get rid of the post rating feature.

[Lord Mord]

Dear God.

I don't think it's a fantastic idea, I guess, but I really think that most of the descriptions of how "OMG-horrible-awful-OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG-I'm-going-to-tear-my-hair-out-and-set-myself-on-fire-shit-piss-cocksucker-fuck-fuck-fuck-aughfuahooraghblawabbleahwhwahawwaahahooahhhhhhhhh!" the system is are ... well, frankly, just a tad bit over the top. As in ridiculous-making.

[Bellis]

Meh. I suspect that after a few more days of novelty use, the post rating feature won't really get that much use. Every once in a while, some n00b will come in and try to use it and wonder why none of the ratings seem to correspond to the way the regulars are treating the posts. Eventually, the mods will notice it's not really adding anything and Ran will get rid of it.

It's sort of like that Forman-style grill you got for Christmas last year. You found some new recipes and were all excited to try it out, but by June you were back to your old cooking habits again. We are creatures of habit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The only section of the board I've gotten positive or negative votes has been in GC. Are people using it in other sections of the board? I would think it's utility would be more obvious in a thread about book or movie reviews than here.

An inquireing mind wants to know.

[Horza]

The only section of the board I've gotten positive or negative votes has been in GC. Are people using it in other sections of the board? I would think it's utility would be more obvious in a thread about book or movie reviews than here.

An inquireing mind wants to know.

I think I've got 90% of the neg rep so far and it's all been in this thread so, make of that what you will

oh and Joss Whedon sucks.

[kungtotte]

I've given a handful of upvotes in other forums (Game of Thrones TV-series and Entertainment, specifically), though I haven't been using the feature extensively yet.

[Sophelia]

Dear God.

I don't think it's a fantastic idea, I guess, but I really think that most of the descriptions of how "OMG-horrible-awful-OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG-I'm-going-to-tear-my-hair-out-and-set-myself-on-fire-shit-piss-cocksucker-fuck-fuck-fuck-aughfuahooraghblawabbleahwhwahawwaahahooahhhhhhhhh!" the system is are ... well, frankly, just a tad bit over the top. As in ridiculous-making.

I disagree. The potential for hurt feelings and a hostile, competitive atmosphere on the board is there just as much as any more benevolent outcome.

For many people this is the place they come to relax and chat with friends. If the system made it less likely they would be subject to abusive posts, and more likely they were treated respectfully, if would be worth it. However if it puts people off posting, or makes people feel uneasy, anxious or paranoid, bringing the element of assessment into every post, whether a highly personal thread, a political thread, or a frivolous thread, then that would seem to be a shame, and it might mean this board was less of a home and more like a workplace/educational environment. But it's Ran's board, for him to monitor and decide.

I thought I didn't mind the points system. but then I got docked a point, so now I hate it, and suspect I know who docked me a point, and now I hate them too. This has already gotten ugly.

:(

See, this to me is my most serious concern, and if this is the outcome, I do not want to see the system continued.

This consolidates my fear about the impact of negative votes. See, we now have a system where there are no strict guidelines about when to use negative votes, and unlike moderators, ordinary board members are not giving votes as part of a 'job' and cannot even try to be impartial, since they only have limited votes. In addition the votes come with no accountability, no explanatory comment, and aren't accompanied with prior warnings, requests to edit, expiry dates, or tactful explanation of why they have been so treated.

I haven't looked to see what you said which might have attracted negative attention, Stranger, but in my mental reputation system I rate your contributions very highly. I would hate you to feel picked on and unwelcome on the board. That goes for most people. There are a small number of people whose presence on the board has made me feel uncomfortable, but they are the kind I would prefer to be banned, than just to have their posts disapproved of.

[Sophelia]

I think I've got 90% of the neg rep so far and it's all been in this thread so, make of that what you will

Goodness me! Are you going for some kind of record??

Looks like it's mainly off the second post in this thread. I am guessing people were just testing the system on you ;)

What do you feel about it?

