Distinguished Road?

MikeD said:
Exactly......banning for too far positive. The best thing is that no one will actually know where "the line" is that can't be crossed, either in the positive or the negative direction, that will get them banned. A little psywar ops for the forum users here: Give them hope, then take it away. Rinse, repeat. :D
Click to expand...

That's it. Sometime soon I'm gonna kick a little kid's puppy and tell them you made me do it.
 
Firebird2XC said:
That's it. Sometime soon I'm gonna kick a little kid's puppy and tell them you made me do it.
Click to expand...

I-dont-always-drink-beer-but-when-i-do-I-kick-puppies.jpg
 
So here's where I think this is useless. This post got a negative comment, with the only comment being a period.

I never ate at Good Eats, but I made the mistake ONCE of eating at The Kettle. Don't make the same mistake I did!!!

Congrats, bid Chicago :)
Click to expand...

What in the world could be negative about that post?

Personally, I could care less about what somebody thinks about what I post, but I don't think this feature is useful at all because people will tag posts like that one as negative for no reason.
 
WacoFan said:
I wish there was a way to make yourself known and not be anonymous when rating. Right now, I put "Waco - ...." and my comment. This should be optional of course, but I would hesitate to "approve" or "disapprove" of a message without letting the user know who it was and why - almost seems like talking behind someone's back. Again, it is fine if someone wants to remain anonymous - whatever they are comfortable with - but sometimes being anonymous creates discomfort. Nothing I would do behind someone than to their face.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I just got rated poorly for a post I made in the "Pee in the Fridge" thread (is that what it was called? :)). The comment left with the rating was simply "Flawed logic." Well, that's fine if someone wants to think that, but I have no recourse. There's no name left along with the comment, and nobody actually responded to that one particular post. There's no debate going on; it's simply "I don't like your comment but I have nothing to argue against it with, so I'm just going to take the coward's way out and rate you poorly anonymously." Of course, I can't respect someone who's going to throw rocks at me without making a valid argument, so it's a wasted effort entirely.

I'd be all for this if names were attached. Then there'd be accountability for comments left.
 
jtrain609 said:
So here's where I think this is useless. This post got a negative comment, with the only comment being a period.



What in the world could be negative about that post?

Personally, I could care less about what somebody thinks about what I post, but I don't think this feature is useful at all because people will tag posts like that one as negative for no reason.
Click to expand...


Exactly, I had the same thing happen on this post....
darrenf said:
Damn, someone beat me to it!! ;)
Click to expand...


Really, a negative on that, with just a "." as the comment. Useless system, really.
 
Actually, I think this might be fun. Some days I'll leave honest feedback. Somedays I'll do it backwards. Somedays I'll mix it up. All days will include random non sequitors.

Fun thought- Whatcha bet that while 'we' can't see who said what, the mods can?

P.S. - Everybody rate me uber-negative, right now. Please. Just for giggles.
 
Hacker15e said:
Exactly.....oooooooover thinkin' it. Prime example.
Click to expand...

I like how you dodge my questions. Are you unable to back up your reasoning as to why, exactly, we should not be thinking about and analyzing this system? :)

By the way...it's "whinging"...not "whining".
Click to expand...
Definition of WHINE
intransitive verb
2: to complain with or as if with a whine <always whining about the weather>


Definition of WHINGE
intransitive verb
British
: to complain fretfully : whine

If there were a significant difference between these two terms, then I missed it.... :)
 
coa787 said:
I like how you dodge my questions. Are you unable to back up your reasoning as to why, exactly, we should not be thinking about and analyzing this system? :)
Click to expand...

MFP. I'm not dodging anything...there just isn't anything deeper here than I've all ready stated.

coa787 said:
If there were a significant difference between these two terms, then I missed it.... :)
Click to expand...

Yup. The difference was that you used the term "whining" in quotes, and that's not the word I used.
 
By the way, this is what happens when you give a bunch of wieners who don't own spines the ability to rate people anonymously:

reputationwin.jpg


Part of the second comment was redacted to preserve the family-friendly environment of JC. ;) I'm actually well-behaved on that forum, too!
 
Simple answer. Take away the anonymity in the posts -- we know this can be done in the board software.

That removes a lot of the shenanigans many of you are complaining about.
 
Hacker15e said:
I participate on a couple other forums that use the rep system heavily, and it actually works out rather well. In fact, I haven't seen a place where it hasn't worked out well, but that could be that I've just not been on enough forums that tried it to less success.

The key is for the core users to USE IT. The more habitual it becomes for users to "positive rep" posts that they think are good, and "negative rep" those they don't, the more effective the process becomes. If only a very few users participate, then it won't have enough input to actually be of any use. It's sort of a Wikipedia or eBay user feedback system that, in and of itself isn't 100% accurate, but over the course of the many inputs (and course corrections to the outliers, both high and low) trends on being close to truth data.

So, I recommend that the frequent participants in the JC community use it frequently while it's here, and perhaps it'll spread. So long as we use it responsibly, and not just to beat down the next user who posts something that we don't politically agree with, it can be useful.
Click to expand...

Hacker15e said:
MFP. I'm not dodging anything...there just isn't anything deeper here than I've all ready stated.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with what you've said, I'm just not sure if Doug and Kristie will get the results that they were hoping to get on JC. The reputations are biased towards the user demographic, so what you think works will work for just that demographic. If the demographic does not reflect the desired outcome, then there may be a problem.

How many times have people mentioned that we wonder why there aren't more experienced people on JC? It would be nice to utilize the reputation system in an environment that contains a lot of calcapts, Doug Taylors, seagulls, MikeDs, and a bunch of others that I missed. Sadly, this is not the case with JC.

Maybe if, every time people had a disagreement, it would be settled with an intelligent discourse instead of arguing, I would be inclined to think that the system might be beneficial. I will admit, though, that we've been getting better at not getting into pissing contests. Of course, only the Mods and Admins can know for sure since they give out the infractions.

Well... let's just see how it works, then, shall we? :)

Yup. The difference was that you used the term "whining" in quotes, and that's not the word I used.
Click to expand...
This is true, but why did you feel that it was necessary to bring it up? Did it have that much of an impact on the discussion? Anyway, moving on.... :)
 
dasleben said:
Agreed. I just got rated poorly for a post I made in the "Pee in the Fridge" thread (is that what it was called? :)). The comment left with the rating was simply "Flawed logic." Well, that's fine if someone wants to think that, but I have no recourse. There's no name left along with the comment, and nobody actually responded to that one particular post. There's no debate going on; it's simply "I don't like your comment but I have nothing to argue against it with, so I'm just going to take the coward's way out and rate you poorly anonymously." Of course, I can't respect someone who's going to throw rocks at me without making a valid argument, so it's a wasted effort entirely.

I'd be all for this if names were attached. Then there'd be accountability for comments left.
Click to expand...

I leave my name with the comment - personal preference. I also don't believe in whacking someone just because I don't agree with them or I think they are Bolsheviks - that's cheesy. I will give negative feedback for a poorly thought logic string, or for acting like a tool. But I'd still use my name.
 
coa787 said:
I'm not disagreeing with what you've said, I'm just not sure if Doug and Kristie will get the results that they were hoping to get on JC. The reputations are biased towards the user demographic, so what you think works will work for just that demographic. If the demographic does not reflect the desired outcome, then there may be a problem.

How many times have people mentioned that we wonder why there aren't more experienced people on JC? It would be nice to utilize the reputation system in an environment that contains a lot of calcapts, Doug Taylors, seagulls, MikeDs, and a bunch of others that I missed. Sadly, this is not the case with JC.

Maybe if, every time people had a disagreement, it would be settled with an intelligent discourse instead of arguing, I would be inclined to think that the system might be beneficial. I will admit, though, that we've been getting better at not getting into pissing contests. Of course, only the Mods and Admins can know for sure since they give out the infractions.

Well... let's just see how it works, then, shall we? :)

This is true, but why did you feel that it was necessary to bring it up? Did it have that much of an impact on the discussion? Anyway, moving on.... :)
Click to expand...

Is your problem with the rating system, or is your problem with the demographics of JC? It sounds like it is with the demographics to me.

I'm with Hacker on this one. It will be an interesting thing, and most accurate if people simply forget about it. Like a post, give them "rep". Hate it - give them "anti-rep". How many times have people asked Doug for a "like" button? This is pretty close.
 
WacoFan said:
Is your problem with the rating system, or is your problem with the demographics of JC? It sounds like it is with the demographics to me.

I'm with Hacker on this one. It will be an interesting thing, and most accurate if people simply forget about it. Like a post, give them "rep". Hate it - give them "anti-rep". How many times have people asked Doug for a "like" button? This is pretty close.
Click to expand...

My problem is that I don't think that the demographics reflect the desired outcome. My logic for this is based off of how we conduct ourselves on the forum. I do think that we're getting better, though, so, like I said, let's see how it works, then.
 
coa787 said:
How many times have people mentioned that we wonder why there aren't more experienced people on JC? It would be nice to utilize the reputation system in an environment that contains a lot of calcapts, Doug Taylors, seagulls, MikeDs, and a bunch of others that I missed. Sadly, this is not the case with JC.
Click to expand...

Well, first off, I think there are a lot of reasons for the demographic on this site, but I don't think that the fact the flavor of the discourse in the threads is a major factor.

More importantly, though, I think there are a lot more experienced folks who participate in the forums than you realize. Dunno what your particular threshold is, but by my yardstick there are are many. I will say that generally the guys who post the most are regional Capts, FOs, and younger, but just because those are the voices heard most frequently doesn't mean they're the only demographic.

The "whinge" thing had more to do with an affinity for some British and Australian slang that I picked up when I lived in the UK than anything else.
 
Wait so I'm confused... are the little green or red bars under the username separate from or linked to the "reputations" received on individual posts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top