Reputation?

[kimo55]

Re: Reputation?

I refuse to anwer that on the grounds it may incriminate me... as a thread derailer. Not that it's not too late already.

[mel]

Re: Reputation?

So how can I opt out? What do I do?

Currently we cannot do anything unless admin activates the option. Doesn't sound very hard to do on his end. The user manual for this option applies to this version of vBulletin (3.0.9). I think once that happens, all we have to do is go to our User CP and click in the appropriate option.

The key here is to provide users with the option to opt out. It is like getting junk mail that you don't want. Reputable firms will allow you to opt out of their junk mail list. We should have the same option to opt out of the reputation system.

I don't like the idea of annonimous comments to my posts. If someone has something to say... do it on the boards for all to see.

I hear you on this one. If I had the power, I would have turned this reputation system off a long time ago. I just noticed the vote count against the system edged up another point.

And yes, I agree with you that if people have something negative to say against me, do it in the message area. Before the reputation system was widely used, I was more active in some of the hot button topics here. My posts were not at the time given red marks. The people who were against my viewpoint simply stated their own, which of course I shot back in the forum. I never used the reputation system then, and hardly ever use it now.

[mel]

Re: Reputation?

I keep hearing this word "accountability" tossed about, but really, what do you mean by it? If I give Mel some negative feedback and my name is attached to it, in what way will I be held accountable for this opinion? Will Mel tell everyone else that Scrivener gave him an unjust red square? Will everyone else gang up on me and repay the injustice with red squares of their own? Will I eventually be asked to leave for merely expressing my disapproval?

All of the scenarios you outlined above seem to be possible if the reputation system had a user name tied to it. Currently it is not and upon further investigation into this problem, it seems that the software does not allow this option, which is indeed sad.

So by default the supporters of the reputation system and abusers of the red squares have won simply on the fact that admin will not at this time so far, bend to the will of 57% of the users who want to see the reputation system abolished.

So the only way a user like me who has strong but usually opposite political opinions from the majority of people here to at least maintain the green squares I now have is to not post on any of the highly charged political topics with my differing opinion. I have to play it safe and keep out of the political fire, at least over here at HawaiiThreads as long as the reputation system is in effect.

Look, I don't sign my positive or negative feedback because I want to avoid exactly what Cezanne is suggesting -- something that I suspect is already going on. When we sign our positive feedback, people often seem to feel led to return in kind, and that's bogus. If we approve of a post, we should indicate so, and when we disapprove, we should also indicate so. If we want to sign our feedback, I guess that's fine, but if we don't, that should be fine, too.

And that is where you and I differ on this. We should know who our accusers (or fans) are in relation to the reputation system established here by software default. As a person with a minority viewpoint I will always suspect that a group or even one person on this board is using the red squares against me whenever I post something that they don't like. But I don't know for sure because the sysem is flawed to the fact that we don't know who our accusers are. No accountability to the user who is subjected to the red square.

When people disapprove of the opinions I express, I don't really care (and neither should you, Mel).

This is very easy for anyone who is "pillar of the community" with 1,000+ reputation points to say. It is easy for the persons with a reputation at the very top to maintain and easily absorb a red square or two without tumbling into the next lower category.

Of course your writing talent here is most eloquent so that greatly helps your reputation scores as people are drawn to and reward those with a similar viewpoint or in many cases a good writing style.

Me, I occasionally get bopped not on the topic content, but because I made a grammatical or spelling error along the way. A red square for that?

The only red squares that I accept anonymously are the few that I have gotten as a result of a moderation action that had to be taken at the Hawaii Media section (like locking an off-topic thread or something). That comes with the territory of being a sub-board moderator.

[zztype]

Re: Reputation?

And of course, somebody gave me an anonymous red mark for this post.

There's not even any comment saying why the poster disagreed with my opinion. I don't really care WHO, but I really would like to know WHY. With no indication of WHY the red mark was awarded, it is just anonymous flaming. The coward is tossing an anonymous red rock from the shadows and running away.

It is nothing but an irritation and distraction to many in the community; a blemish on the system.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

By any chance you are aware of the amount of points that you dropped due to being set by that negative reputation? Did your score drop by 30 points? Did it drop by 20 points? Did it drop by 10 points? 5 points? 1 point?

For that post in question, I don't agree with what you wrote but that in and of itself should not have been awarded reputation. How you said it was okay to me, you didn't swear in your post so that in itself would not have gotten a negative reputation, but then again I wasn't the one who awarded the reputation.

[Menehune Man]

Re: Reputation?

