• Please go to your preferences page and make sure your "See Mature Topics" setting is set. Setting it to "Yes" means you see the Mature Topics forum (contains political and religious debates). Setting it to "No" means you do not see those threads.

Why we should allow users to view given reputation on individual posts.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
I believe that the removal of the viewable received reputation on other people's posts is an unwanted, unnecessary, and unacceptable decision. People all have different opinions are various topics; people give reputation for all sorts of reasons that may be valid according to the rules, but aren't necessarily moral according to some people; reputation is clearly a matter of personal feelings.

Let's say I post a thread about me being a macrophile (meaning I like the idea of being very big, not fat, just oversized), and people who don't like macrophiles give me negative reputation points for creating a topic that has nothing to do with infantilism. It is unfair, but has a certain amount of right to it! So there really is nothing we can do, besides reporting the reputation. It may work in this example, but sometimes the reputation given is so ambiguous it's impossible to determine if it's valid or not.

Another example: mass-neg repping. While it may be effective against really unwanted members, such as perverts, liars, and the like, sometimes mass neg-repping is too much of a warning and could be avoided by letting people know the user has already been neg repped for what he said.

The same goes for positive mass-repping: while a few posts may indeed be worthy of multiple reputation points, if everyone on the forum gave a positive reputation to the poster, he would have a godly reputation count for a single post, which would be unfair, when it could be avoided by showing the reputation that has already been given to the post. People should know when enough is enough.

One last thing; counter-repping is rightful and democratic. Sometimes, negative (or positive) reputation is especially uncalled for, and in some cases when users can't report the reputation, they would be stuck with biased reputation. When reputation is given to counter previously given one, it usually is done for a good reason; people really have to feel that the reputation points accorded to the post are unfairly given to have the guts to counter them. As I said, reputation is based on personal feelings, while it is supposed to be based on a user's contribution to the forum. As everyone has different opinions on what a positive (or negative) contribution is, it is fair to let people know if a post has been given positive or negative reputation, and let them decide what they want to do according to both the quality of the post, and the amount of reputation that has already been given. What's more, negative reputation, even countered, will still leave a user with a lower ratio than before; it is therefore more than acceptable to let people judge whether a post deserved to be counter-repped or not.

If reputation absolutely has to stay on this forum and take such an important place while causing drama and arguments, then I feel it would be better to adapt the system to make it more democratic.
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
The feature proved hugely unpopular in the past, and right now the last thing we need is more unrest.
What exactly did people not like about that, and can you link me to threads or posts to back up your argument?

I was actually looking forward to a developed and detailed reply from you.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,464
Role
Private
What exactly did people not like about that, and can you link me to threads or posts which to back up your argument?

I was actually looking forward to a developed and detailed reply from you.
If memory serves me correctly, it was implemented back on TBDL just before everything got wiped. So no-go for linking to any threads.

People didn't like the fact that since the rep for a post was visible, that it would more or less incline someone to not give it any further positive rep (They see the post and are like, "Oh well, it's already got pos-rep, no need for me to give it myself") - or give motivation to further neg-rep it to oblivion.

And a detailed reply? I really don't like rehashing old topics that I discussed a long time ago. So I just give a super-summary of my thoughts on it.
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
I can see how people were unhappy about the lack of privacy of giving reputation, but that certainly doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Hell, I feel that with all the idiotic given reputation, it should be made public so people would think twice before neg repping somebody for a stupid reason.

Also, ADISC is much, much different with TBDL. There are many new members, there's a completely new reputation and ranking system, and my own experience with visible given reputation is positive.

I don't understand how seeing given negative reputation could motivate people to keep doing so, while discouraging them from giving further positive reputation. If that were true, I believe that overall, people should be more incline to give negative reputation in the first place. And many members have reported giving more positive than negative reputation on the forum. I can try digging up the old thread.

I would also like to know if you actually read my original post, and what you have to say about it. I can't give up on a decision because of past controversy. Reputation itself causes a lot of that; and as you can see, it's still here on the forum.
 

chevre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,434
Role
Diaper Lover
While I'm not sure I agree wrt counter-repping, I did like this feature. I always found it interesting to see which posts got repped one way or another, as well as having the post hall of fame/shame.

