dopetalk

General => General Discussion for Everybody => Topic started by: Chip on August 31, 2015, 10:41:37 PM

Title: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on August 31, 2015, 10:41:37 PM
Until i move to a vBulletin-like Reputation System, i wanted to explore the one supplied.

it's called Karma - you add points by applaud and deduct with "smite".

you have 3 options.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 12:51:30 AM
bump
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 01:08:02 AM
Why isn't there an option to leave it the way it is?

The way I see it, narkotikon didn't like the negative rep he was getting, so he claimed people were "abusing the system" when he was the one actually abusing it by deleting his neg rep. I understand he apologized and it's not a big deal to me.

If there are no actual repercussions from negative rep, other than seeing a number under your avi, I don't see the problem with the current system..
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 01:09:55 AM
Why isn't there an option to leave it the way it is?
<snip>

that would be the first voting option, for you then.

that's what we i have now - sorry to not communicate that effectively enough.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 01:13:29 AM
Why isn't there an option to leave it the way it is?
<snip>

that would be the first voting option, for you then.

that's what we i have now - sorry to not communicate that effectively enough.

Ah ok. Thx
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 01:17:09 AM
i'm hoping that everyone has an opinion on this on not  :-\
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Riddick on September 01, 2015, 02:18:58 AM
How is giving negative rep and then getting it fair? That kind of defeats the point of being able to give negative rep...no?
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 02:33:14 AM
How is giving negative rep and then getting it fair? That kind of defeats the point of being able to give negative rep...no?

that is the intention; take your pick. negative rep., left to run naturally, always crashes and upsets people sooner or later ...

we have seen it re. the complaints i got from a few. this is a throttle, of sorts.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Jega on September 01, 2015, 02:37:14 AM
I voted to just shut it down until a better system is implementation.

Rep wars serve no one. And hurt the board.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: 6-mam on September 01, 2015, 04:18:23 AM
Didn't really see a problem with how it was. I think people are smart enough to take those numbers with a grain of salt.

Why can't people actually read what is written by said person instead of relying on a number below their username?

 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: _Enduser on September 01, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Quote
Why can't people actually read what is written by said person instead of relying on a number below their username?

yeah, this is a little too ridiculous does anyone really care that much????? 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Z on September 01, 2015, 06:22:00 AM
Why isn't there an option to leave it the way it is?

The way I see it, narkotikon didn't like the negative rep he was getting, so he claimed people were "abusing the system" when he was the one actually abusing it by deleting his neg rep. I understand he apologized and it's not a big deal to me.

Is there anyone else besides nark that cares?  In all honesty having him as an admin is the only thing I don't like here.  When I first saw that he was I chose not to sign up or use the site.  It was only a week later that I decided to give it a chance.

I have made my peace with him as a user, and I don't want to continue our feud.  The whole negative rep situation seems to be a result of his impulsivity.  A better solution would have been to start a discussion instead of accusing folks of abusing it.

It isn't really a big deal, but it seems to go against the principles of this place.

I will say that I gave him negative rep after he was removing it.  The reason being that I was curious how it worked.  Could I rep several posts one after another?  It turns out no.  It locks on use for an hour.

To be clear I am not calling for anyone's head or anything.  I am just talking about the way that I see the situation.  Does anyone think people are abusing negative rep besides nark?

I don't really look at rep for the most part to be honest.  I know my value, and a little plus minus number has no bearing on it.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 06:26:22 AM
a handful of people do care about rep. but i just want to keep people happy only after i started getting complaints.

if you care little then skip this else vote please ... :-\

looks like leaving it alone is gaining in weight.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Zoops on September 01, 2015, 06:58:45 AM
I think we have a pretty level-headed group on here for the time being, but anytime you get a bunch of self-confessed drug addicts/abusers/ or even just "users" together in one place, some dysfunctional and socially maladaptive behavior is not far off.

With that in mind, I think there needs to be some disincentive to just willy nilly give out negative karma, such as deducting a point from your own (+) points, or maybe even just like 0.25 or 0.5 points would be better.

But most important is that we have some means of being able to identify who's repping us or negative "repping" us, like there was on the 'phile. That was a good way of building friendships too, when I saw that certain people had repped me, it made me feel really nice, and they could leave a comment too.

I don't know if simple machines forum software is sophisticated enough to allow for modifications like the ones I'm suggesting, but if it can be done, that would be ideal in my humble opinion.

But really, at the end of the day, I AM MORE THAN MY KARMA POINTS!

TL/DR - we need to be able to ID who is repping us and have them be able to leave comments too, and negative rep should be accompanied by at least a partial deduction from one's own positive rep for the giver. I think 0.25 points would be right. That way, at least some reins could be put on any potential for assholery.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 07:17:09 AM
the software can do anything if someone writes the code.

I reckon leaving it alone now. it works.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Sand and Water on September 01, 2015, 07:41:09 AM
I also like the idea of being able to leave a comment. I try to PM the person anyway; whether its b/c I don't want to derail a thread (but want to acknowledge what they said), or thank them for what they posted etc. Just my .002 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 07:49:22 AM
me too. there are mods. I could look for.

yes, Opio's forum software was world class.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 08:55:02 AM
It looks like it was disabled?

