what would happen if negative rep were no longer anonymous?

Status
Not open for further replies.

avery

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,675
Role
  1. Private
this is inspired partly by mesmerale's thread and partly by an interesting article that Dr_J posted.

the argument for anonymity, i suppose, is that there would be a risk of people giving "payback" rep. it's true that that risk would exist, but maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. maybe it would cause people to stop and think before they gave negative rep, and make sure it's really justified. maybe it would lead to a decrease in the number of people who abuse and misuse the rep system.

Dr_J's article has got me pretty much convinced that anonymity is the cause of a huge amount of the hateful behavior that takes place on the internet. i'm starting to think it's almost always best for things to be out in the open as much as possible. that way people are held accountable for their actions.

if your username was attached to every negative rep point you gave out, wouldn't it force you to take greater responsibility for your use of the rep system? discuss.
 

Point

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,349
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Little
I've never given a negative rep before. I just haven't seen any posts that I really was mad enough about to give one, and when I get annoyed by something or someone I just move on. I've given neutrals with a note but never negatives. And I've just used some serious alliteration there.
 

Rational

Est. Contributor
Messages
486
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
Oh! idea!! What if they limited how many neg rep points one person could give! That would keep the people smart and avoid the senselessness! Yes that would help loads since people gave me rep for "Creepy deekerish comment". And all that rediculus nonsense. Then they would accualy think before giving it. And it would lessen the work for the mods for having to delete everypoint one at a time if there senseless.
 
Last edited:

Mesmerale

Banned
Messages
2,560
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Babyfur
  3. Sissy
I have to say that I agree with you, avery.

If negative rep had your name on it, you'd be much more careful about the circumstances under which you gave out negative rep. You'd also be sure to have a good, or at least better, reason for doing it.

I personally think that not anonymous negative rep would be a good improvement.
 

Grutzvalt

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,378
Role
  1. Adult Baby
I would definitely be more careful when I call someone a babbling idiot....But I don't call people babbling idiots...Definitely something ADISC should test drive one day.
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
21,359
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
I agree as well Avery, which I stated in Mesmerale's great thread. I also would limit the number of neg. reps to two. The problem is that many members get incited and jump on the neg. rep band wagon. Then some poor sole gets neg 10 for one unfortunate statement. That's just not fair, nor is it a good judgment of one statement. As a result, it often causes retaliation by the recipient, making the situation far worse.

edit: With further thought, getting multiple negative reps for one unfortunate statement is like being tried 10 times for the same crime, and receiving 10 sentences.
 
Last edited:
F

Falkio

Guest
I agree with dogboy. Creating a history would establish a sense of accountability for granting negative rep. As I see it, it could solve two problems: bandwagon repping and feuding. The main reason people become annoying is because they are dishonest or overeager, but making mistakes is human nature. Creating a buffer to salvage the reputation of an inexperienced member could be a good thing. We could see that somebody has given him negative feedback already, and move on. As for feuding, members would be more cautious without the guise of anonymity.

Besides, it is nice to know who gave you rep. I just received some positive feedback, and am curious whom I have helped. If we know, it means we have a responsibility. Resisting the temptation to reciprocate with rep will be necessary.

Just a thought... :D
 

Jeremiah

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,238
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
I had to stop and think about this question a minute. Rarely do I see a post that makes me want to give negative rep. When I do give it, how concerned have I been about being anonymous? I have done it only 2 times now. The first one may have been a little harsh (May 08), but seemed very appropriate at the time. Most likely, I would have still given it even if it was not anonymous. The more recent one was signed by me and closely matched my post in that same thread. Either way, I would not be completely opposed to the idea.

Knowing who gave the rep may give greater weight to the rep given and would cause the person giving the rep to think again before sending it. Both are positive outcomes in my mind. As far as negatives go, my only concern would be retaliation. As long as the mods and Moo ensure that this does not occur (which is almost certain), this should not be a real problem.
 
M

Mako

Guest
I actually disagree, I think if it weren't anonymous it wouldn't cite people to improve more so then now, but more likely deepen feuds. It could create a separation among members who've neg reped each other, who otherwise still could have been friends, or have less of a grudge against one another if it stayed anonymous.
Also their would be a fear of neg reping, not wanting to get one in return for no other reason then you neg reped them.
 
B

Butterfly Mage

Guest
Of course, having traceable negative rep could lead to pointless retaliation.
 

Rational

Est. Contributor
Messages
486
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
Of course, having traceable negative rep could lead to pointless retaliation.

But if the person neg repping someone had a good enough reason to do so then the person would most likely edit their post and that will be that. No seconed thoughts. The pointless retaliation would be since they felt they didnt deserve it. Thus looping it back to the start. They`ll think about what they enter and put down or repping at all.
 