Personally, I'd like to see it come back. But it seems some are just too immature to handle that level of transparency. Heck, right now we can't be trusted to see each other's total rep scores, so it seems unlikely we will see this any time soon.
 
Messages
3,464
Role
Private
I would also like to know if you actually read my original post, and what you have to say about it. I can't give up on a decision because of past controversy. Reputation itself causes a lot of that; and as you can see, it's still here on the forum.
You've caught me on a bad day. I don't have much to say right now.
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
While I'm not sure I agree wrt counter-repping, I did like this feature. I always found it interesting to see which posts got repped one way or another, as well as having the post hall of fame/shame.
Note that I don't encourage compulsive counter-repping, but it's a way to make up for unfairly given reputation and such.

Personally, I'd like to see it come back. But it seems some are just too immature to handle that level of transparency. Heck, right now we can't be trusted to see each other's total rep scores, so it seems unlikely we will see this any time soon.
That's one of the things I'm afraid of; people counter-repping friends or neg repping users they don't like. That is why I don't think having a reputation system in an environment which is accepting to people who I feel aren't even intelligent enough to type comprehensible English sentences is not a good idea in the first place.

You've caught me on a bad day. I don't have much to say right now.
No worries, it happens to everyone.
 

Martin

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,833
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
The negative points outweigh the positive points.

One last thing; counter-repping is rightful and democratic. Sometimes, negative (or positive) reputation is especially uncalled for, and in some cases when users can't report the reputation, they would be stuck with biased reputation. When reputation is given to counter previously given one, it usually is done for a good reason; people really have to feel that the reputation points accorded to the post are unfairly given to have the guts to counter them. As I said, reputation is based on personal feelings, while it is supposed to be based on a user's contribution to the forum. As everyone has different opinions on what a positive (or negative) contribution is, it is fair to let people know if a post has been given positive or negative reputation, and let them decide what they want to do according to both the quality of the post, and the amount of reputation that has already been given. What's more, negative reputation, even countered, will still leave a user with a lower ratio than before; it is therefore more than acceptable to let people judge whether a post deserved to be counter-repped or not.
Post can be repped for more then just that post. You can rep people for being helpful in the chat, by repping a post, now that post may not be rep worthy but what he did elsewhere is. And people might feel the need to counter rep that. Deciding if a rep is valid or not should be left to Moo who can also see what the comment says. When we had it there was a flurry of backseat modding (counter repping) and merci repping. Causing a lot more work for Moo in cleaning all that up. We had it but we abused it and hence why we don't have it anymore.
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
The negative points outweigh the positive points.



Post can be repped for more then just that post. You can rep people for being helpful in the chat, by repping a post, now that post may not be rep worthy but what he did elsewhere is. And people might feel the need to counter rep that. Deciding if a rep is valid or not should be left to Moo who can also see what the comment says. When we had it there was a flurry of backseat modding (counter repping) and merci repping. Causing a lot more work for Moo in cleaning all that up. We had it but we abused it and hence why we don't have it anymore.
Moo is one of the most biased members, in my opinion.

Don't mistake this as whining, but I'd like to give some examples of reputation I got a while ago. It's personal, if you don't want to see, then don't look.

Again, those are examples of reputation I have received and that I judge invalid and/or biased. Because of little things like this that no one ever hears about, some people have a lower ratio than they should, and it is possible to partly make up for that by counter-repping with an acceptable argument.

Giving someone reputation for his or her behavior in the IRC room is also a completely ridiculous thing, as live chat is not the same as a forum. If this goes on, why don't you neg rep me for staying up late at night? Reputation should be limited to what someone says on the forum itself. Besides, I don't feel that people would counter-rep a post that has been given positive reputation, unless it is worthy of an actual neg rep.
 

Martin

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,833
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Moo is in this case the judge and if judges don't agree with you that generally makes them hated among the people that he rules against. I know that only goes for those people that can't handle being told off but still.

I can see most rep appeals and I agree with most if not all of the calls Moo makes.

Giving someone reputation for his or her behavior in the IRC room is also a completely ridiculous thing, as live chat is not the same as a forum. If this goes on, why don't you neg rep me for staying up late at night? Reputation should be limited to what someone says on the forum itself. Besides, I don't feel that people would counter-rep a post that has been given positive reputation, unless it is worthy of an actual neg rep.
Reputation is for stuff done for/to the community, that includes the chat.
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
I can see most rep appeals and I agree with most if not all of the calls Moo makes.
I'm talking about everyone here, dear. I don't really care who gives the rep, but there is abuse, even without showing given reputation on posts, even from myself, moderators, administrators. I would delete a lot of the (especially negative) reputation I have previously given, if it was possible.

Reputation is for stuff done for/to the community, that includes the chat.
The Rules said:
contributions to the site
The site. In other words, the forum. I'm sorry, dear, but whatever you think, those are the rules, they are written very clearly, formally, and reputation is to be given for good contributions to the website. I will say it again; live chat is not the same thing at all than a forum.

I have also found something quite interesting.
The Rules said:
Negative reputation should only be a last resort, for people who have screwed up, or are deliberately breaking the rules.
Shall I report all of my received negative reputation? Then again, even the authorities don't follow the rules. I should neg rep them.
 

Jewbacca

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,076
Role
Other
Reputation is for stuff done for/to the community, that includes the chat.
Do you think there could be an update to the rules in order to help reflect that? Because honestly I never knew you could give rep for chats.
 
Messages
520
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Incontinent
I am fairly new here to adisc, and I do not know what happened in the past other than the glimpses in other posts.
I did read the entire thread and I can see some validity to DarkSunDS's point.
I would like to offer a suggestion, perhaps the features can be partially implimented, maybe not to everyone, just to responsible members, like VIP's or whatever split is practical for the administrators of adisc.
If it is not practical then ignore the suggestion, thanks
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
I would like to offer a suggestion, perhaps the features can be partially implimented, maybe not to everyone, just to responsible members, like VIP's or whatever split is practical for the administrators of adisc.
If it is not practical then ignore the suggestion, thanks
That would be an interesting idea, although I'm not sure it is possible to modify the access to this feature for different user groups.

Do you think there could be an update to the rules in order to help reflect that? Because honestly I never knew you could give rep for chats.
In that case, past events concerning this would not be applicable to use as examples as for how my proposition wouldn't work.
 

avery

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,675
Role
Private
it was on ADISC that rep for individual posts was made visible for a while, and it turned out to be a very unpopular feature. a thread discussing it can be viewed here.

counter-repping is rightful and democratic.
counter-repping quickly spins out of control. pretty soon a single post has a hundred billion positive points and TWO hundred billion negative points. then people start giving payback negs to the people who have negged them, and the end result is a huge mess for moo to clean up when he reviews the rep scores.

it makes a whole lot more sense for moo to be the one to decide whether the rep a post has received is valid or invalid. it's true that it can sometimes be subjective, and it's true that moo makes a lot of decisions that most people agree are pretty outrageous. but i'd prefer this system to a chaotic free-for-all of counter-repping.
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
then people start giving payback negs to the people who have negged them, and the end result is a huge mess for moo to clean up when he reviews the rep scores.
People don't know who neg repped them.

In the thread you posted, the most popular votes were:
1) Rep should be the way it was on tbdl.org;
2) I like the rep the way it is currently.

Seems to me that more people would like to see given reputation than not.


I understand your worries about abusing counter-repping, though.
 

Martin

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,833
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
If you say rep should be the same way as it was on TBDL that means without the rep viewing thingy as it was removed before the site crashed.
 

Vladimir

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,784
Role
Private
If you say rep should be the same way as it was on TBDL that means without the rep viewing thingy as it was removed before the site crashed.
I'd love that, but it probably will never happen.

I'd also like memes and 4chan-related discussion to be allowed, the deletion of Donor statuses and rights, the removal of the Wiki, and lots of other stuff. But more importantly, I'd love members who don't even post to be deleted. It would be nice if mods and admins didn't invent new rules when they see something they don't like as well. But that's idealism.

If we can't get a reputation system we want, then I think it would be reasonable to ask for minor modifications to the current system.
 

Pojo

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,919
Role
Private
I'd also like memes and 4chan-related discussion to be allowed, the deletion of Donor statuses and rights, the removal of the Wiki, and lots of other stuff. But more importantly, I'd love members who don't even post to be deleted. It would be nice if mods and admins didn't invent new rules when they see something they don't like as well. But that's idealism.

I have to ask...Why remove the Wiki?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top