I think the "give neg rep, get neg rep" system is dumb. If someone does or says something fucked-up, I have to give myself negative rep in order to downvote them? If anything, deduct .25-.5 POSITIVE Rep points for every downvote. Conversely, anytime you give someone POSITIVE rep, deduct .25-.5 neg rep pts.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: neighbor on September 01, 2015, 09:24:46 AM
while I'd like to think we are all adults, and a positive-negative rep function could be fine, ultimately it has a negative effect on the forum.

it turns an insignificant, small amount of negativity, into a flaming shit ball of negativity with wings

just do away with it. most of us dont care about neg rep but some do. its not like everyone would miss having the ability to give it. though admittedly I love the word smite and would hate to see that go.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 09:44:36 AM
hence my poll option.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 01, 2015, 10:22:51 AM
I think we should either keep it positive only, or turn it off altogether.  The way it is now, with just positive, is fine with me.  If we have to go back to allowing negative, I think we should have the modification Chipper is talking about.  Either the person giving negative rep looses a positive, or by giving a negative point they get a negative.  I like the former (giving negative deletes a positive).  That's my opinion and I'm not changing it.  It incentivizes the person to not abuse the negative system.  I'd also still like the option for people to turn off their rep system on a case-by-case basis..  Meaning they turn off their rep, while others can still enjoy theirs.

No, I wasn't the only one complaining of abuse of the karma system.  A few others were too.  I'm also not the only one who thinks it was being abused.  By now, by my count, I'd have -25 Karma points.  Do you honestly think that's warranted?  I try to be helpful on here, post good posts, apologize when I fuck up.  You can't convince me that some of those points weren't based on negative personal feelings.  That's NOT what the karma system is for.  Negative Karma is for disagreeing on a strong level.  By strong level I mean something you adamantly disagree with.  It's not meant for the casual disagreement, or ambivalence to posts.  Some people were abusing the system.

As for me being an admin, thanks for the vote of confidence.   ::)   I'll say this again, I didn't ask to be an admin.  I told Chipper I didn't want to be obligated to be here or do work when I didn't want to.  He said there wouldn't be any obligations.  Since I've been one though, I think I've done more good than bad.  I think people who disagree are probably letting their personal feelings enter into the equation.  I think some people thought I was going to automatically ban them, fuck with them, or be on some power trip.  I've not done any of those things.  The only thing I've reacted to was in the Opiophile Is Down thread, and that was b/c it was extremely personal to me.  It had to do with me as a member, not an admin.  Those feelings and opinions weren't meant to be some mandate for the entire board.  I would have thought that was obvious.  Apparently not. 

As I said, I'm more than willing to give people second chances.  I'm willing to put the past behind us.  But what I'm not willing to do is constantly defend myself against naysayers..  If the majority of people honestly don't want me in power, they're certainly free to vote me out when the time comes.  In all honesty I expected not to win anyway, even if I did stand for election. 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 10:25:57 AM
I think we should either keep it positive only, or turn it off altogether.  The way it is now, with just positive, is fine with me.  If we have to go back to allowing negative, I think we should have the modification Chipper is talking about.  Either the person giving negative rep looses a positive, or by giving a negative point they get a negative.  I like the former (giving negative deletes a positive).  That's my opinion and I'm not changing it.  It incentivizes the person to not abuse the negative system.  I'd also still like the option for people to turn off their rep system on a case-by-case basis..  Meaning they turn off their rep, while others can still enjoy theirs.

No, I wasn't the only one complaining of abuse of the karma system.  A few others were too.  I'm also not the only one who thinks it was being abused.  By now, by my count, I'd have -25 Karma points.  Do you honestly think that's warranted?  I try to be helpful on here, post good posts, apologize when I fuck up.  You can't convince me that some of those points weren't based on negative personal feelings.  That's NOT what the karma system is for.  Negative Karma is for disagreeing on a strong level.  By strong level I mean something you adamantly disagree with.  It's not meant for the casual disagreement, or ambivalence to posts.  Some people were abusing the system.

As for me being an admin, thanks for the vote of confidence.   ::)   I'll say this again, I didn't ask to be an admin.  I told Chipper I didn't want to be obligated to be here or do work when I didn't want to.  He said there wouldn't be any obligations.  Since I've been one though, I think I've done more good than bad.  I think people who disagree are probably letting their personal feelings enter into the equation.  I think some people thought I was going to automatically ban them, fuck with them, or be on some power trip.  I've not done any of those things.  The only thing I've reacted to was in the Opiophile Is Down thread, and that was b/c it was extremely personal to me.  It had to do with me as a member, not an admin.  Those feelings and opinions weren't meant to be some mandate for the entire board.  I would have thought that was obvious.  Apparently not. 

As I said, I'm more than willing to give people second chances.  I'm willing to put the past behind us.  But what I'm not willing to do is constantly defend myself against naysayers..  If the majority of people honestly don't want me in power, they're certainly free to vote me out when the time comes.  In all honesty I expected not to win anyway, even if I did stand for election.