Just wondering... what's the purpose of the poll and when does it end?

I'm the one who started the poll without consulting the "Powers that be". It's still negative. It's in your court as it always was. What'cha gonna do?

[Menehune Man]

Re: Reputation?

So how can I opt out? What do I do?

I don't like the idea of annonimous comments to my posts.
If someone has something to say... do it on the boards for all to see.

Yep, Gotta Red Chicklet For This Post Annonimously. _ _ _ _ en lame. See.

[mel]

Re: Reputation?

If anything, I think from now on I will be reporting red chiclets I receive in this topic area.

For this message I got not one, but now 2 negative points, one being a test post (person identified himself) against one postive. Kudos to the person with the ID... bad karma points to the anonymous twerp.

I suggest that everyone who does not like the reputation system post their latest red reputation points and state whether or not the rep point was anonymous or credited to a user.

BTW, I have not given anyone a rep point + or - on this ongoing topic thread.

The system is bogus, time to get rid of it or let us opt out.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

If anything, I think from now on I will be reporting red chiclets I receive in this topic area.

I suggest that everyone who does not like the reputation system post their latest red reputation points and state whether or not the rep point was anonymous or credited to a user.

I would suggest not to this or do this on another thread in this sub-forum. Let's keep this thread focused on the reputation which even after all this time and the responses in this thread there seems to be some confusion of what it can and can not do.

[scrivener]

Re: Reputation?

mel:

If HT turns into a place where we all agree on everything, it is probably going to die. If someone like you, a person with a minority opinion, doesn't voice the differing view, nobody will ever understand how reasonable and right (no pun intended) your views are. If people begin to understand your points of view, the likelihood that they'll be less inclined to zap you with negative rep is decreased.

I give positive rep to good posts that I happen to agree or disagree with. The opinion itself should never be a reason for negative rep, and I don't believe that's how most people use it.

For the record, I'm against professional (not labor) unions, I voiced annoyance about the whole Little League World Series thing because I thought it sent a bad message, and I'm opposed to the increased involvement of government in our lives. So I'm with you on a lot of these issues.

Please, don't clam up.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

For this message I got not one, but now 2 negative points, one being a test post (person identified himself) against one postive. Kudos to the person with the ID... bad karma points to the anonymous twerp.

So overall for that post and the three reputations it has now is it still postive, netural or is it now negative?

[mel]

Re: Reputation?

The post itself is okay, it is the overall reputation that is attributed to the user ID that gets in trouble when one receives too many red squares. See post #339 above. This is what most people care about it terms of the reputation. It is the impact to their overall score.

[MadAzza]

Re: Reputation?

And of course, somebody gave me an anonymous red mark for this post.

There's not even any comment saying why the poster disagreed with my opinion. I don't really care WHO, but I really would like to know WHY.

I'll tell you why -- because the sad little guy *can*, that's why. He gets no satisfaction from his intellect, his job performance or his romantic life, so he takes anonymous, mildly vicious swings with his imaginary bat at people who make him feel inferior. Consider it a compliment.

Those who leave anonymous negative rep marks are no better than trolls.

OK, that's a little strong, but I've been up coughing all night and I'm pretty cranky and fed up. And the only reason I edited to add this is because I know those in favor of anonynous reps are going to zing me. Anonymously, of course.

[lurkah]

Re: Reputation?

Those who leave anonymous negative rep marks are no better than trolls.

Something some of you may not realize is that the Administrator of this message board has always had the capability to view any and all positive and negative reputations that are being given on this message board. Admin sees all and knows all, but whether he'll tell all or can be bribed into doing so is beside the point.

Therefore, for those who thought they might have been sniping and giving people spiteful false-cracks anonymously and undetected, think again.

Now let's see how many of those red ones I get for this helpful and enlightening post.

[MadAzza]

Re: Reputation?

The danger of anonymous negative rep marks is this: If someone leaves me cinnamon gum anonymously, I'm going to think I know who did it based on that person's posts, past interactions and so forth. That might color how I treat that person in the future. If I'm wrong, if I'm "punishing" the wrong person, well ... too bad, I guess.

I don't mean that I'd leave that person cinnamon gum -- I don't do that. Never have, never will. But even if the stink-eye I'm giving is only in my head ... it's still there.

I'm sure it's the same for anyone else who gets bad marks. There's a natural tendency to respond, "Who left that?? Ah ... I know, I'll bet it was THAT guy. Yeah, well, screw him!"

This could lead to all kinds of mayhem, if only in one's head.