Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72

Thread: Reputation

  1. #1
    Mesmerale

    Post Reputation

    Over the course of the past few days, it's been apparent that we've been having a few problems with the Reputation system. While these problems need to be fixed, that isn't my subject content right now.

    My desire to create this thread stemmed primarily from two sources. First, the thread is bedwetting all that bad.., created by jter42.

    The second source is the blog entry Damn you all, created by Point Blanch.

    Both of these threads indicate that people are unhappy with the use of the Reputation system, as well as the level of awareness that the average ADISC member has regarding the Reputation system.

    Furthermore, this thread is in the Mature Topics because I want to keep a mature conversation in here. A true discussion of what the Reputation system is. I would also like members to enter this thread will a previously established "mature" mindset towards the subject.

    So, what is Reputation? What is the Reputation System?

    How should the Reputation System be used? How is it currently being abused?

    What does Reputation mean to a person? Is it important, or just code on a desktop?

    Perhaps a few people want to say, "Hey, some of these questions are already up and posted by moderators. Why not just read those?"

    My reply is that while some of these answers are in those types of threads, they clearly are not being read, or they're being forgotten, so this will be useful.

    This is also a medium of discussion. The official thread only discusses Reputation as "What one should do" and "What one shouldn't do". Not what people think of it or what it means to them. This sort of thing should be discussed, and it's surprising that it hasn't already been discussed in the last year. No one finds it a bit strange that a community could go an entire lifespan (albeit only a year in length) without discussing a system that they all use, and that many posts revolve around? (This may be a hyperbole, as I've not done a thorough search of the forums to see if my claim is true. But I have searched a bit, and haven't found any other threads like this as of yet.)

    My point is, the Reputation system is something that we all use, some of us don't care about it as much as others, but it's still there.

    What do you think it means?

    Here's my belief.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Reputation is an indicator of a person's ability to carefully put together a helpful, encouraging, spirit-lifting, or otherwise enjoyable post. If a person receives positive reputation, he or she has posted something that was viewed as helpful, or interesting, or funny, or some other positive quality. If a person receives negative reputation, he or she has posted something thoughtless, or hurtful, or spiteful, or some other negative quality. Negative reputation does not mean that the person posting is a bad person. It means that they are having difficulty understanding the rules, or controlling themselves, or assimilating themselves into the community, or making themselves understood.

    The Reputation system is a network of positive and negative reputation sharing which reflects the credibility of a person's posts among a forum or forums. It allows a member to give a particular post of another member positive, neutral (A form of reputation that I feel many members are unaware of), or negative reputation, along with a comment as to why such reputation was given. The system can either be accurate, or flawed, and is moderated because of that. Whether or not the moderation is successful is a matter of opinion.

    The Reputation system should be used as an attempt to correct undesirable behavior, or commend desirable behavior displayed within a post. To clarify, positive reputation should be used to commend, and neutral reputation should be used to correct behavior. Negative reputation, when used at all, should only be used to reprimand the blatant disregard of previous attempts to correct or make one aware of undesirable behavior.

    The Reputation is currently being abused due to the reasoning behind the giving of reputation. Negative reputation is being given when neutral reputation should be used. The judgment of others is overly critical and such high standards are being reflected in Reputation system. Negative reputation is being given for things that should have been given more thought. More effort in understanding the relevancy of the post before the negative reputation was given. Negative reputation is being given for first-time offenses, where neutral reputation with a comment on what should be fixed would be more than suitable. Lastly, the Reputation system is being used as a means of revenge. It is being treated as a game. Negative reputation is being used to punish a person for things that do not reflect his or her behavior in a post. Negative reputation is being assigned to posts that do not deserve it, simply because it is believed that the person deserved the negative reputation out of spite, or a means of bullying in order to make one feel better about oneself.

    To me, Reputation is very important. It reflects what others in the community think of my input, and it gives me a good feeling when I see such comments regarding my posts. I enjoy the feeling that I get knowing that other members appreciate my addition to threads, and to the community as a whole. Where I to receive a negative reputation, I would need a very detailed reason as to why, and I would want to do my best to understand what I'd done to deserve such a reprimand, in the eyes of whichever member(s), and to learn from it. If I was given a negative reputation out of spite, I would be disappointed in the member abusing the Reputation system, and would be upset the the Reputation system could be used for such a spiteful reason.

    All in all, the Reputation system is one that can make a person feel very good, or very bad. It can be used to commend people for positive input, or reprimand people for negative input. What it should be used for is primarily to commend for positive input, and then to make one aware of his or her own negative qualities without reprimanding said person.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    What does Reputation, and the Reputation system mean to you? What are your responses to the questions above? Why do you feel that way, and by all means, state any other relevant opinion or fact that you have.

  2. #2
    xdeadx

    Default

    The more green things the better?

    I like green

  3. #3

    Default

    Ruthlessly pared down to its data elements, reputation is the only "peer-reviewed" metric on this system, and it suffers from functional ceiling effects. Meaning if it's over 10, it may as well be a million as reputation over 10 is not displayed.

    That said, it's nice to see +rep points for a post because it removes some of the "echo chamber" feeling that comes about when posting on the 'net.

    However, as rep is single-blind, its other utility - following people and clustering in groups - is largely lost.

  4. #4

  5. #5

    Default

    First off I want everyone to read the rules thread. http://www.adisc.org/forum/announcem...697-rules.html

    That well explain why Point Blanch and jter24 got neg rep and moderated for their action.

    As for my opinion on reputation. I been neg rep and pos rep before and I don't really care but take this advice. If you do get neg rep, don't bitch about it. Take it like man and move on with your lives because of this rules...

    Rule #5 of the rules of reputation system...Do not complain about negative reputation on the public forum!



    Reputation comments are reviewed regularly by the admin team, and invalid comments will be removed. People who are found to abuse the rep system regularly, or who post many invalid rep comments, will be temporarily (or permanently!) excluded from giving reputation.
    You may request a review of the reputation in the Requests forum. The administrators might reverse it, but that is entirely up to them.
    If you complain about your negative rep in public, you will get more negative rep and/or a ban from the site.
    The sad part is that Point Blanch's Blog breaks that rules lol.

  6. #6

    Default

    The way I see it a reputation system will be biased no matter where you go. The more popular member will almost always get more rep than someone who's not as well known and may even contribute more to the site. Anyone here who is set with a moderated status, whether rep or modset, automatically has the rep kiss of death, and will get neg repped for every nitpicky thing possible, making it nearly impossible to get back to a normal or even higher status, even if that person were to make an improvement in behavior.

    There is no way to get around this with a reputation system in place, but what I would think would help it is to set the reputation system so that only those with X amount of positive reputation (let's say 5, for example) or higher are allowed to give out either positive or negative reputation. What this would do is cut down on the possibilities of unfair or exaggerated (nitpicky) reputation, limiting it so that only higher ups who know how the rep system works can give out rep where it is needed, instead of having people spam rep left or right and abuse the system.

  7. #7

  8. #8
    Mesmerale

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by xdeadx View Post
    The more green things the better?

    I like green
    Why? What makes it so important to you?



    Quote Originally Posted by h3g3l View Post
    Ruthlessly pared down to its data elements, reputation is the only "peer-reviewed" metric on this system, and it suffers from functional ceiling effects. Meaning if it's over 10, it may as well be a million as reputation over 10 is not displayed.
    Meaning that once it's hidden, it's use in judging a person is skewed? Or something different?



    Quote Originally Posted by h3g3l View Post
    That said, it's nice to see +rep points for a post because it removes some of the "echo chamber" feeling that comes about when posting on the 'net.
    Could you explain the "echo chamber" feeling, please?