Can someone explain how its even possible for the rep to be "abused"? Apparently giving an admin more negative rep than they feel they deserve is "abuse"?

I agree with neighbor. Just do away with it, really not a big deal to me. But if this place is to be a democracy, that option needs to win in the poll.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 10:27:12 AM
with this karma system we are all equals; one point per customer. interesting. i do miss Opio's though so that's what i will aim for.

the way it is now, it's a fair compromise. we salvage the good bits. applaud !
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 01, 2015, 10:29:14 AM
Chipper, I misvoted.  I voted for "leave no support for negative karma," the first option. 

I thought that meant positive rep only, the way it is now, as in no negative karma.  I thought that was a happy compromise between the old system and no rep system at all.

After looking / thinking about it, I think the first option probably means turn it back to the old system.  I DO NOT vote for that.

I think it should either be positive only, modified negative (if you give negative, you loose a positive), or turned off altogether.

I couldn't find a way to change my vote.  If you know how, please do so. 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 01, 2015, 10:31:05 AM
I think we should either keep it positive only, or turn it off altogether.  The way it is now, with just positive, is fine with me.  If we have to go back to allowing negative, I think we should have the modification Chipper is talking about.  Either the person giving negative rep looses a positive, or by giving a negative point they get a negative.  I like the former (giving negative deletes a positive).  That's my opinion and I'm not changing it.  It incentivizes the person to not abuse the negative system.  I'd also still like the option for people to turn off their rep system on a case-by-case basis..  Meaning they turn off their rep, while others can still enjoy theirs.

No, I wasn't the only one complaining of abuse of the karma system.  A few others were too.  I'm also not the only one who thinks it was being abused.  By now, by my count, I'd have -25 Karma points.  Do you honestly think that's warranted?  I try to be helpful on here, post good posts, apologize when I fuck up.  You can't convince me that some of those points weren't based on negative personal feelings.  That's NOT what the karma system is for.  Negative Karma is for disagreeing on a strong level.  By strong level I mean something you adamantly disagree with.  It's not meant for the casual disagreement, or ambivalence to posts.  Some people were abusing the system.

As for me being an admin, thanks for the vote of confidence.   ::)   I'll say this again, I didn't ask to be an admin.  I told Chipper I didn't want to be obligated to be here or do work when I didn't want to.  He said there wouldn't be any obligations.  Since I've been one though, I think I've done more good than bad.  I think people who disagree are probably letting their personal feelings enter into the equation.  I think some people thought I was going to automatically ban them, fuck with them, or be on some power trip.  I've not done any of those things.  The only thing I've reacted to was in the Opiophile Is Down thread, and that was b/c it was extremely personal to me.  It had to do with me as a member, not an admin.  Those feelings and opinions weren't meant to be some mandate for the entire board.  I would have thought that was obvious.  Apparently not. 

As I said, I'm more than willing to give people second chances.  I'm willing to put the past behind us.  But what I'm not willing to do is constantly defend myself against naysayers..  If the majority of people honestly don't want me in power, they're certainly free to vote me out when the time comes.  In all honesty I expected not to win anyway, even if I did stand for election.

Can someone explain how its even possible for the rep to be "abused"? Apparently giving an admin more negative rep than they feel they deserve is "abuse"?

I agree with neighbor. Just do away with it, really not a big deal to me. But if this place is to be a democracy, that option needs to win in the poll.

I already explained that.  Please read again.  Applies to me and a few other people.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 10:31:52 AM
Nark, you DID vote for us to keep it they way it is right now with smite turned off.

you're good. don't worry. i know what you'd want.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 10:45:10 AM
I think we should either keep it positive only, or turn it off altogether.  The way it is now, with just positive, is fine with me.  If we have to go back to allowing negative, I think we should have the modification Chipper is talking about.  Either the person giving negative rep looses a positive, or by giving a negative point they get a negative.  I like the former (giving negative deletes a positive).  That's my opinion and I'm not changing it.  It incentivizes the person to not abuse the negative system.  I'd also still like the option for people to turn off their rep system on a case-by-case basis..  Meaning they turn off their rep, while others can still enjoy theirs.

No, I wasn't the only one complaining of abuse of the karma system.  A few others were too.  I'm also not the only one who thinks it was being abused.  By now, by my count, I'd have -25 Karma points.  Do you honestly think that's warranted?  I try to be helpful on here, post good posts, apologize when I fuck up.  You can't convince me that some of those points weren't based on negative personal feelings.  That's NOT what the karma system is for.  Negative Karma is for disagreeing on a strong level.  By strong level I mean something you adamantly disagree with.  It's not meant for the casual disagreement, or ambivalence to posts.  Some people were abusing the system.