M

Mako

Guest
But if the person neg repping someone had a good enough reason to do so then the person would most likely edit their post and that will be that. No seconed thoughts. The pointless retaliation would be since they felt they didnt deserve it. Thus looping it back to the start. They`ll think about what they enter and put down or repping at all.
That would be great if people were that mature. Considering all the drama that already surrounds the rep system, though many may adhere to this, many will also simply neg rep back to neg rep. Even if not in the same topic, they may simply start looking for any reason at all to neg rep the person who did it to them.
Being anonymous ensures that someone who wishes to directly disapprove, while not wishing to cause further drama or direct confrontation is able to do so.
 

Rational

Est. Contributor
Messages
486
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
That would be great if people were that mature. Considering all the drama that already surrounds the rep system, though many may adhere to this, many will also simply neg rep back to neg rep. Even if not in the same topic, they may simply start looking for any reason at all to neg rep the person who did it to them.
Being anonymous ensures that someone who wishes to directly disapprove, while not wishing to cause further drama or direct confrontation is able to do so.

What we could do would be to limit the number of -reps a person could give out. It would suttley make them think about them reping any one person. And it would have no -rep retaliation. Its just an idea.....
 
M

Mako

Guest
Is there any one person neg reping that much? I know I have only given out a single negative rep, as personally i prefer to engage a person instead of just giving a negative rep. I know I personally wouldn't want the person I gave the negative rep to, to know. Not because i felt hasty or guilty in my action, i feel completely justified in what I did. But I fear if it weren't anonymous they would hold a grudge against me that otherwise may not be there. Anonymity keeps people from taking anything out on someone else personally, can't hold a grudge against someone when you don't know who they are.
But if, and when I want to critique someones actions I feel were unjustly negative, and know who I am. I would engage them directly in a response post or PM. As I commonly do.
 
Messages
3,351
Role
  1. Private
this is inspired partly by mesmerale's thread and partly by an interesting article that Dr_J posted.

the argument for anonymity, i suppose, is that there would be a risk of people giving "payback" rep. it's true that that risk would exist, but maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. maybe it would cause people to stop and think before they gave negative rep, and make sure it's really justified. maybe it would lead to a decrease in the number of people who abuse and misuse the rep system.

Dr_J's article has got me pretty much convinced that anonymity is the cause of a huge amount of the hateful behavior that takes place on the internet. i'm starting to think it's almost always best for things to be out in the open as much as possible. that way people are held accountable for their actions.

if your username was attached to every negative rep point you gave out, wouldn't it force you to take greater responsibility for your use of the rep system? discuss.

It would shift the focus of admin/mod rep-related action and work, not its volume.

Right now, there are apparently those hiding under the cloak of anonymity to neg rep with epithets and other things entirely beyond scope of a reputation system.

If you were forced to leave a name with negative reputation, it would shift the admin/mod workload away from back-tracking through neg rep that is total garbage, and toward ending feuds and closing rifts in the system.

Of course, I would like to know who gives me rep, but I'm not sure this would expand so well across a site with very different people involved. In short, I think the site would become a (more) fragmented confederation of groups of people; I believe the guiding philosophy leans away from this and more toward a unified front for support. While the "within-group" bonds would be stronger, PM, IRC, and IM can facilitate this without creating the inbuilt potential for rifts.
 

Jewbacca

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,076
Role
  1. Other
Also their would be a fear of neg repping, not wanting to get one in return for no other reason then you neg repped them.

The rep that they give could easily be disputed in the request forum, and would most likely be removed. Hell, there was an instance where I was given revenge rep, and it got removed.

... I fear if it weren't anonymous they would hold a grudge against me that otherwise may not be there. Anonymity keeps people from taking anything out on someone else personally, can't hold a grudge against someone when you don't know who they are.

I feel, if I'm going to give a neg rep out for something, that I have to be so appalled by their conduct that I wouldn't give a flying cat's arse if they held a grudge against me for it.
 
F

FullMetal

Guest
OK, let me lay this out. You want negative reputation to be non-anonymous. That is figured. And all well in theory. But, you are missing something. Some have already touched the subject of retaliation- there would be a lot of that. Some of you say "well, how? I mean, people can ONLY give others negative rep when they did something wrong." That statement would be really cool...but it is NOT true. Actually, not at all. If you MAKE UP a good enough reason behind your giving negative reputation, Moo can't really do anything about it.

It won't work.

I don't understand something though. We are all very intelligent people. A system is not working -by the standards of ____- this is a site. Either, reform it, deal with it, or trash it. Closely related to a form of government in the United States. If it is not working for the people, they have the right to create something new.

We are not five year old's fighting with rubber sword. We are a group of mature people who can think for ourselves. Moo is not a mean person and will not dismiss something just because. He is also extremely reasonable.

Avery, though I think your theory is very admirable, I also believe it is a little romantic. You know how the site works, we have been here for long enough to know what will work and what will cause... Chaos is not the right word for it, but it's the first thing that comes to mind.

Think about it.

FullMetal
 
Messages
3,351
Role
  1. Private
It's becoming more and more apparent lately that the system should just be scrapped and rebuilt...

Perhaps, but ADISC is hardly unique in this respect. Reputation systems are difficult to implement and "get right" and usually take time - and pain - to merge with the culture of the surrounding site.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top