    Quote Originally Posted by h3g3l View Post
    However, as rep is single-blind, its other utility - following people and clustering in groups - is largely lost.
    What makes it's other utility important, out of curiosity. Why would following people be significant?



    Quote Originally Posted by Lukie View Post
    Lukiieeee. My OP covered this! That's the emotionless, concrete-and-explanatory-but-without-opinion version.

    What do you think Reputation is?



    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    First off I want everyone to read the rules thread. http://www.adisc.org/forum/announcem...697-rules.html

    That well explain why Point Blanch and jter24 got neg rep and moderated for their action.

    As for my opinion on reputation. I been neg rep and pos rep before and I don't really care but take this advice. If you do get neg rep, don't bitch about it. Take it like man and move on with your lives because of this rules...

    Rule #5 of the rules of reputation system...Do not complain about negative reputation on the public forum!



    The sad part is that Point Blanch's Blog breaks that rules lol.
    I used those two members as a reference, and as an explanation as to why I made this thread. I didn't ask why they got moderated or got neg rep. I didn't state any view as to whether they deserved it. And I didn't ask for an opinion on either of those topics.

    As for your opinion on reputation: Have you always not cared about it? Did something change in your viewpoint after awhile on TBDL/ADISC?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ganymede View Post
    The way I see it a reputation system will be biased no matter where you go. The more popular member will almost always get more rep than someone who's not as well known and may even contribute more to the site. Anyone here who is set with a moderated status, whether rep or modset, automatically has the rep kiss of death, and will get neg repped for every nitpicky thing possible, making it nearly impossible to get back to a normal or even higher status, even if that person were to make an improvement in behavior.

    There is no way to get around this with a reputation system in place, but what I would think would help it is to set the reputation system so that only those with X amount of positive reputation (let's say 5, for example) or higher are allowed to give out either positive or negative reputation. What this would do is cut down on the possibilities of unfair or exaggerated (nitpicky) reputation, limiting it so that only higher ups who know how the rep system works can give out rep where it is needed, instead of having people spam rep left or right and abuse the system.
    Wouldn't that create more of a bias? It'd create a group who could give rep, and a group who could not. One group would have a vast amount of power, the other, not so much.
    Last edited by Mesmerale; 06-Feb-2009 at 02:49. Reason: Addition of other quotes.

  9. #9

    Default

    Moderation is the key, but more-so self-moderation. For some reason, people don't really understand the power of a warning. People seem to see things as black and white, and don't realize the effect that the several shades of gray have. and also why do people hide behind the anonymity of rep. I, for the most part, make sure to sign my rep, whether it be positive or negative, and I make sure to give a rather descriptive explanation of why I gave the neg rep. And I always make that the person has been warned beforehand prior to neg-repping.



    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Rule #5 of the rules of reputation system...Do not complain about negative reputation on the public forum!

    The sad part is that Point Blanch's Blog breaks that rules lol.
    Actually that's where you're wrong, Point's blog isn't breaking the rules, because a blog is not in the forum, yes it's part of the site, but a blog is not a forum, because blogs are personal, and not group input. And technically you could in fact complain about rep in the regular's Vip or staff forum and not be against the rules, because those are technically private forums.

  10. #10
    Mesmerale

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by HypnoToad View Post
    Moderation is the key, but more-so self-moderation. For some reason, people don't really understand the power of a warning. People seem to see things as black and white, and don't realize the effect that the several shades of gray have. and also why do people hide behind the anonymity of rep. I, for the most part, make sure to sign my rep, whether it be positive or negative, and I make sure to give a rather descriptive explanation of why I gave the neg rep. And I always make that the person has been warned beforehand prior to neg-repping.
    So it's about self control and awareness that not everything deserves harsh rep judgment?

    And I deliberately do not sign my posts, even though it is usually clear that it was me, out of respect of the reasons that reputation is anonymous. I don't sign no matter what kind of rep I give.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.