As for me being an admin, thanks for the vote of confidence.   ::)   I'll say this again, I didn't ask to be an admin.  I told Chipper I didn't want to be obligated to be here or do work when I didn't want to.  He said there wouldn't be any obligations.  Since I've been one though, I think I've done more good than bad.  I think people who disagree are probably letting their personal feelings enter into the equation.  I think some people thought I was going to automatically ban them, fuck with them, or be on some power trip.  I've not done any of those things.  The only thing I've reacted to was in the Opiophile Is Down thread, and that was b/c it was extremely personal to me.  It had to do with me as a member, not an admin.  Those feelings and opinions weren't meant to be some mandate for the entire board.  I would have thought that was obvious.  Apparently not. 

As I said, I'm more than willing to give people second chances.  I'm willing to put the past behind us.  But what I'm not willing to do is constantly defend myself against naysayers..  If the majority of people honestly don't want me in power, they're certainly free to vote me out when the time comes.  In all honesty I expected not to win anyway, even if I did stand for election.

Can someone explain how its even possible for the rep to be "abused"? Apparently giving an admin more negative rep than they feel they deserve is "abuse"?

I agree with neighbor. Just do away with it, really not a big deal to me. But if this place is to be a democracy, that option needs to win in the poll.

I already explained that.  Please read again.  Applies to me and a few other people.

Where does it say that karma can't/ isn't meant to be used to express negative personal feelings? That may be your opinion/ interpretation, but you didn't create the karma system so you can't say what it should/ shouldn't be used for. Why can't it be used for negative personal feelings or disagreement on a not-so-strong level?

You may not like the way it was being used, but that doesn't mean it was being misused/ abused.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 01, 2015, 10:50:03 AM
Nark, you DID vote for us to keep it they way it is right now with smite turned off.

you're good. don't worry. i know what you'd want.

OK, good.  I thought maybe "no support" meant no work was needed on the negative karma, as in it didn't need to be modified (i.e., the old system).

...............................

JDub, yeah, that is my interpretation.  Do you think it fair that people should use the negative karma for personal negative feelings though?  So you're basically saying if Member A doesn't like Member B, then Member A can smite Member B to hell.  That's great.   ::)   Do you think that promotes a harmonious board?  If anything, it causes anger and resentment.  Especially since you can't see who's giving you the negative. 

I'd like to think everyone on here is a decent person, who would choose to give negative rep the way I was suggesting it be used.  Apparently that's not the case for some. 

Edit: And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway?  The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post.  Do you think it right that Member A who had an argument with Member B a year ago, six months ago, 1 month ago, should give out negative rep for Member B's post simply b/c they're upset?  What does that have to do with their post?  Personal feelings should NOT be taken into account when giving negative rep.  Some people were doing that.  You just admitted that's how you interpreted the system.  Don't you think that's abuse?  And as I've said countless times now, it wasn't just me who thought the system was abused.  There were ALSO a few others. 

And as for mild / "not-so-strong" disagreements.  Well, would you smite / punch someone out in your everyday life simply because you disagreed with them slightly?  I'd hope not.  Do you think it's okay to behave that way simply b/c this is online?  Assholery is assholery, wherever it takes place. 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 10:58:57 AM
a few can indeed, ruin it for all. pity.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 11:23:50 AM
jdub, whilst I inherently agree, the system was abused so it had to go ... high neg. counts can attack the psyche.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: nick on September 01, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
Personally,I have little time for a rep system in any form,but I appreciate some people like rep.So,what ever you guys decide I'll live with.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: regular-users on September 01, 2015, 11:33:47 AM
rep.: "get rid of it" vs. "as it is now" are neck in neck.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 11:35:38 AM
Nark, you DID vote for us to keep it they way it is right now with smite turned off.

you're good. don't worry. i know what you'd want.

OK, good.  I thought maybe "no support" meant no work was needed on the negative karma, as in it didn't need to be modified (i.e., the old system).

...............................

JDub, yeah, that is my interpretation.  Do you think it fair that people should use the negative karma for personal negative feelings though?  So you're basically saying if Member A doesn't like Member B, then Member A can smite Member B to hell.  That's great.   ::)   Do you think that promotes a harmonious board?  If anything, it causes anger and resentment.  Especially since you can't see who's giving you the negative. 

I'd like to think everyone on here is a decent person, who would choose to give negative rep the way I was suggesting it be used.  Apparently that's not the case for some. 

Edit: And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway? The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post. Do you think it right that Member A who had an argument with Member B a year ago, six months ago, 1 month ago, should give out negative rep for Member B's post simply b/c they're upset?  What does that have to do with their post?  Personal feelings should NOT be taken into account when giving negative rep.  Some people were doing that.  You just admitted that's how you interpreted the system.  Don't you think that's abuse?  And as I've said countless times now, it wasn't just me who thought the system was abused.  There were ALSO a few others. 

And as for mild / "not-so-strong" disagreements.  Well, would you smite / punch someone out in your everyday life simply because you disagreed with them slightly?  I'd hope not.  Do you think it's okay to behave that way simply b/c this is online?  Assholery is assholery, wherever it takes place.

I think its fair for people to use it for whatever they feel like. If there were negative repercussions beyond a small number under your avatar I
might
have a different opinion. If someone feels like "smiting someone to hell" then go for it. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things, or even on this board?

Do I think it promotes a harmonious board? There is an argument to be made that it allows people to vent without confrontation and thereby serves as a release valve. I don't think it detracts from a harmonious board either. Especially with the anonymity. If some anonymous person is pushing a button under your avatar, how does that promote discord? Who would you be angry or resentful towards? Do you think the neg karma on reddit is causing discord over there?

"And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway?" Apparently a lot, if you think people are using it that way.

"The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post." Once again, your interpretation. Maybe some people want to use it in a more general sense. I don't think that's "abuse". I think member B should be able to click the neg rep for whatever reason he wants. I'm not a big fan of limiting people's options/ actions/ freedom. Just in a general philosophical sense.

Why shouldn't personal feelings be taken into account when giving neg rep? I 100% don't think giving neg rep based on personal feelings is abuse of the system. I guess that's why we fundamentally disagree on this issue, but I'm not insinuating that my opinion is anything more than that. You keep stating what people should NOT do like its some sort of fact or rule written on the ancient tablets of drug board karma.

I don't think you're lying when you say you're not the only one that felt this way. I disagree with those people too. Just because other people have the same opinion you do doesn't make you right.

I don't think that pushing the negative rep button equates with physically assaulting someone IRL. Do you really think the two things are even remotely similar? Is it really that serious to you?
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 11:36:53 AM
jdub, whilst I inherently agree, the system was abused so it had to go ... high neg. counts can attack the psyche.

How was it abused? What happened to democracy?
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 11:37:25 AM
Chipper's regular user profile vote submitted on my behalf as a regular. I wear two hats, I figure.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 01, 2015, 12:36:33 PM
Nark, you DID vote for us to keep it they way it is right now with smite turned off.

you're good. don't worry. i know what you'd want.

OK, good.  I thought maybe "no support" meant no work was needed on the negative karma, as in it didn't need to be modified (i.e., the old system).

...............................

JDub, yeah, that is my interpretation.  Do you think it fair that people should use the negative karma for personal negative feelings though?  So you're basically saying if Member A doesn't like Member B, then Member A can smite Member B to hell.  That's great.   ::)   Do you think that promotes a harmonious board?  If anything, it causes anger and resentment.  Especially since you can't see who's giving you the negative. 

I'd like to think everyone on here is a decent person, who would choose to give negative rep the way I was suggesting it be used.  Apparently that's not the case for some. 

Edit: And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway? The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post. Do you think it right that Member A who had an argument with Member B a year ago, six months ago, 1 month ago, should give out negative rep for Member B's post simply b/c they're upset?  What does that have to do with their post?  Personal feelings should NOT be taken into account when giving negative rep.  Some people were doing that.  You just admitted that's how you interpreted the system.  Don't you think that's abuse?  And as I've said countless times now, it wasn't just me who thought the system was abused.  There were ALSO a few others. 

And as for mild / "not-so-strong" disagreements.  Well, would you smite / punch someone out in your everyday life simply because you disagreed with them slightly?  I'd hope not.  Do you think it's okay to behave that way simply b/c this is online?  Assholery is assholery, wherever it takes place.

I think its fair for people to use it for whatever they feel like. If there were negative repercussions beyond a small number under your avatar I
might
have a different opinion. If someone feels like "smiting someone to hell" then go for it. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things, or even on this board?

Do I think it promotes a harmonious board? There is an argument to be made that it allows people to vent without confrontation and thereby serves as a release valve. I don't think it detracts from a harmonious board either. Especially with the anonymity. If some anonymous person is pushing a button under your avatar, how does that promote discord? Who would you be angry or resentful towards? Do you think the neg karma on reddit is causing discord over there?

"And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway?" Apparently a lot, if you think people are using it that way.

"The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post." Once again, your interpretation. Maybe some people want to use it in a more general sense. I don't think that's "abuse". I think member B should be able to click the neg rep for whatever reason he wants. I'm not a big fan of limiting people's options/ actions/ freedom. Just in a general philosophical sense.

Why shouldn't personal feelings be taken into account when giving neg rep? I 100% don't think giving neg rep based on personal feelings is abuse of the system. I guess that's why we fundamentally disagree on this issue, but I'm not insinuating that my opinion is anything more than that. You keep stating what people should NOT do like its some sort of fact or rule written on the ancient tablets of drug board karma.

I don't think you're lying when you say you're not the only one that felt this way. I disagree with those people too. Just because other people have the same opinion you do doesn't make you right.

I don't think that pushing the negative rep button equates with physically assaulting someone IRL. Do you really think the two things are even remotely similar? Is it really that serious to you?


I think we should just agree to disagree and move on. 

I do think it causes disharmony, especially because you don't know who's giving the negative rep.  It causes people to be suspicious of each other.  What's the point of venting if it's anonymous?  You're basically smacking someone without them knowing it was you.  How are problems to be addressed that way?  I think it's better and healthier for people to talk to each other if they have a problem with each other. 

Some people use the site differently than you do.  For some it is a social outlet.  Should the negative number mean anything in the grand scheme of things?  No.  But that's easier said than done for some.  Some people do take it to heart.  As for personal feelings, I'm not the only one thinking that.  Hell, you just admitted that's how you used the rep system.  You think smiting people for personal reasons, unrelated to the post, is perfectly acceptable.  That's a very negative viewpoint. 

I don't think people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want.  Rules of behavior have to be set in place otherwise you have anarchy.  IMO, anarchy is bad, whether it be online or in people's everyday life.  I consider the positive and negative rep to be used per post b/c the person's avatar is by that post.  If it were meant to be used on a general, personal basis, there would be an applaud / smite option on their profile page.  People have other options to express those negative feelings without giving negative rep.

I'm not saying my opinion is "right" or that other people have to agree.  It's not based on my position as an admin.  It's simply my opinion.  I'm sorry you don't see that.  If I were saying something as an admin, in a mandated kind of way, for other people to take seriously, I'd state that.  Otherwise my posts should be interpreted simply as my opinions / thoughts as a member.  When I say people shouldn't do something, that's an opinion, not a rule. 

Yes, I consider the negative rep, when used in a personal way, to be a form of online assault.  It personally concerns me when people think doing that kind of thing is acceptable.  I think it denotes a very negative, angry attitude.  I also think it's odd that someone who wouldn't act that way in their everyday life would act that way online.  Just because it's behind a computer screen doesn't make it right IMO.  Online actions do have consequences for some people in their everyday life.  I don't see why it's so hard for people to be kind to each other online.  If you have a problem with someone, talk it out.  Unrestrained anger / smiting hurts some.  Why would someone want to do that if it's not in their everyday nature?  In short, I think people should behave the same way online as in their everyday life.  I don't think being behind a screen should be enough of a reason to act like an unabashed asshole. 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: DeadCat on September 01, 2015, 01:03:42 PM
I agree with the use of some kind of system that indicates a member's credibiity or how much others appreciate him/her. Whatever is implemented though, has to aply to everyone and all must particiapte (or none).

I wasn't too crazy about Opiphile's software but one thing I did like was the reputation and opportunity to comment when you "gave rep" while at the same time negative "dings" weren't sucha big deal.  I THINK there people who had earned more rep points, been longer members and made more posts had more "weight" when it came to giving rep. I liked that it was more than just thumbs up or thumbs down, ether against each other or in aggregate.

Maybe a simplified system, like we had originally would be OK but in that case maybe it should be on the members' profile page instead of on every post. That way you don't read their post with a bias.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 01, 2015, 01:10:34 PM
Yeah we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

I don't see where I admitted to using it in any particular way. I've used it 2 or 3x when I didn't agree w/someone. Doesn't mean I don't think ppl should be allowed to use it however they see fit.

 I am a philosophical anarchist. I don't particularly like rules.

I understand this is your opinion, independent of your mod status. However, when you keep saying it's NOT meant to be used in a certain way it comes off like you think it's a fact. You're not saying, "I think rep shouldn't be used in that way".

I understand ppl use the site in different ways. Why don't people get to use neg rep in different ways?

Online assault? Srsly? It concerns me that people would take it that seriously. It's just the internet.

I also don't get why you think the ppl that do use it wouldn't act that way irl. People do act shitty on the Internet, I guess it's an unfortunate fact of online life. Which is why I think it's good to try and have thick skin and not let neg rep affect you that much. (I hope that doesn't come off as patronizing, because that's not the tone I intended).

If you want ppl to be kind, you have to behave in a way that engenders kindness. I gave you neg rep once after you put personal details of fear's life in the opiophile post. I didn't think that was very kind or conscientious of you. Just my opinion which is why I gave you neg rep, and I would do the same irl. I wouldn't assault you though, I don't think of neg rep in the same light as you apparently.

I believe I've stated my beliefs pretty well. I'm happy to let the discussion die. Or keep going....
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 01, 2015, 01:34:59 PM
Yes, I'd like this debate to die.  I don't especially like debating in the first place.  It's a form of polite bitching IMO.  I also don't like having to defend my views.  It is what it is.

I don't know if you were speaking in a general sense, or if you meant me, when you said people have to act in a way that engenders kindness.  But I've always felt like I have behaved in a way that is kind.  Any "snarkieness" on Opiophile was either meant as a joke, or in instances where I was defending myself.  I'd like to think most people don't view me as an asshole.  I assure you that's not how I intend to be.  If some do think of me that way, I'm not sure there's anything I could even do to change their opinion.

As for Fear's info.  The only thing I did was to talk about his affair.  I didn't even want to list names.  He's the one who started naming names.  I originally referred to the other two as male member and female member.  I also don't think I did anything "bad" because it was already well known.  I was even told he made a thread shortly after my banning about his relationship with his "friend," as he put it.  I'm sure most people could read that for what it was.  I know a few did.  I'm also not the one who listed his first name.  Dizzle called him by his first name.  I don't consider my actions as "outing him."  Sorry you disagree. 



Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 02:51:01 PM
karma is now expressed as a total.

looks more appropriate.

thanks to SMF Support gurus.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 03:03:24 PM
yeah Nark., I'd called you delicate as far as far as worrying and obsessing goes. there are tendencies, if you don't mind me saying so.

you have to toughen up and find common ground with people like agreeing to disagree.

but you're improving so it's a work in progress.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 01, 2015, 03:42:31 PM
yeah Nark., I'd called you delicate...

The reason I changed my tagline to "I'm delicate like a flower" is b/c when I was searching for my new avatar pic, I saw a picture of Butters with the quote "I'm delicate like a flower."  I was going to use it but it was too big.  I think he might have said that on an episode of South Park.  Plus, the current one was my old one. 

I had completely forgotten you once said that. 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Morfy on September 01, 2015, 03:45:52 PM
Whatevs:::

You all should've listened to me when I said that:

Applause should be worth 548/1000 of a positive point, while

Smites are worth -103/1000 of a point.

It really is THE ONLY REASONABLE SOLUTION.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 01, 2015, 03:49:17 PM
at least it's simple. looks like we're going with it as is.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Riddick on September 02, 2015, 09:01:06 AM
Yes, I'd like this debate to die.  I don't especially like debating in the first place.  It's a form of polite bitching IMO.  I also don't like having to defend my views.  It is what it is.

I don't know if you were speaking in a general sense, or if you meant me, when you said people have to act in a way that engenders kindness.  But I've always felt like I have behaved in a way that is kind.  Any "snarkieness" on Opiophile was either meant as a joke, or in instances where I was defending myself.  I'd like to think most people don't view me as an asshole.  I assure you that's not how I intend to be.  If some do think of me that way, I'm not sure there's anything I could even do to change their opinion.

As for Fear's info.  The only thing I did was to talk about his affair.  I didn't even want to list names.  He's the one who started naming names.  I originally referred to the other two as male member and female member.  I also don't think I did anything "bad" because it was already well known.  I was even told he made a thread shortly after my banning about his relationship with his "friend," as he put it.  I'm sure most people could read that for what it was.  I know a few did.  I'm also not the one who listed his first name.  Dizzle called him by his first name.  I don't consider my actions as "outing him."  Sorry you disagree.
Expressing your views while considering the views of another without getting butt hurt is debating. Polite bitching is something else. You must be very passionate about the stance you take. Which is a good thing. But proper debates can grow both sides in terms of understanding and acceptance.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 02, 2015, 11:29:24 AM
I'm not trying to be a dick, dont really care about this issue, but I thought this place was billed as a democracy. The winning option wasn't the on that one was implemented. Just saying.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 02, 2015, 11:34:42 AM
we have limited options as the reputation software is basic.

we have modified it but i am not an experienced php programmer so i can't do anything else as far as this matter is concerned.

yeah, a democracy.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 02, 2015, 11:39:01 AM
I'm not trying to be a dick, dont really care about this issue, but I thought this place was billed as a democracy. The winning option wasn't the on that one was implemented. Just saying.

I think you misunderstood the first option.  It means the way it is now, as in how Chipper changed it, with just positive only.

I originally thought it meant the way you're thinking.  With no changes at all, positive and unmodified negative rep.  That's why I said I voted wrong and wanted to change my vote.  That's not what it meant though.  It meant positive only.

I think the problem was with the word "support."  You could either say it means no support (as in work) is needed for the negative rep (the original system).  Or you could say it means no negative rep will be supported (as in allowed). 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 02, 2015, 11:47:32 AM
the poll indicates a preference to run with positive rep. (applaud) only.

makes my job easy since i disabled the smite option with a single line of php code removed.

i saved a backup of the original php file should we revisit this someday.

the SMS Support staff gave me a hand.

should the membership need a certain cool new feature then i have people to consult.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 02, 2015, 11:52:51 AM
So there was never an option to keep negative rep?
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 02, 2015, 11:57:15 AM
all negative rep. at the time i turned if off via software patch, is still in play and has been deducted from your positive rep. and applied to the total number, the one currently displayed.

nobody can negative rep you now.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 02, 2015, 11:59:24 AM
So there was never an option to keep negative rep?

The second option: a modified negative rep system.  There wasn't an option to keep it as it was originally. 

The second option also had a mistake.  It should have been "if you give negative rep, you get some positive rep deducted, to discourage giving negative rep."  Giving negative rep while at the same time having your negative rep deducted doesn't really make sense IMO.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: DeadCat on September 02, 2015, 12:05:53 PM
the poll indicates a preference to run with positive rep. (applaud) only.

makes my job easy since i removed the smite option with a single line line of php code removed.

i saved a backup of the original php file should we revisit this someday.


I don't know. If someone posts something dickish once in a whie and gets dinged with negative karma it might help them to be more thoughtful about what they post. If over time those negative points buld up, then that member's posts will be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course that assumes those handing out the negative Karma both have positive Karma to spend andare using it correctly, not becasue they disagree with a post or dislike the poster but because they feel the poster is out of line in some way.

It it is UP votes ONLY it's ls not really an honest system. Everyone will collect some UP votes over time and our "scores" won't usually mean much. I'd like to see something that reflects the credibility and respect that member has in the [community]. 

I like a weighted system that would take into account lenght of membership, positive and negative Karma, their own use of the points system and maybe more. That being said, I have no idea how to implement it. I have a couple ideas but can't do the math or the programming.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: jdub on September 02, 2015, 02:17:27 PM
I think the whole poll was a bit of a clusterfuck in terms of wording and options. Oh well, chalk it up to growing pains.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 02, 2015, 02:23:10 PM
I think the whole poll was a bit of a clusterfuck in terms of wording and options. Oh well, chalk it up to growing pains.

yep, it was the most poorly worded poll i ever created. apologies.

sorry guys.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Morfy on September 02, 2015, 02:29:57 PM
I think the whole poll was a bit of a clusterfuck in terms of wording and options. Oh well, chalk it up to growing pains.

I don't really care, but the wording for the options in that poll were confusing as hell, and I've complete the 6th Grade!

Morfy's Confusing Option Wording Poll

1- Should we never not refuse to change things that originally were, but currently are not?
2- Will we ever stop not changing the unchangeable?
3- Should we leave everything as it is now, but wasn't before?
4- Maybe we can do Option 1 above and half of Option 3 below?
5- Can I donate One Dollar (American, Canadian, Australian) to the "Let's Educate Morfy Fund" ? Click Below:
--[- PAY NOW -]--





Neat:   
-----<MORPHINE||--------||




  /oo-------oo||--[-oo--------oo]--[-oo-----------oo]--[choo-choo!]-
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Tainted on September 03, 2015, 08:18:28 AM
i think i like the option of if you give negative rep, you lose some of your rep. so if you give negatie rep to someone, you should then be replying to that post with your stance on the situation, and hopefully getting positive rep from people agreeing with you. in reality, i dunno that that would actually happen.

i did like opio's give rep able to leave a msg about why you gave it.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Z on September 03, 2015, 09:13:37 AM
Rep is pretty much worthless if admins are adding and subtracting on a whim and a feeling.  Might as well just get rid of it entirely at this point.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 03, 2015, 09:17:13 AM
Rep is pretty much worthless if admins are adding and subtracting on a whim and a feeling.  Might as well just get rid of it entirely at this point.

That's no longer happening.  I consider this new, "positive only" system a complete restart.  Rep 2.0. 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 05, 2015, 08:29:10 AM
no mods or admins are messing with rep.

Nark is right - we continue with the system as it is now.

we are all equals when it comes to the rep. system and our earlier neg. rep has been carried forward.

have faith.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Zoops on September 05, 2015, 08:53:53 PM
I think you screwed up the question wording again, whoever wrote it:

Why would you get negative rep points deducted from your own negative rep by giving negative rep to someone else? I think you meant to say positive rep points would be deducted from your own positive points.

Is that like multiplying negative numbers? You get a positive number [e.g. (-1)(-1)=1]??

Didn't I see your post count somewhere around 400-something a couple days ago, Chipper? And now it's over 900...Damn homie be puttin in some WORK!
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Z on September 06, 2015, 12:12:13 AM
no mods or admins are messing with rep.

Nark is right - we continue with the system as it is now.

we are all equals when it comes to the rep. system and our earlier neg. rep has been carried forward.

have faith.

Fair enough.  You might notice that some members still have entirely negative rep.

I just noticed nark jump from 0 to 6 or whatever as soon as you made the change and figured he had done it again. 

I liked not having every click shown, and seeing where it came from as well.  I don't know what is possible in smf.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 06, 2015, 08:44:18 AM
if you see a member with neg rep and you like them and what they say then you can help fix that.

if anybody abuses the rep. system, and i know it's a simple one, then let us know please.
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Narkotikon on September 06, 2015, 10:13:02 AM
no mods or admins are messing with rep.

Nark is right - we continue with the system as it is now.

we are all equals when it comes to the rep. system and our earlier neg. rep has been carried forward.

have faith.

Fair enough.  You might notice that some members still have entirely negative rep.

I just noticed nark jump from 0 to 6 or whatever as soon as you made the change and figured he had done it again. 

I liked not having every click shown, and seeing where it came from as well.  I don't know what is possible in smf.

I didn't add 6 points to my own account.

I got 6 after my debate with Jdub (I assume it was from that). 

In all honesty, if people are going to keep accusing me of manipulating my rep, I'd rather just turn the damned thing off for my account.

I've apologized, listened to other people's concerns and suggestions in my apology thread, adopted those changes, and have tried to move on with this new system.  Aside from those, I don't think there's anything I could do to please anyone.  It is what it is. 

I'll say it again, I'm not changing my rep.  No one else is either.  This is a new, reformed rep system IMO.  Rep 2.0.  Let's all move past this. 
Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 06, 2015, 10:21:02 AM
despite Nark's special talent of attracting negative rep, so too can it be said for his even more special talent of obtaining positive rep.

sure, his views can be polarising but he's generally quite popular.

i can attest to the fact that he earned them.

Title: Re: Poll: (3 opt's) re. Negative Karma / Negative Reputation
Post by: Chip on September 08, 2015, 03:54:16 AM
this poll now locked and superceded by the Advanced Reputation System poll at http://forum.drugs-and-users.org/index.php/topic,1256.0.html

topic closed.
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal