ability to add comments to a Karma action, the change in you Karma is determined by the Karma of the giver, and some Mod tools to see who is giving out Karma and delete entries.
http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1129
-
The reputation system bothers me.
It's not because of how negative my rep is. It's because my rep has become more negative as I post less. To clarify, during the big Advanced Mentoring argument, my negative rep was about -30 to -50.
Now it is -80, even as I have been posting way less, and certainly less controversially.
I'm getting about -2 or -3 a day, even on days that I don't post. Apparently someone or some people are just finding my posts and giving me negative rep on them. This is petty and frustrating.
Is there nothing that can be done about it? Maybe limit the amount of bad rep that can be given to the amount of good rep given?
The third mod De-Legro listed also seems like it would help.
Basically, I don't mind if people dislike me because of my opinions or how I state them. Fine. It does annoy me, though, when I continue to get negative rep despite having done nothing to merit it. I at least want a good reason for my negative rep.
-
I've noticed that many of the frequent posters have secured themselves a bad reputation troll. I don't know if it is gratifying to know that someone dislikes you or something you said enough to constantly give you bad rep, but yeah I'm seeing this quite a bit and think we need to do something about how bad rep is handled.
-
I've noticed that many of the frequent posters have secured themselves a bad reputation troll. I don't know if it is gratifying to know that someone dislikes you or something you said enough to constantly give you bad rep, but yeah I'm seeing this quite a bit and think we need to do something about how bad rep is handled.
Impressive how you get a positive reputation, despite your high post count :)
-
Yeah, I think the rep system as implemented is pretty lame. The ability to continually add rep points to someone is not well thought-out.
-
BTW: Nice negative rep, Vellos. I hadn't noticed that someone was pounding you like that.
Also, FWIW: I don't think that the current system provides any way for *anyone* to see who is giving rep to anyone. Not even the forum mods or admins.
-
Yeah, it appears the system is being abused. I'll disable it and if someone knows of a better implementation, post the required extension to the extensions thread.
-
Well, as I stated earlier, a system which only has positive reps and shows who gave you a rep and on which post.
-
Actually, an "only positive" system would be good. Especially if it was something like medals, where, the more you have, the more (frequently) you can give.
-
I don't know if there is an "only positive" system out there. But there are a couple that restrict how many times you can rep someone from a single post, and that will show you who repped which post, and allow the leaving of a comment with the rep.
-
http://forum.astroempires.com/ucp.php?mode=login&sid=8bc6d58a63cd99a500df267dc8d72986 (http://forum.astroempires.com/ucp.php?mode=login&sid=8bc6d58a63cd99a500df267dc8d72986)
Example of a positive only system right there.
-
I'd be happy to look at writing an extension that specifically meets the need of the forum if we can't find anything suitable.
-
Example of a positive only system right there.
I don't believe that's an SMF forum is it? If not, then the extensions they have cannot be used with out forum, so are not applicable.
We need something that is specifically written for the SMF forum system. And it needs to be easily installable, without much difficulty. If it takes coding time and effort from Tom, then it's really not worth it for a fluff thing like a rep system.
-
I don't really like the idea of seeing who negative repped a post. Like, I'm a pretty sensitive guy, and it be would kind of deconstructive to have "PERSON A, PERSON B AND PERSON C ALL HATE YOUR POST."
What if nobody wants to make themselves look like an ass and negative rep people? Then there would no purpose of negative rep. Actually a negative rep war could spark e.g. One guy likes to negative rep people so everyone feels they need to negative rep him.
I'm in favour of the positive only system.
-
Well, as I stated earlier, a system which only has positive reps and shows who gave you a rep and on which post.
Where in this did I ever say anything about negative reps?
-
Where in this did I ever say anything about negative reps?
I was not necessarily talking to you. :-\
-
I was no necessarily talking to you. :-\
Already being sensitive, Shane? :) Don't worry, we love you 8)
-
Already being sensitive, Shane? :) Don't worry, we love you 8)
::)
-
I'm not trolling. I just got curious about the rep system so went reading. Anywho, I know another game whose forums have a system where you can only rep/derep a member once, then you are not allowed rep/derep that member until you've done so to a number of other members. I wasn't ever bothered enough to find the "right" amount of people before you could rep/derep someone else, but it seemed a good system for keeping the kind of problems mentioned in the last posts from happening. Could still happen, but screwing with one person's rep is one thing, screwing with half the forum's rep to screw with one person's rep usually seems going slightly too far.
If its still an issue, I can have a gander around and ask one of the forum mods I know over there. Otherwise, I deeply regret reviving what should be a properly dead topic.
Finton.
-
I'm not trolling. I just got curious about the rep system so went reading. Anywho, I know another game whose forums have a system where you can only rep/derep a member once, then you are not allowed rep/derep that member until you've done so to a number of other members. I wasn't ever bothered enough to find the "right" amount of people before you could rep/derep someone else, but it seemed a good system for keeping the kind of problems mentioned in the last posts from happening. Could still happen, but screwing with one person's rep is one thing, screwing with half the forum's rep to screw with one person's rep usually seems going slightly too far.
If its still an issue, I can have a gander around and ask one of the forum mods I know over there. Otherwise, I deeply regret reviving what should be a properly dead topic.
Finton.
I would prefer to see it be once per person, period.
-
The negative rep is supposed to make things easier to read, I'm thinking about the /. karma system here.
But we already have a "report to moderator" link, so I think that's really all we need. I think we'll be fine without a reputation system. Unless someone can name an actual purpose of having one, I think we're fine.
-
Unless someone can name an actual purpose of having one, I think we're fine.
A playground for the pettier and more vindictive side of my nature?
Oh... err... I guess that's a not a pro...