I'm in kind of the opposite situation, having got a fair amount of positive rep from this thread (I have had 3 negatives that I noticed, but they got cancelled out). I am treating this as a testing phase and not taking anything too seriously. At least, that was the plan. I did notice yesterday that I was getting a warm feeling from the positive votes, despite my best intentions (this has given me more confidence to post, although every time I post I still think: am I being a nuisance spamming the thread). The negative votes didn't bother me, but then they weren't attached to posts where I said anything I would have felt personally attacked for. If I'd got negs instead of pluses for the posts I was trying hard to be reasonable, then I might have felt differently. Probably would have made me feel very defensive. I can see that if neg votes were pernicious it could wear down someone's self-confidence and esteem just like subtle bullying does. It's hard to imagine it being an emotion-free conditioning mechanism for modifying the tone people adopt in posts.

[Horza]

Goodness me! Are you going for some kind of record??

Looks like it's mainly off the second post in this thread. I am guessing people were just testing the system on you ;)

What do you feel about it?

Hollow. Then... strangely aroused... :ph34r:

Honestly though, I think getting worked up about it one way or the other isn't really warranted.

I'm not in favour of the scheme because I don't think the board really needs it:

1) there isnt' really the volume of posts that you need some kind of quality post highlighter 2) the board is a lot more social and community-oriented and this could serve as a source of discord, specifically the neg-rep function. We'll see.

Oh and I did a little dance for joy when Dollhouse was cancelled.

[kungtotte]

I disagree.  The potential for hurt feelings and a hostile, competitive atmosphere on the board is there just as much as any more benevolent outcome.

The potential for failure is there, sure, as is the potential for greatness. Which way it turns out is entirely up to us boarders, and there's no reason to condemn the system as a failure (or laud it as a success) without giving it a real chance to prove itself and more importantly seeing how we use the tools that have been given to us. 

If the system made it less likely they would be subject to abusive posts, and more likely they were treated respectfully, if would be worth it.  However if it puts people off posting, or makes people feel uneasy, anxious or paranoid, bringing the element of assessment into every post, whether a highly personal thread, a political thread, or a frivolous thread, then that would seem to be a shame, and it might mean this board was less of a home and more like a workplace/educational environment.

There's lots of "if"s in that paragraph :) The crux of it is that it all comes down to how people choose to use their votes. I think we as a community are much more resilient to vote-abuse than other communities are, because we are fairly close-knit and we already have a tradition of allowing controversial opinions room to breathe.

Again, speculating doesn't give us anything. We should stick to the principle of only downvoting posts that are really disruptive, upvoting informative and quality posts and over time I am confident that it will work out. Or it might not work out, in which case Ran has already said that the reputation module will be removed.

Not to fret, cap'n, everything's shiny.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sophelia,

Please allow me to illustrate why I'm not fond of this new feature:

I think this is a temporary setback. I believe marriage for homosexuals will be generally accepted in most of the country within the next twenty years.

I received a negative vote for this post. Now there are three reasons I could have received that vote. Somone misinterpreted it so think I'm glad NY did this, that they dislike the opinion I'm offering, or that they're being snarky.

I have no idea which one is valid. None make much sense.

[Sophelia]

Sophelia,

Please allow me to illustrate why I'm not fond of this new feature:

I received a negative vote for this post. Now there are three reasons I could have received that vote. Somone misinterpreted it so think I'm glad NY did this, that they dislike the opinion I'm offering, or that they're being snarky.

I have no idea which on is valid. None make much sense.

Yeah, I have been really baffled by why things get negative votes too.

Another reason might be that they disagree, maybe think you are being overoptimistic?:unsure:

[kungtotte]

I received a negative vote for this post. Now there are three reasons I could have received that vote. Somone misinterpreted it so think I'm glad NY did this, that they dislike the opinion I'm offering, or that they're being snarky.

I have no idea which on is valid. None make much sense.

I'm going with option number two, they dislike/disagree with what you are saying. People shouldn't vote with this reasoning of course, but some people will end up doing it anyway. The rest of us who want the system to work out can counter these frivolous downvotes with our upvotes, and I was on my way over to that particular post to rectify it but it turns out someone else beat me to it (leaving it at 0).

Don't let downvotes get to you. Sometimes people can't deal with controversial opinions. Sometimes people vote as a form of disagreement not based on post quality. Sometimes people vote just out of spite. It's not fun when it happens to you, but what are you gonna do? v0v

ETA

I just noticed that the post I replied to had been downvoted too, so I fixed that.

Please people, don't use downvotes as a form of disagreement. You're breaking the system.

[Datepalm]

Please people, don't use downvotes as a form of disagreement. You're breaking the system.

But the system is just sitting there, actively inviting people to break it. We could write up a massive complex FAQ explaining what constitutes a post deserving of negativity, but some people are always not going to follow it, and some are just not going to use it, nevermind that its not possible to be completely objective about it out anyway. So we have a system that is going to get abused...and even if it dosen't still dosen't do anything, unless we all use the filter, which i'm not going to, ever, except measure people on mysterious and ill defined criteria and make the place just that bit less comfortable for everyone and more opaque to newcomers.

[Horza]

Yeah, the value of the upvote/downvote is it highlights good posts - but that's not all that pressing a need in a board with a lot of regulars who are all well known to each other. The downside is it can become a source of tension and majoritarian sentiment and I think that could have more negative repercussions on a board like this than on, say, a large geeky tech discussion site...

[kungtotte]

Why would the reputation system be any different than any other feature on the board, or even the free-form text we can all write in our posts?

I could spend all my time on the forum simply replying to posts with a post consisting solely of "I disagree" and it would be functionally equivalent to making a frivolous downvote. Yet do we see many posts like that on the forum? No, most people take the time to write an actual reply, detailing why and how they disagree.

It's too bad that none of you can see the benefits behind a system that allows us to mark really informative replies, and to bury really disruptive posts, but rather focus entirely on the potential for abuse. The system doesn't encourage things in either direction, it's not easier to abuse it than it is to use it correctly, and the guiding principle doesn't really require a massive FAQ. It can even be summed up in a single sentence, and here it is: Do not use votes as "I Agree"/"I Disagree" buttons.

Right now I'm starting to believe that those of you who are dead set against it just don't want it to work out, for whatever reason, and you're not really considering the system with any sort of intellectual honesty. So, I will take my leave of the debate. If there's one thing that my years on the Internet have taught me, it is to never argue with people who are firmly convinced of the correctness of their opinions.

[Dothwacky]

I would give you some controversial plus rep kungtotte but I reached my quota :rofl:

[williamjm]

I could spend all my time on the forum simply replying to posts with a post consisting solely of "I disagree" and it would be functionally equivalent to making a frivolous downvote. Yet do we see many posts like that on the forum? No, most people take the time to write an actual reply, detailing why and how they disagree.

Presumably you haven't seen many posts like that, because as long as I can remember one-line "I agree" or "I disagree" posts have always been banned in the board rules.

[Horza]

  Why would the reputation system be any different than any other feature on the board, or even the free-form text we can all write in our posts?

I could spend all my time on the forum simply replying to posts with a post consisting solely of "I disagree" and it would be functionally equivalent to making a frivolous downvote. Yet do we see many posts like that on the forum? No, most people take the time to write an actual reply, detailing why and how they disagree.

It's too bad that none of you can see the benefits behind a system that allows us to mark really informative replies, and to bury really disruptive posts, but rather focus entirely on the potential for abuse. The system doesn't encourage things in either direction, it's not easier to abuse it than it is to use it correctly, and the guiding principle doesn't really require a massive FAQ. It can even be summed up in a single sentence, and here it is: Do not use votes as "I Agree"/"I Disagree" buttons.

Right now I'm starting to believe that those of you who are dead set against it just don't want it to work out, for whatever reason, and you're not really considering the system with any sort of intellectual honesty. So, I will take my leave of the debate. If there's one thing that my years on the Internet have taught me, it is to never argue with people who are firmly convinced of the correctness of their opinions.

I think you're overreacting.

How is it different from posting 'I disagree'? Well these minuses accumulate and form a little badge under your profile saying 'Reputation: Bad'. Someone's bad because people disagree with things they've said now? The other issue is that this now affords people the opportunity to say 'I disagree' without having to write a reply - they in effect can censure anonymously without any recourse to discussion.

You're missing Datepalm's point here - the system is neutral, people aren't, and just as people can write hasty replies and unthoughtout dittos, this now affords them the ability to do that anonymously. The neutrality of the system puts no breaks on such use, and enforces no norms, hence no incentive to use it in a constructive manner. This isn't to say it can't be used constructively but on the whole I can't see the pressing need to highlight good posts and bury bad ones given our relatively low traffic and smallish base of regulars.

As well, I think you should reconsider that last paragraph.

[Datepalm]

I could spend all my time on the forum simply replying to posts with a post consisting solely of "I disagree" and it would be functionally equivalent to making a frivolous downvote. Yet do we see many posts like that on the forum? No, most people take the time to write an actual reply, detailing why and how they disagree.

It's too bad that none of you can see the benefits behind a system that allows us to mark really informative replies, and to bury really disruptive posts,

I'm not sure if theres any point responding, if you've really taken your leave - which I respect a lot, btw - but anyway:

Just as theres no purpose to posts that say nothing but "I dis/agree", theres no point to the rating either. Thats all they are, and if you were to see a post followed by a half dozen posts going "I agree" you would not feel anything has been added to the debate at all. In terms of winnowing things out - again, that only works if people use the other part of the system and actually filter things, otherwise you're still seeing the offensive posts anyway.

Secondly, "don't use it as agree/disagree" is not at all simple. What, just purely offensive things? we honestly don't have that much of those - contentious ideas come up plenty, and then a bunch of people will engage the debate with varying levels of politeness and figure it out one way or another. Thats how debating works!

I would hate to be at the bottom of a pile up, trying to defend my unpopular opinion, and having a bunch of negative little anonymous unexplained votes (that would also go on my 'permenant record' - which we could say dosen't matter - but then why do we have it?) thrown at me as well. Then you could say thats not for that kind of situation - but people will use it that way, since we don't have floods of posts that are merely contentless filth.

[Xray the Enforcer]

But the system is just sitting there, actively inviting people to break it. We could write up a massive complex FAQ explaining what constitutes a post deserving of negativity, but some people are always not going to follow it, and some are just not going to use it, nevermind that its not possible to be completely objective about it out anyway. So we have a system that is going to get abused...and even if it dosen't still dosen't do anything, unless we all use the filter, which i'm not going to, ever, except measure people on mysterious and ill defined criteria and make the place just that bit less comfortable for everyone and more opaque to newcomers.

Indeed. Further, the system will not help with moderation -- if a post is delete- or edit-worthy, then merely downrating it does not actually address the problem of it being offensive, it just sweeps it under the rug. Worse, instead of reporting the offensive post, I fear people will just give it a negative rating, which now breaks the reporting system as well. And if people downrate something because they disagree with it, well, they've just abused the reputation system. Instead of one somewhat-functional system, we will have two broken ones.

Personally, I am not overly concerned with people's feelings getting hurt for being down-rated, but I do sympathize, and I do think that such a system will contribute to more bad feelings on the board. I am concerned that concrete visual reputation/post-rating systems encourage cliquishness and assholery. Basically, a board-wide popularity contest where the majority opinion is enforced in a very explicit way, and dissenting opinion is clearly marked as "unclean," rather than being one opinion in a plurality of opinions. I'm simply uninterested in a discussion board where there's no actual discussion. If you want to live in an echo-chamber, get a fucking LiveJournal. That's where I go when I want people to lie to me about how awesome I am. I'm also concerned (nay, convinced) that it is going to make my job as a moderator much harder and much more unpleasant. Instead of spotting problems myself or having them reported to me, I'll have to spend the majority of my time wading through down-rated posts looking for the truly offensive ones. Slogging through shit is not my idea of a good time, no matter what Yagathai might otherwise claim (all evidence has been destroyed, so it NEVER happened, understood?).

ETA: Damn, Horza and Datepalm both made my point for me, especially about the visual re-enforcement of pariah status. I could have had a breakfast beer and saved myself the trouble! :lol: