Posted February 25, 2017
flubbucket
"Intoning"
Registered: Dec 2012
From Micronesia
tiny E
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted February 25, 2017
low rated
Looks like that derep script is back.
That didn't take Wakkalo and Alaric long. :P
That didn't take Wakkalo and Alaric long. :P
Breja
You're in my spot
Registered: Apr 2012
From Poland
Posted February 25, 2017
low rated
And now apparently the trolls are impotently striking back by downvoting people who support the moderation. Is any more proof of the rep system being beyond meaningless required? It is entirely beyond me how or why anyone would give a crap about that number now.
Post edited February 25, 2017 by Breja
tiny E
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted February 25, 2017
low rated
At least you and I can claim to being obnoxious in here, he doesn't do anything to anyone.
Telika
Registered: Apr 2012
From Switzerland
Posted February 25, 2017
low rated
But that's mostly cute. Just like the death threats (full disclosure : i feel a bit sad to not have ever received any of these), it works as some sort of validation. It defines what Fables called "the other camp", and its nature. And confirms the role it's been having in these forums.
I see it as a last squeek. Which is nice.
I see it as a last squeek. Which is nice.
thomq
New User
Registered: Jan 2014
From United States
Posted February 26, 2017
As for the "downvoting", I don't see anything in the forums for doing that, if I'm correct in understanding you're saying downvoting is directly related to reputation. Forum reputation seems rather…um…otherworldly and indiscernible. I mean, I don't see any connection with what people are posting and their reputations. It seems like reputation likely has more to do with their game-playing abilities, as this is a forum about games and gaming. Or maybe correct/helpful answers to questions?
Hmm, this is seeming off-topic for this thread about moderation…
Breja
You're in my spot
Registered: Apr 2012
From Poland
Posted February 26, 2017
low rated
"Reputation" as in the silly number below you avatar. Not anyone's actual reputation among other users.
thomq
New User
Registered: Jan 2014
From United States
Posted February 26, 2017
Yes, that number. I don't get its connection with downvoting, possibly because I don't know how that's done. And I've yet to make a connection between that number and someone's behavior or mood, such as expressed in forum posts. People are different from moment to moment. So, seems like it must be for something else?
Breja
You're in my spot
Registered: Apr 2012
From Poland
Posted February 26, 2017
low rated
richlind33
bong hits for beelzebub
Registered: Jan 2016
From United States
Vainamoinen
🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦
Registered: May 2010
From Germany
thomq
New User
Registered: Jan 2014
From United States
fables22
Bacon of light
GOG.com Team
Registered: Oct 2016
From Poland
Posted February 26, 2017
(No offense, fables; that's definitely more unfamiliarity than distrust.)
thomq
New User
Registered: Jan 2014
From United States
Posted February 26, 2017
The whole idea of the minus/plus buttons as rate-a-post being a "moderation-by-community feature" has got me thinking.
What would really help me decide whether someone is trustworthy (reputable, right?) is being able to read what someone posts. And frankly, for me that is what does someone in: what they have done. So the reputation number might be longterm, but if the post that I am reading doesn't support the reputation number then I'm going to feel less like trusting the moderation-by-community.
I'm thinking the avatar menu could use a couple more links for that user: most recent posts, and high-rated posts. Links to those two search results would give me information that I could use to decide about them, fi for whatever reason I need to decide to about them.
I figure it this way. With the listing of a member's high-rated posts I can review what the community liked. In general, that tells me more about the community than it does about the member, and I think that's what the reputation number says, too. However, since reputation can be abused by either artificially boosting it or degrading it, the list of high-rated posts could reveal such boosting or degradation more easily because those posts (or at least the most recent) would be easily reviewable. Of course, this opens up the possibility that a member might get boosted for the purpose of defaming the reputation, for example by having people who don't like that person highly-rate their low quality posts. Their reputation goes up instead of down, but the link to easily view their high-rate posts reveals low quality and thereby defames them as having "friends" trying to boost their reputation.
As such, I myself could decide whether I agree with those posts getting a high rating. I don't mean so I can vote for/against them myself, but simply to read and decide whether I agree with the "community" (who might simply be a few friends, unbeknownst by the larger community). More importantly, I can get a sense about how the community gets along with that member, if I were to assume their high-rated posts are truly appreciated.
On the other hand even if those high-rated post do look suspicious (or reveal a different taste from the community than my own), there would be the "most recent posts" link that would reveal what the member has posted most recently. In essence, that list of most recent posts (not necessarily rated) is the member speaking for itself, and so it's the member that does in itself by speaking for itself, by representing itself.
In other words, regardless of anonymity there is an easily reviewable record. Nobody need be called-out anymore, no name-calling necessary. Just tell new members to "check the most recent posts of so-and-so and decide for yourself".
Maybe there is already a way to get those two lists for any member? Right now I don't see that as possible in the forum. I've tried using the search to find member's posts, but it only returns posts that mention a member by name (and only if they haven't changed their name).
What those two lists would do is provide each individual the means to decide, the information that is relevant, rather than rely upon the ambiguous and mysterious reputation-by-sometimes-voting-on-posts. Preferably, those two links in each member's avatar menu: "most recent posts", "high-rated posts".
With that said, would there even need to be a number for reputation anymore? The reputation is easily discernible by being able to get a listing of any members postings and simply reading those most recent posts. Though, it seems like the avatar menu for a member is only available on a post that member makes, that's okay because frankly that's the only time it's important or worthwhile to check what someone has been posting.
Just some thoughts about the so-called moderation-by-community feature represented by minus/plus rating buttons, and I guess how the "community" rating the posts isn't always the community. And how two links to search results listings ("most recent posts", "high-rated posts") about each member might help balance out decision making for individuals reading the forum. And perhaps encourage self-discipline of members rather than community-witchhunt-popularity-disciplining. I mean, off the top my head these are my thoughts at the moment... particularly that I'd rather decide for myself than trust a bunch of strangers that seem to fume at and disagree with each other so much.
What would really help me decide whether someone is trustworthy (reputable, right?) is being able to read what someone posts. And frankly, for me that is what does someone in: what they have done. So the reputation number might be longterm, but if the post that I am reading doesn't support the reputation number then I'm going to feel less like trusting the moderation-by-community.
I'm thinking the avatar menu could use a couple more links for that user: most recent posts, and high-rated posts. Links to those two search results would give me information that I could use to decide about them, fi for whatever reason I need to decide to about them.
I figure it this way. With the listing of a member's high-rated posts I can review what the community liked. In general, that tells me more about the community than it does about the member, and I think that's what the reputation number says, too. However, since reputation can be abused by either artificially boosting it or degrading it, the list of high-rated posts could reveal such boosting or degradation more easily because those posts (or at least the most recent) would be easily reviewable. Of course, this opens up the possibility that a member might get boosted for the purpose of defaming the reputation, for example by having people who don't like that person highly-rate their low quality posts. Their reputation goes up instead of down, but the link to easily view their high-rate posts reveals low quality and thereby defames them as having "friends" trying to boost their reputation.
As such, I myself could decide whether I agree with those posts getting a high rating. I don't mean so I can vote for/against them myself, but simply to read and decide whether I agree with the "community" (who might simply be a few friends, unbeknownst by the larger community). More importantly, I can get a sense about how the community gets along with that member, if I were to assume their high-rated posts are truly appreciated.
On the other hand even if those high-rated post do look suspicious (or reveal a different taste from the community than my own), there would be the "most recent posts" link that would reveal what the member has posted most recently. In essence, that list of most recent posts (not necessarily rated) is the member speaking for itself, and so it's the member that does in itself by speaking for itself, by representing itself.
In other words, regardless of anonymity there is an easily reviewable record. Nobody need be called-out anymore, no name-calling necessary. Just tell new members to "check the most recent posts of so-and-so and decide for yourself".
Maybe there is already a way to get those two lists for any member? Right now I don't see that as possible in the forum. I've tried using the search to find member's posts, but it only returns posts that mention a member by name (and only if they haven't changed their name).
What those two lists would do is provide each individual the means to decide, the information that is relevant, rather than rely upon the ambiguous and mysterious reputation-by-sometimes-voting-on-posts. Preferably, those two links in each member's avatar menu: "most recent posts", "high-rated posts".
With that said, would there even need to be a number for reputation anymore? The reputation is easily discernible by being able to get a listing of any members postings and simply reading those most recent posts. Though, it seems like the avatar menu for a member is only available on a post that member makes, that's okay because frankly that's the only time it's important or worthwhile to check what someone has been posting.
Just some thoughts about the so-called moderation-by-community feature represented by minus/plus rating buttons, and I guess how the "community" rating the posts isn't always the community. And how two links to search results listings ("most recent posts", "high-rated posts") about each member might help balance out decision making for individuals reading the forum. And perhaps encourage self-discipline of members rather than community-witchhunt-popularity-disciplining. I mean, off the top my head these are my thoughts at the moment... particularly that I'd rather decide for myself than trust a bunch of strangers that seem to fume at and disagree with each other so much.
Post edited February 26, 2017 by thomq
Vainamoinen
🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦
Registered: May 2010
From Germany
Posted February 26, 2017
low rated
A "most recent posts" feature would unfortunately massively facilitate ritual downvoting. Thankfully, this forum will not receive a design upgrade in the years to come.
The removal of the present reputation system is the only likely way out of the present heap of shit.
The removal of the present reputation system is the only likely way out of the present heap of shit.
Post edited February 26, 2017 by Vainamoinen