Reputation?

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

Can some of you please explain to me exactly why reputation points on a message board have become a matter of such apparent importance to cause all this fuss?

There is no one reason for this. There is a whole bunch of reasons/issues that go with the reputation system. If one reads through this thread one comes with the following points (with no order of importance):

• Leaving offensive comments
• Leaving no comments
• Leaving comments without signing your name
• Leaving negative reputation
• System is flawed, it can lead to abuse
• Why should I use the reputation system, I should just say it in the open
• Hey this is something new, how does it work
• How come I do this and nothing happens
• Is a grey square bad or good reputation
• Messages from other threads that got moved here because the topic drifted to mentioning the reputation system
• I got a negative reputation for that post
• Why are we discussing this got more important things to discuss
• Disable the reputation system
• off-topic responses
• give me some negative reputation

There might be other issues I may have missed. But the above is what I remember from this thread.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Reputation?

And it won't be for posting an opinion I disagree with.

Scriv, can you give any examples (hypothetically, of course) of the types of postings that would be likely to elicit negative rep's from you? And, even if you did them anonymously, would you still be likely to add comments?

I think I would be more comfortable with anonymous negatives IF there were comments attached - that might help me to realize something I've said that really does need clarification, apology or retraction. That happened to me a couple times after my earliest HT postings, and it provided some guidance.

Anonymous negatives without comment, though, are like having your house egged; it just creates a sense that you are a victim of some drive-by, because you are left with the question "why?" resonating through your head.

[scrivener]

Re: Reputation?

Guess there's just enough negativism in the world. I come to HawaiiThreads to learn what's going on, to share ideas, laugh, offer suggestions and of course state my opinion. Who needs red or for that matter green chicklets. I say negative because those are the ones (Red Rep) that the poster is not willing to say in front of the crowd. The green ones though nice really make no difference. Just write what you think in the forums.

First, we keep talking about the reputation system as if all it does is spread negativity, when everybody participating in this thread has far more positive reputation than negative. If this isn't validation that it's a positive, encouraging community, I don't want any of you around when I get diagnosed with some kind of illness with a 75% survival rate. Only two people who've posted in this very long thread ever showed a red square at all -- Palolo Joe and Kimo -- and neither of them has been in the red for more than half a year. The reputation system spreads good vibes, not bad ones.

Second, I've probably given one negative reputation feedback for every ten or twenty positive; to say that the positive feedback "makes no difference," is unfair. I mean, maybe it makes no difference to you, and that's totally fine, but I leave it because it's encouraging and because a little positive note is not always an appropriate response to a post.

Finally, perhaps we should all take a look at the kinds of posts left by those people who have (or have had) reputation scores in the negatives. New users and even veteran users who just don't want to get involved in verbal fisticuffs with agressive posters have a way to say, "whoa, whoa," without jumping into the fray. Look at some of last year's posts from some of these red-square users and you'll know why: as soon as someone jumps in to say, "Hey, let's take it easy," the ire is turned on them just for trying to encourage a little bit of positivity. Not everyone is willing to stand in the line of fire, but everyone should be allowed to voice disapproval of someone's behavior.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Reputation?

everyone should be allowed to voice disapproval of someone's behavior.

With that, I am in agreement; it's the anonymity that bothers me.

If you and I debate a point in a public forum, we can make our arguments and are given the opportunity for rebuttal and additional discussion. Others who care about the same issue can chime in, on all sides. If we get too heated or offensive, others can help to cool our ire and (I hope) keep us civil.

But if someone gives me a silent, anonymous, negative rating, it is as if they have jabbed me in the back and run away, and I am sometimes left wondering why I was attacked - I will re-read the post they noted, but may still wonder what was in it that bothered someone.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

Scriv, can you give any examples (hypothetically, of course) of the types of postings that would be likely to elicit negative rep's from you? And, even if you did them anonymously, would you still be likely to add comments?

If you don't mind me interjecting on this, I will say what I would consider the type of posts that would or might get a negative reputation from me.

• Those fly-by-night users who post commerical stuff on HawaiiThreads (it happens from time to time)
• people who use foul language in their post
• users who engage in flame wars
• posting inaccurate information (which is kind of rare, but I think it was meant for that)
• going off-topic (normally I don't do this but I did award some negative reputation just recently)

Normally I don't sign my reputations that I award. There are times that I leave comments and other times I don't. I am more lax in awarding postive reputation than I do negative reputation.

As far as what kind of post do get a postive reputation from me:

• posting helpful information (which is what the reputation system was designed for)
• In certain threads I would award postive reputation for those who participate in it and kept the thread on-topic.
• Maybe I might award one if post was kind of funny.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Reputation?

If you don't mind me interjecting on this

I'm always happy to read your comments, Helen - you are HT's resident "rocket scientist!" Mahalo.

[Peshkwe]

Re: Reputation?

Hey Leo!!

Thanks for the cinno...erm.....cenn...uhhh....cinnimimin...

Shoot....the red stuff!

But I don't think the experiment will work, I looked at the member files and the only one to ever get more than one red gum was the news bot.

I look like crap in modern armour, the chrome accentuates my arse over much.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

Im new so I can only go by what I have read.... it seems that if you dont like what someone says you ding them... how can that create a feeling of aloha if everytime you say something that might be against the grain or a different side of a subject you get demerit points put next to your name.

The Reputation system was never meant to be an agree/disagree system. If you agree or disagree with someone and you want to say it post it as a response or send them a private message.

If you come across a note and your only reaction is "thanks for the information", I say give that person your reputation and move on. At least that person will have their reputation score increased which overall most people would want to have.

Keep in mind it's approve/disapprove not agree/disagree.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Reputation?

Hey Leo!!

Thanks for the cinno...erm.....cenn...uhhh....cinnimimin...

Shoot....the red stuff!

But I don't think the experiment will work, I looked at the member files and the only one to ever get more than one red gum was the news bot.

I look like crap in modern armour, the chrome accentuates my arse over much.

No sweat --- I'll counter it with spearmint after I spread some more aloha.
(And it really hurt to give you the cinnamon, but it was for science, after all.)

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Reputation?

Keep in mind it's approve/disapprove not agree/disagree.

I think it's becoming "have fun with rewarding friends/messing with others."
If the reputation system is destined to remain in place, it will just have to be goofed up from within, by all my fellow subversives and anarchists. Guaranteed that no one will care about gum after that.

[Peshkwe]

Re: Reputation?

No sweat --- I'll counter it with spearmint after I spread some more aloha.
(And it really hurt to give you the cinnamon, but it was for science, after all.)

No worries, I'm not all that fussed about it.

I just wanted to see how many one person could accumulate and if a glowing red one could be gotten. It's not like it'd be a permanent situation 'cause once the hot red one comes up then the process would get reversed until I was back to one glowing green.

But it seems no one but you wanted to play.

*hugs* for wanting to tho

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

But I don't think the experiment will work, I looked at the member files and the only one to ever get more than one red gum was the news bot.

Newsbot has postive reputation, if you sort by reputation you will find the Newsbot account on page 6 (given time that position might change if this message is viewed a year from now). What you see at the bottom is an user who called themselves onlinereporter105, one of those fly-by-night spam posters. This person is not the first one who have gotten more than one red square. They have been others but since their accounts are marked as closed or banned they don't appear on the Members List or be able to recieve reputations from others.

[Peshkwe]

Re: Reputation?

Newsbot has postive reputation, if you sort by reputation you will find the Newsbot account on page 6 (given time that position might change if this message is viewed a year from now). What you see at the bottom is an user who called themselves onlinereport105, one of those fly-by-night spam posters. This person is not the first one who have gotten more than one red square. They have been others but since their accounts are marked as closed or banned they don't appear on the Members List or be able to recieve reputations from others.

Ahhh..ok my mistake



Sooo...now that I won't have to anneal my behind to accept chroming, I'm still willing to test it out.

Is a glowing red gum possible? The world needs to know!

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Reputation?

They have been others but since their accounts are marked as closed or banned they don't appear on the Members List or be able to recieve reputations from others.

I thought I remembered there being others in the past; sometimes, I wish I could see the list of "banned" or "closed" members - along with the ability to access their posts (to see what got them banned.)
Admin uses banning power so rarely, it might be like putting someone in the stocks as a public deterrent. Or it might be more like rubber-necking at a wreck on the highway.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

I just wanted to see how many one person could accumulate and if a glowing red one could be gotten. It's not like it'd be a permanent situation 'cause once the hot red one comes up then the process would get reversed until I was back to one glowing green.

Assuming Leo was the only one to help you on this experiment, his current reputation power is at 1 (base) + 4 (100 post bonus) + 1 (90 day bonus) + 26 (at least 1300 overall reputation score) = 32 points. Since he is going to give negative reputation, it will be half of 32 so that power is at -16 points.

Now your current score is roughly 550 points. 550 divided by 16 would yield 34.3. Go to the next highest number and that value would be 35. Leo would have to award you negative reputation 35 times. Since he is limited by awarding you one reputation per day, it will take him at least 35 days to do it, maybe longer since he has to find 9 or 10 more users to award before he can even award you the next reputation.

But it seems no one but you wanted to play.

*hugs* for wanting to tho

It's not so much giving you the negative reputation but rather going around and find 9 or 10 other people to give reputation to on a regular basis.