About the forum - rep

[momo3bur]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I have negative repped only once, to James and if I remember correctly, he was not at all happy about it.

I've received a negative rep FROM James once, and even though I knew it was a joke, it infuriated me beyond sanity.

I created a small voodoo doll that looks like Professor Xavier and stabbed it in the arse 81 times.

Sorry James.

EDIT: At least I think it was James that sent it...hmm...hope I wasn't wrong. If so, super sorry.

[ZephyrusX]

So... pushing the status quo is all fine and dandy unless it happens to correspond to your own mind? After all, negative reps mean you are doing the right thing. How convenient for you.

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Negative reps? To me there's nothing negative about them. Whenever I get one, it means I must be doing something right.

For a long while there was sort of a clique on these forums. By clique, I mean a group of very frequent posters who had a bit of a habit of stating their opinions as objective fact, on all manner of topics, and if anyone said anything different or disagreed with them many others would rush to the clique member's defense and silence the dissenter. Of course it happens on many forums.

That's why I believe the status quo should always be pushed, within the forum guidelines, of course. New and challenging ideas prevent stagnation.

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

So... pushing the status quo is all fine and dandy unless it happens to correspond to your own mind? After all, negative reps mean you are doing the right thing. How convenient for you.

Well, at the exclusion of entering into petty squabbles with people who deliberately misinterpret what I post.

Forget the rep system. I just go straight for the ignore button.

[Cado]

This has been dead for a couple of weeks, but I've been re-thinking my stance on the current rep system and I'm wondering if it's time we had a bigger dialog on the subject. Granted, recent abuses (the mods will know what I'm talking about) haven't been that egregious but given that they added fuel to the fire on a topic that was already heated (and I'll admit slipping into it myself) I'm wondering if it's worth keeping that door open in the first place.

I'm still not in favor of doing any major hacks that could potentially $%^@ with the forum software or slow it down (though something that wouldn't, or a test run, is fine by me) but perhaps disabling negative rep would be a prudent move. Even when used well it's often taken far too personally than intended, and even though I always append a more detailed criticism when handing it out I know not everyone does, and I've seen that even I'm capable of abusing it.

Gubb was right.

I'm also wondering if we can do something I mentioned earlier in the thread, namely making a time based stipulation as opposed to a "spread rep to a certain number of people" one? Say, you can rep a particular person once a week. It seems like the implementation of both ideas would keep rep significant while at the same time minimizing the ways it can be abused.

[James81]

You can solve all rep related issues by removing the rep bars from under peoples usernames (no hack is needed for that...its an option in the admin cp) and turn off neg reps. Make rep about what it should be about: a way to say "atta boy" without posting publicly in a thread to do so. (Also, if you go this route, then please remove the restrictions on spreading it around..all that does is promote further abuse of the system.)

[Cado]

Originally Posted by James81

You can solve all rep related issues by removing the rep bars from under peoples usernames (no hack is needed for that...its an option in the admin cp) and turn off neg reps. Make rep about what it should be about: a way to say "atta boy" without posting publicly in a thread to do so. (Also, if you go this route, then please remove the restrictions on spreading it around..all that does is promote further abuse of the system.)

Hell, I'd be down for that.

[Shift]

To me, something feels wrong about disabling the neg rep system. I mean, we're not babies... If we're gonna poop ourselves over a red square in our User CP, then maybe it's time for a reevaluation of our lives.

In a previous life, I received two neg reps (one was grey (not enough rep power!) and the other was as an experiment). At first, the red one felt like a violation. I was pissed that someone would have the audacity to smear that crap in my personal space. However, I soon realized that it's really not a big deal and life goes on. There's a lot of unfair BS in life, like being born into hunger or having your house destroyed by a natural disaster. Neg reps seem so mundane in light of those kinds of things.

It's a personal development forum. Neg rep has it's place, I say.

[aelle]

I don't see the value of neg rep. I don't think I've ever given any ; they just seem so passive aggressive to me. The couple times I received some it was definitely in that spirit: "I refuse to engage with you and I refuse to talk about my opinion but I just wanted to let you know that I think you SUCK!"

I'm on another board where posts can be graded and the grading curve is explicit in the rules.
Neg grades are meant for (from worst to lightest): severe transgressions of the rules, promoting illegal activities, severe personal attacks, offensive (racist, sexist, etc) messages, unreadable (poor grammar, text speak, animated gif abuse), disrupting a constructive discussion (snark, commenting without reading, off topic posts).
On the opposite, posi grades reward: well researched and well sourced posts, well constructed arguments, inspiring and unique ideas, remarkably informative, constructive and pertinent ideas.
Mods are very strict about enforcing the fact that grades can't reward or punish opinions, just behaviors. Also, grades are public. It's worked really well to encourage an atmosphere of calm, well built and useful discussion, even on inflammatory topics.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Shift

In a previous life, I received two neg reps (one was grey (not enough rep power!) and the other was as an experiment). At first, the red one felt like a violation. I was pissed that someone would have the audacity to smear that crap in my personal space. However, I soon realized that it's really not a big deal and life goes on. There's a lot of unfair BS in life, like being born into hunger or having your house destroyed by a natural disaster. Neg reps seem so mundane in light of those kinds of things.

And unlike those things it can be turned off with a few clicks.

To quote myself: "What are we, eight?" Apparently some of us are at heart, at least some of the time.

[Shift]

To me, it's more about accepting that things aren't always ideal. I post a lot on another forum, and if enough people don't like your post, it gets deleted. First few times it happened, I was quite unhappy about it. Felt like violation.

Nowadays, I'm kind of grateful for it. I'm a whole lot less sensitive over deleted posts, neg reps, and the whole like. It's just feedback and it doesn't mean anything about us personally. I wish I'd had these experiences sooner in life.

About seven years ago, I went to school for a career I absolutely loved. When it came practicum time, the criticism of my preceptors drove me directly out of that vocation. I still completed it, as a show for friends and family, but inside, I was done with it. I left that career behind and never looked back.

Would neg reps have made the difference? Probably not on their own. However, I was so quick to take everything personally that I shot myself in the foot. I think it's a good thing to become comfortable with uncomfortable feedback. Again, it means nothing about you... unless you take it to mean something.

[Cado]

The problem is the quality of the feedback that comes through the neg reps. Nobody's advocating the elimination of criticism (though I may have made the mistake of framing it like that; I'll have to re-read my earlier posts) but rather the removal of a means by which mostly low-quality feedback can be delivered.

Gubb was right. We can come up with a better solution without neutering the dialog on these boards.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Cado

The problem is the quality of the feedback that comes through the neg reps. Nobody's advocating the elimination of criticism (though I may have made the mistake of framing it like that; I'll have to re-read my earlier posts) but rather the removal of a means by which mostly low-quality feedback can be delivered.

Gubb was right. We can come up with a better solution without neutering the dialog on these boards.

I have one neg rep in my queue right now, and this is what it says:

"I would be one of them. It doesn't matter if you agree with him, he's making his case so poorly that he's an embarrassment to your side."

Do you think that that is poor quality? (Think before you answer this because you and I both know who sent it. )

Funnily enough, for all the neg reps that I've gotten (the serious ones that is), they've actually been decent quality. Because usually when someone neg reps you, it's probably because you pissed them off in some way. And never is clarity so beautifully defined than in anger.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by James81

I have one neg rep in my queue right now, and this is what it says:

"I would be one of them. It doesn't matter if you agree with him, he's making his case so poorly that he's an embarrassment to your side."

Do you think that that is poor quality? (Think before you answer this because you and I both know who sent it. )

Funnily enough, for all the neg reps that I've gotten (the serious ones that is), they've actually been decent quality. Because usually when someone neg reps you, it's probably because you pissed them off in some way. And never is clarity so beautifully defined than in anger.

hehehehe! No, I wouldn't consider it low-quality because it was thought out and more than just a word or dot or something so the button could be pressed. Generally, though? And in the thread that was given, even though a lot of the feedback was slightly in depth? It causes more trouble than its worth.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Cado

This has been dead for a couple of weeks, but I've been re-thinking my stance on the current rep system and I'm wondering if it's time we had a bigger dialog on the subject. Granted, recent abuses (the mods will know what I'm talking about) haven't been that egregious but given that they added fuel to the fire on a topic that was already heated (and I'll admit slipping into it myself) I'm wondering if it's worth keeping that door open in the first place.

Just because some people did not use the system correctly does not mean the system should be changed. For the rest, including me, the rep system seems to be working fine.

[Cado]

Hey, it does work well for the most part. It's not the most pressing thing but at the same time the aspect I focused my attention on seems far less productive than I'd once argued and a few clicks is all it takes to switch things around. (I checked.)

[ZephyrusX]

I like the latter part of the post, but generally, in my experience, if a person is inclined towards snark and passive aggressiveness, they will take it out on you one way or another. Simply removing neg reps won't stop this. Taking away the rep system altogether won't stop this.

Fostering a culture that you described below may stop snark and passive aggressiveness, but to that end, I think we are better off actively reinforcing this by not being snarky ourselves and asking other people to live up to our standards. If they can't or won't, we can just ignore them.

Originally Posted by aelle

I don't see the value of neg rep. I don't think I've ever given any ; they just seem so passive aggressive to me. The couple times I received some it was definitely in that spirit: "I refuse to engage with you and I refuse to talk about my opinion but I just wanted to let you know that I think you SUCK!"

I'm on another board where posts can be graded and the grading curve is explicit in the rules.
Neg grades are meant for (from worst to lightest): severe transgressions of the rules, promoting illegal activities, severe personal attacks, offensive (racist, sexist, etc) messages, unreadable (poor grammar, text speak, animated gif abuse), disrupting a constructive discussion (snark, commenting without reading, off topic posts).
On the opposite, posi grades reward: well researched and well sourced posts, well constructed arguments, inspiring and unique ideas, remarkably informative, constructive and pertinent ideas.
Mods are very strict about enforcing the fact that grades can't reward or punish opinions, just behaviors. Also, grades are public. It's worked really well to encourage an atmosphere of calm, well built and useful discussion, even on inflammatory topics.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I like the latter part of the post, but generally, in my experience, if a person is inclined towards snark and passive aggressiveness, they will take it out on you one way or another. Simply removing neg reps won't stop this. Taking away the rep system altogether won't stop this.

The other side to that is if it's public, or if someone has to send a PM, it invites a response. It takes a lot more effort and it's a lot more likely to get them called out if they go too far. It's much more in alignment with courage. They're still ass&*$^#@ but at least they're bold ones.

The questions I've been asking are:

1. Does neg rep facilitate meaningful communication and is that its most probable use?

2. Is anything lost without it?

With the first, it's debatable because it depends on a whole host of factors and it's rarely had a measurable impact on the forum. (Plus we don't have the necessary data to calculate accurate probabilities.) It has, without question, provided growth experiences and that's what I drew from when I was on the other side of the argument.

Would that growth have happened without it? There's one case I can say no, there are plenty more where I can say yes because it was dished out while or after a detailed discussion where many of the same concerns or criticisms were brought to light.

This brings up a third question:

3. Is it worth keeping around for the positive experiences it cultivates?

My answer should be fairly obvious with my recent posts. Assuming neg rep is disabled and nothing else changes, nobody loses anything and something which tends to get blown out of proportion is taken out of the equation. We're talking about the loss of a minuscule number of growth experiences for a gain in threads that don't get derailed and drama that isn't caused. That sounds like a win to me.

Conflict and hurt feelings are inevitable on a forum of this size and I wouldn't attempt to stop that because that's something you accept when entering such a diverse environment. You would have to sanitize it and all the grit, all the value, from the discussions would be lost. Simply altering this one element wouldn't do that.

Even taking another step and getting rid of the rep bar wouldn't take away the reputation system, in fact it could be argued it would make the feedback more meaningful. That's purely theoretical without testing but it may be something worth trying down the road. Right now, I'm for keeping positive rep and the bars that go with it. Who cares if that gets 'abused'? Most of us got our bars by playing the rep games in the Fun & Recreation section. People view it and its significance differently so they'll use it how they wish. Nothing wrong with that.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Cado

Hey, it does work well for the most part. It's not the most pressing thing but at the same time the aspect I focused my attention on seems far less productive than I'd once argued and a few clicks is all it takes to switch things around. (I checked.)

I think how you use the rep system depends on how you view it. As I said earlier in the thread, for me it's like giving hugs so the present system works fine for me. As for negative reps, I think they have been used more often by a minority but I feel no need to generalize based on their behavior.

[ZephyrusX]

If you are talking about the abortion thread, I'd say that it was already derailed before people starting neg repping each other. At least, up to a certain point. I agree with Cach; the way you choose to use and respond to rep depends upon you as a person. I personally would never think about neg repping a person just out of spite or passive aggressiveness. I have given neg rep in the past and explained why I did so. In response, this person chose to confront me with it and it did spark a private discussion over the matter. I still talk to this person, so I'm assuming that he/she at least considered my point of view and I considered his/hers. Getting rid of a system because other people fail to get value out of it and abuse the system seems like an abdication of personal responsibility to me. I'd still like to be able to give neg rep if I really wanted to do so, which is rare. If used with integrity, I think neg rep is simply saying 'This is how I honestly feel about your position'. It is a statement of truth as I see it and not meant to be a condemnation of a person's character.

I do see merit in the fact that the neg rep system does not foster good communication in it self. In regards to the person I mentioned before, we switched the conversation over to PM. But then, positive rep doesn't foster good communication in it self either. Half the time, I don't even know why people are repping me. Should we get rid of it as well? Would we really lose anything of value if we got rid of it?

My answer should be fairly obvious with my recent posts. Assuming neg rep is disabled and nothing else changes, nobody loses anything and something which tends to get blown out of proportion is taken out of the equation. We're talking about the loss of a minuscule number of growth experiences for a gain in threads that don't get derailed and drama that isn't caused. That sounds like a win to me.

[ZephyrusX]

To answer my own question, the most 'obvious' answer that came to my mind in regards to the value of positive rep is simply that it makes people feel good seeing it. I like it seeing it, at least. And conversely, an 'obvious' response to neg rep is that it doesn't feel good. But after thinking about it, I honestly don't think I would feel bad if I got a neg-rep from someone like Aelle or Criseyde. That is because I trust their character and integrity well enough to know that their comment is most likely coming from a place of respect rather than a place of resentment and passive aggressiveness. I certainly wouldn't jump up and down with glee seeing a neg rep, but I would respectfully accept it and then choose to discuss it if I felt so inclined.

If I received a snarky neg rep, I'd most likely ignore it as I ignore snark in threads for the most part.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I do see merit in the fact that the neg rep system does not foster good communication in it self. In regards to the person I mentioned before, we switched the conversation over to PM. But then, positive rep doesn't foster good communication in it self either. Half the time, I don't even know why people are repping me. Should we get rid of it as well? Would we really lose anything of value if we got rid of it?

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Cado

The problem is the quality of the feedback that comes through the neg reps. Nobody's advocating the elimination of criticism (though I may have made the mistake of framing it like that; I'll have to re-read my earlier posts) but rather the removal of a means by which mostly low-quality feedback can be delivered.

Gubb was right. We can come up with a better solution without neutering the dialog on these boards.

I posted this in another thread. (That other thread). It was removed because it was off topic, but I still had the window open with the post, so I'll copy and paste it here.

---

Well, as I've said in other places, a negative rep is like a rebuke. In other words energetically it's something like a slap (if less strong than a real slap). You do one, people want to retaliate. It's the nature of the beast. That's why I don't like it.

Mods do their part to make sure people treat each other civilly, and no one is allowed to do verbal attacks, so I don't see why we need to give people the ability to do this sort of attack just to preserve the purity of communication or whatever it is supposed to be for. If we wanted to let people communicate anything we could let them swear at each other, for that matter, but it's already been decided that that's not a constructive thing here.

[Moriarty]

Being new, I dont understand the rep thing at all. Never had it on any other forum.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Being new, I dont understand the rep thing at all. Never had it on any other forum.

You can fine some info here.

Personal Development for Smart People Forums - FAQ: User Profile Features

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

You can fine some info here.

Personal Development for Smart People Forums - FAQ: User Profile Features

thank you cacheborn..will check it out

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Well, as I've said in other places, a negative rep is like a rebuke. In other words energetically it's something like a slap (if less strong than a real slap). You do one, people want to retaliate. It's the nature of the beast. That's why I don't like it.

Mods do their part to make sure people treat each other civilly, and no one is allowed to do verbal attacks, so I don't see why we need to give people the ability to do this sort of attack just to preserve the purity of communication or whatever it is supposed to be for. If we wanted to let people communicate anything we could let them swear at each other, for that matter, but it's already been decided that that's not a constructive thing here.

If someone is being obnoxious via rep messages, please feel free to report it.

[Moriarty]

cacheborn

I read the link thanks and checked out the messages left on userCP. Its not like me to be having a really, really dumb blonde moment. I just cant seem to understand all the info that comes up...or what to do with them..how or if i am to follow them through with a response..sheesh! *smacks forehead*

Do forgive me anyone who may have offered me something im supposed to respond to. No doubt it will all eventually click LOL

[Midnite]

I am against removing either parts of the rep system or in its entirety.

I like letting people know when I genuinely like their posts, find it funny, or very interesting. I don't particularly like but am still fine with the value of the negative repping system. It allows users to send a message stating their obvious dislike of a certain message. The user who was neg-repped then has the ability to either use this information as constructive feedback and learn and grow from their ways, or become enflamed at the situation and respond in like.

Why are we even considering it's removal? Are we so immature that we can't even control our own actions? If somebody you hated was walking in a dark alleyway, would you go and stab them knowing full well you won't get caught? Probably not if your base emotive substance is for living a life of positivity. Probably yes if you just don't care or you have absolutely no control over your emotions.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Midnite

I am against removing either parts of the rep system or in its entirety.

I like letting people know when I genuinely like their posts, find it funny, or very interesting. I don't particularly like but am still fine with the value of the negative repping system. It allows users to send a message stating their obvious dislike of a certain message. The user who was neg-repped then has the ability to either use this information as constructive feedback and learn and grow from their ways, or become enflamed at the situation and respond in like.

That's the argument I've made, and I don't think it's completely without merit even now. Of course, given recent activity with my account, it may look like this is a sudden 180 intent on covering my ass or blaming the rep system for my actions.

I can't say a whole lot more than, "it's not" because any explanation I give can be seen as trying to cover up an answer that amounts to little more than that. The truth is that this is one of those cases where I feel my personal experience has invalidated my prior stance. Something that can be easily abused, regardless of how often it actually is, isn't a very valuable feedback mechanism. I think, at the very least, it may be time to establish a solid vision for what the reputation system is intended to be.

Why are we even considering it's removal? Are we so immature that we can't even control our own actions? If somebody you hated was walking in a dark alleyway, would you go and stab them knowing full well you won't get caught? Probably not if your base emotive substance is for living a life of positivity. Probably yes if you just don't care or you have absolutely no control over your emotions.

That sounds good on paper, but it does leave a lot of room for careless actions which get blown out of proportion. I'm not advocating taking people's toys away because they keep hitting their siblings with them, I'm thinking that there are enough other feedback mechanisms that nothing is lost without negative rep. That, and PMs or public posts are more likely to result in a dialog, which is ultimately more constructive than a one-time comment the other person might not even see for a while.

For me, neg reps are always accompanied by that anyway. I find when they aren't, whether I'm giving it or taking it (no homo), nothing really comes of it. So what, exactly, is it accomplishing?

As I said above, it looks like this might be a good time to discuss what we actually want out of the rep system. We have a pretty good handle on how people see it but what should we expect from it? That's a line of reasoning I haven't seen in these particular discussions and I'm curious about where it would lead.

[Andrew Gubb]

I think, at the very least, it may be time to establish a solid vision for what the reputation system is intended to be.

That's a pretty good point - I think for most people rep is used as a way of sending good energy, or occasionally bad energy - love or hate in other words. That's actually not what the official take on rep is though. Officially rep is supposed to be a way of measuring the value of a poster's contribution to the site, right? So that people can look at them and see that they have been a positive influence in the forum. It rarely works out that way in practise, though.

[ZephyrusX]

I’m ok with this. I liked Aelle’s previous post, especially the point on rewarding people based on behaviours rather than opinions. There is one drawback I can see though. We can setup standards for why and how to use rep, but unless there is some form of moderation or enforcement, people will mostly likely just use it the way they want to. And so, if we want a ‘serious’ system, we are going to have to devote more moderator time in order to reinforce the standards of that system. If someone reported James’ behaviour (if they haven’t already) as misuse of the rep system, mods would actually have to investigate the claim in order to decide whether a warning ought to be given. That might seem easy (or not?) using this example, but what about more nuanced examples where it is not as obvious? Should moderators being doing this for us? Should we as individuals try to reconcile our differences with other forums members ourselves? I.E I recently was in a thread where people were throwing accusations at each other, ‘You are rude!, ‘You are not listening! This is your fault! You derailed this thread!’. Some of us eventually reconciled our previous differences and attitudes towards the other in order to reach, what was in my mind, a half-satisfactory closure. If you invite users to rep other users for behaviour and also invite them to report for misuse, how much of the moderators time are we going to take up? On a large forum like this, it is a feasible thing to do?

I'd like to hear a mod's perspective on this.