Jump to content

LCOTNW

Members
  • Content count

    1,260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LCOTNW

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 07/28/1976

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Iowa
  1. LCOTNW

    Vote on the Reputation System

    alt = alternate identity (a boarder with two accounts)
  2. LCOTNW

    Vote on the Reputation System

    If it's going to be a popularity contest then we should get rid of it. I don't think you have to throw the baby out with the bath water though. The thing can be rigged so that it is not a popularity contest (not anonymous, and not tied to a boarder's "reputation") without nixing the whole thing.
  3. LCOTNW

    Vote on the Reputation System

    I would be happy with non-anonymous rating, or positive only rating. If a lot of people are really put out by the ratings I would rather see the ratings go than boarders. By the same token, I agree with those who say that the ratings are being taken way too seriously. My take is this: the ability to pos or neg a post adds something valuable to the board by allowing a boarder to lodge agreement or disagreement with a post without having to post what amounts to repetitive statements. This is valuable to me because I frequently come to a discussion/debate and find that another boarder has largely expressed views that I agree with on the matter and if I don't have anything more to add then I don't say anything and move on to read another thread. I think it adds value for semi-lurkers like me to be able to participate in that way without having to post an actual reply saying "I agree with Lany, but I have nothing more to add at this time" which looks lame and is largely why I don't post unless I really feel like I have something different to say. Sometimes a boarder might say something that I strongly disagree with such as "Sarah Palin is awesome!" I would like to be able to disagree with this statement without having to actually post the obvious "You are an idiot if you think that is true." If someone gets a negative mark for stating an opinion I think one can simply conclude that another poster disagrees with you. If I say "Vanilla is the finest of the flavors" you might pos or neg me for quoting BNL, or you might pos me because you like ice cream, or neg me because you simply prefer spumoni. I wouldn't have any way of knowing, but neither would I really care. The problem seems to come when these little agreements or disagreements are accumulated as some kind of personal referendum on the boarder. I don't think the anonymity aspect adds anything valuable and opens the system to abuse (as we have seen). My main complaint about the system is that it is tied to a personal "reputation" which I think is not valuable information and is likely to just make people unhappy. I make my own judgment about another boarder based on what they say, not what their rating is at. I would like to be able to disagree with a person's post through the rating system without having it reflect on them personally, or their overall reputation as a boarder. If the only purpose of the rating system is to rate boarders by reputation as if this were E-bay and we needed to know which boarders are "good" and which ones should be avoided, then I think the reputation system should be scrapped. If, otoh, the system is meant to be more like Facebook where you can register agreement or "like" of a person's post without having to make additional inane comments, then I think there is value to keeping it in some form. Keeping the positive-only rating would be okay, imo, because it would serve the purpose I mainly use it for which is to register agreement with something someone already said. I think there has been expressed the sentiment that if you disagree with a post and you want to express your view, then you should be willing to say "why" you disagree. I think that is a fair point of view, and I think positive-only rating would allow a boarder to register support for someone who has already made the counterargument, but it would also force you to post your disagreement (or hold your peace) if no one has expressed your viewpoint.
×