Negative rep - is it useful?

[David Bailey]

I've been thinking about negative rep (as you do), and two powerful arguments have been made against it, so I thought it'd be interesting to debate it.

1. "Taking points away"
A negative rep takes "your" points away from you - it's arguable that this is intrinsically unfair, as these are your own reputation points; people can of course give, but shouldn't be allowed to remove them. People can give you money, but shouldn't take it from you.

2. "Bad feeling"
Like it or not, getting neg-repped tends to annoy people, and they often then post about it, which generally doesn't help the overall tone of the forum. Reading some threads, one could be forgiven for thinking they're flying about like crazy (they're not, by the way!), and that this is a nasty place full of evil neg-reppers or something. It feels a bit too flame-y, in other words.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: what purpose do neg-reps serve, that's not covered by either open debate / complaint, or by reporting a post?

P.S. This thread is not a poll, as I want a debate not a vote.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Personally think it's pointless.

To many people use it to make a statement about a discussion without actually contributing to the discussion itself.

I.e. I've had a few that have gone along the lines of"I don't agree with what you've said". If thats the case, then put your point forward openly.

Also had a few saying that the pointers I give are bad etc. How can me stating what I do to achive something be a bad pointer (most people here know what im talking about).

It's seems a majority of neg reps are handed out by the minority. I will only use them against people who have (IMO) neg-repped me without a good reson.

Rant over

[Gav]

I think it's just as pointless as pos rep in the grand scheme of things. When it comes down to it, people take it all too seriously.

Some people (woodface and others?) need to step back and realise how bad neg rep really is. It can't kill you and it can't make you pregnant.

Neg rep me if you like, I bet I won't cry and I'll sleep just fine tonight.

:love: :hug: :love: :hug:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Na Gav, It bothered me at first but I have kind of got used to it. Everytime I have a new rep comment i expect it to be red. Have been pos and neg repped for the same comments before now.

It is more anoying that people don't put their arguments across publicly.

Would I get some pos rep if I did manage to get myself pregnant?

[Gav]

Na Gav, It bothered me at first but I have kind of got used to it. Everytime I have a new rep comment i expect it to be red. Have been pos and neg repped for the same comments before now.

It is more anoying that people don't put their arguments across publicly.

Would I get some pos rep if I did manage to get myself pregnant?

Damn, I was going to rep you with some comment about off-line discussions, but the system won't let me. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Feelingpink]

Neg rep is simply the opposite of positive rep. If you're going to have one, you should have the other.

Don't quite see the 'argument' of neg rep 'causing bad feeling'. If there is no outlet to neg. rep, can't imagine the outcome of that being terribly good either - it's going to come out somewhere - most likely in a (public) thread.

Besides - it can be fun being neg and positive repped for the same post :devil:

[David Bailey]

It's seems a majority of neg reps are handed out by the minority. I will only use them against people who have (IMO) neg-repped me without a good reson.
Yeah, that's what I mean when I say "neg-repping creates bad feeling" :rolleyes:

[fletch]

Personally I don't neg rep people I would rather say what I want than click a button,:grin: I have only neg rep twice the first was because someone neg. rep me and soon after I disagreed with there comments so I neg. rep them, :na: childish I know i'm over it now.:flower: the second was because I said I wasn't going to comment on a subject recently, but i just can't keep it shut, if somthing annoys me so I neg rept with acomment.:mad:

I have lost all my points I wonder why that is :devil: .... so i don't suppose it matters.:na:

[Feelingpink]

...

It's seems a majority of neg reps are handed out by the minority.This could be changed if you don't like the arrangement... :blush: Isn't that just the 80/20 rule in action?




.I will only use them against people who have (IMO) neg-repped me without a good reson.

Rant overAh, the Stewart38 neg rep strategy. I had missed it. ;)

[Gav]

I've given neg rep once because I believe the individual was being unneccessarily offensive to someone else.

I've been given neg rep once which I thought was totally undeserved, but I won't be saving neg rep for them in the future. Life's too short and in pretty short time they may be deserving of pos rep!

If you're going to get rid of it, then you might as well get rid of rep altogether.
I've had pos rep for posting nice lyrics, posting inflammatory remarks and for posting genuine well thought out opinions about dancing (believe it or not!). Without me saying that, you have no idea why I have 200ish points so what relevance does it have?

[Feelingpink]

Yeah, that's what I mean when I say "neg-repping creates bad feeling" :rolleyes:So would you also ban pos rep love-fests - when a group of people all seem to pos rep each other constantly?

[David Bailey]

{ stuff }
Yeah, that's what I mean when I say "neg-repping creates bad feeling"

Hold on, didn't I just say that? :confused: :whistle:


So would you also ban pos rep love-fests - when a group of people all seem to pos rep each other constantly?
Well, obviously I wouldn't want to promote good feeling, I mean, I'm not crazy, next thing you know we'll all be hugging each other or something...

Seriously, if people want to do that, what's wrong with that? It's a positive expression of appreciation; if it's regular, why's that a problem?

[Double Trouble]

So would you also ban pos rep love-fests - when a group of people all seem to pos rep each other constantly?

You can't do that, I believe. I thought you couldn't rep the same people all the time. I might be wrong. Is that right DJ?

[Feelingpink]

Yeah, that's what I mean when I say "neg-repping creates bad feeling"

Hold on, didn't I just say that? :confused: :whistle:Quite. Wouldn't be steering the thread, would we DJ? :whistle:

[Feelingpink]

...

Seriously, if people want to do that (pos rep rests), what's wrong with that? It's a positive expression of appreciation; if it's regular, why's that a problem?So if you believe this is okay, then why not neg rep? I just don't see the difference? I mean, what about all the people who don't get positive rep very often ... don't they feel bad because they're missing out? Jealous? Suicidal? Outside the clique?

[Lee Bartholomew]

As you say, You can give people money but you can't steal it.

[David Bailey]

You can't do that, I believe. I thought you couldn't rep the same people all the time. I might be wrong. Is that right DJ?
You have to leave a gap. it's true, so there are some restrictions on that sort of thing. "Love-bombing", harumph, disgusting :whistle:

[David Bailey]

So if you believe this is okay, then why not neg rep?
Err, because positive feeling is, well, better than negative feeling?


I just don't see the difference? I mean, what about all the people who don't get positive rep very often ... don't they feel bad because they're missing out? Jealous? Suicidal? Outside the clique?
Well, I'm famous for being Mr Social, it hasn't hurt me too much, so I doubt there's too much negative feeling from not having enough points of rep or whatever.

Certainly I've not seen many people whinge about it, whereas I regularly see people complaining about being negative repped, all the flippin' time it seems... Perception is important, in other words.

Oh, and I've been neg-repped, and I usually did deserve it. So there.

[Feelingpink]

As you say, You can give people money but you can't steal it.But if you're 'bad', you can be fined (if you want to stick with the money analogy).

[Lee Bartholomew]

I also think it might put some people off from posting if they feel their comments will be taken out of line/context or not agreed with.

[Lee Bartholomew]

But if you're 'bad', you can be fined (if you want to stick with the money analogy).

Yeah but if you had the ability to stop people stealing, you would.

[Feelingpink]

I also think it might put some people off from posting if they feel their comments will be taken out of line/context or not agreed with.That's an issue with any forum & nothing to do with repping.

[Lee Bartholomew]

That's an issue with any forum & nothing to do with repping.

of course it has.:confused:

People wouldn't worry about getting neg-repped if they can't get neg-repped.

[Gav]

Do you worry about getting neg repped?

[David Bailey]

But if you're 'bad', you can be fined (if you want to stick with the money analogy).
Which is why we have infractions - they're the "fines" in that analogy, as administered by duly-appointed authority figures (I know, I know, I'm trying to keep a straight face too).

But generally, you can't be fined by another member of the public.

[Double Trouble]

Do you worry about getting neg repped?

It's not the point of whether it worries you or not. It's like giving a child a water pistol, you can't trust them not to use it imappropriately.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Do you worry about getting neg repped?

Me? no. But I think others do. Some people take things the wrong way and if people don't have a sense of humor or can't be bothered to read a thread or post properly, then that is their problem, not mine.

I like to think that people appricate +rep and I do freely give it out for things I think worthy. have only ever given 2 neg reps and one of them was accidental.

[Shodan]

Coming from three other forums before using this one, I'd never encountered this "repping" procedure as they dont use it.

We normally post up in the thread and add to the topic, but if we really disagree / don't understand a post someone made then we PM each other and sort it out in a friendly way.

Now I see this positive repping as a nice thing, as its always nice to get compliments. But negative repping as mentioned can be a little disheartening, especially if you really can't make out why someone has negative repped you. :confused:

Negative repping IMHO should only be reserved for when someone has been really bad - like if I came on the forum and directly insulted them or something.

At the moment both positive and negative repping is a little too easy to do - you can compliment someone or slag em off quickly with the touch of a button. So in the end the status of a "high reputation" doesn't really mean much.

Just my 2p worth. :nice:

[straycat]

Do you worry about getting neg repped?

Aside from the fact that it makes you an instant social pariah, destroys your credit rating for the rest of your life, ensures that no-one will ever dance with you again, creates a huge rift between oneself and one's spouse, alienates any kiddies you might have, causes you to be named and shamed on the Nine-o-Clock News, incites nasty parodies of you from Rory Bremner, Julian Cleary and Kermit, encourages every single pigeon for a six hundred mile radius to come and redecorate your car, causes immediate premature baldness, and a couple of other things too extreme to mention...

Why would anyone fear getting negrepped? :confused:

[Shodan]

Do you worry about getting neg repped?
I do. As a softie it cuts me to think I've hacked off someone enough to neg rep me.*

* Unless of course I've meant it, but in that case you'd receive that notification in a PM, not in a public post.

[David Bailey]

Negative repping IMHO should only be reserved for when someone has been really bad - like if I came on the forum and directly insulted them or something.
Under those circumstances, I'd expect a post to be reported, rather than a neg-rep to be applied.


At the moment both positive and negative repping is a little too easy to do - you can compliment someone or slag em off quickly with the touch of a button. So in the end the status of a "high reputation" doesn't really mean much.
:eek: :what: :sad: :tears:

[David Franklin]

So, I guess what I'm asking is: what purpose do neg-reps serve, that's not covered by either open debate / complaint, or by reporting a post?Simply put, they are an "out-of-band" communication that allows you to tell a poster that you disapprove of their actions, without derailing the actual thread. Because once you start arguing about "who misquoted who?", or "whether X made an aggressive post?", the chances are the original discussion will be lost in the backwash. Note that disapproval doesn't necessarily mean they are breaking forum rules, which is why one might neg rep someone without reporting them.

Like you, I've had a few negative reps. I think I've only had one I actually disagreed with. In general I've found them useful feedback.

[Feelingpink]

Which is why we have infractions - they're the "fines" in that analogy, as administered by duly-appointed authority figures (I know, I know, I'm trying to keep a straight face too).And neg rep is another way of feeding back if you don't think someone is behaving well.


But generally, you can't be fined by another member of the public.So let me get this straight - all over the forum, there are tearful, fearful members quaking in their boots and about to slash their wrists because there's a possibility that someone might neg rep them? So they can handle positive rep but not negative? If you are going to ban negative rep, then by all means, ban the lot and let's continue on our happy, protected lives, living in loving harmony (FP puts fingers in ears and sings "la la la la la" loudly so she cannot hear anything that could upset her).

[Lee Bartholomew]

9/10 they are just usless comments by people who have had a bad day. I got one because of a 'bad joke', got a + rep for the same joke too?

[David Bailey]

So let me get this straight - all over the forum, there are tearful, fearful members quaking in their boots and about to slash their wrists because there's a possibility that someone might neg rep them?
Clearly they upset some people, otherwise there wouldn't be so many complaints about them all over the place. Which also kind of defeats the "behind-the-scenes" case David Franklin makes, to my mind, because people post "I've got a negative rep and I don't like it" topics.


So they can handle positive rep but not negative?
Strangely, most people handle compliments better than insults. Funny that.


If you are going to ban negative rep, then by all means, ban the lot and let's continue on our happy, protected lives, living in loving harmony (FP puts fingers in ears and sings "la la la la la" loudly so she cannot hear anything that could upset her).
BOO!

[Lee Bartholomew]

BOO!


:eek:

Get rid of neg repping I what I say. (not that that counts for anything!)

[David Franklin]

Clearly they upset some people, otherwise there wouldn't be so many complaints about them all over the place. Which also kind of defeats the "behind-the-scenes" case David Franklin makes, to my mind, because people post "I've got a negative rep and I don't like it" topics.Well, if "kind of defeats" means "makes a vague shambling swipe and misses", then maybe. Judging from the (rare) -ve reps I've given out, the vast majority of people won't make a public fuss about it. Even when they do, it is very unusual for it to go on for more than a few posts. Whereas doing it upfront, by definition, always involves making a public issue of things, and it frequently ends up completely taking over the thread (and taking it outside).

[Lee Bartholomew]

Well, if "kind of defeats" means "makes a vague shambling swipe and misses", then maybe. Judging from the (rare) -ve reps I've given out, the vast majority of people won't make a public fuss about it. Even when they do, it is very unusual for it to go on for more than a few posts. Whereas doing it upfront, by definition, always involves making a public issue of things, and it frequently ends up completely taking over the thread (and taking it outside).

Then they should use the PM function and that wont happen.

Anyway, some of the best threads are outside. :-p

[Dreadful Scathe]

It's annoying that anyone can neg rep you,

Why are you annoyed, it should be funny. Thats the way it works, anyone can vote :) To give you a new perspective - Ive just neg repped you because your profile picture is "too cute" :)


It's like you are not allowed an opinion that conflicts with someone else's, unless you expect to get neg rep for it.

Its not like that at all, unles you want it to be! And if you do get neg rep for an opinion it does tell you something about your opinion. Ive never had neg rep without receiving 10 times more positive rep. Except for "HarperRep"tm as he picks up on actual content rather than being reactionary as most people are ;)


.DJ is right, it just causes bad feeling and I've recieved another infraction because I stuck up for myself when I got some rep from harper, which was just him being petty.


You may think he's petty but he clearly ses the rep system differently and uses it quite effectively, you can either join in and use the rep system as YOU see fit - or ignore it all together. Unlike some sites, rep points here do not affect your posts or whether people can see your posts. It really is a system you can completely ignore if you dont like it.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Can we enable other people to see reps (I know it doesn;t happen at mo).

I think if it was to be used, should be more of an ebay feedback feture, where it should be used as last resort.

[David Franklin]

Then they should use the PM function and that wont happen.This is a somewhat valid argument (although it was not one of the alternatives listed by DavidJames). However, I think we'll just get people complaining about people sending them negative PM's instead... Or people will just ignore such messages, so people will post their comments to the thread where they can't be ignored.


It's like you are not allowed an opinion that conflicts with someone else's, unless you expect to get neg rep for it.I don't think I've ever been given -ve rep simply for disagreeing with someone.

[Gav]

Can we enable other people to see reps (I know it doesn;t happen at mo).

I think if it was to be used, should be more of an ebay feedback feture, where it should be used as last resort.

That's probably the most sensible suggestion yet, as long as all previously given rep comments are secret. Not that I would've said anything that I wouldn't want to become public :blush:

[Dreadful Scathe]

I know, I'm trying to keep a straight face too).


Have you considered surgery ?


Then they should use the PM function and that wont happen.

Rep is a good enough way to make your feelings known. A PM to someone you don't know to continue a conversation from a thread is much more innapropriate - in my opinion of course. :)

[Lee Bartholomew]

I don't think I've ever been given -ve rep simply for disagreeing with someone.


I have :rolleyes:

[MartinHarper]

What purpose do neg-reps serve, that's not covered by either open debate / complaint, or by reporting a post?

The ability to quickly and conveniently send (and receive) private feedback that will be unarchived. For example, I recently received a rep comment stating that I was being "a bit of a twat" on a thread. That allowed me rethink my attitude to the discussion and change tack. The commentator might not have been motivated to pass on the same comment had s/he had to go to the bother of sending a PM on the subject.
So yes, it is useful.

The vast majority of forumites react in a mature and considered fashion upon receiving negative rep, and for them the system works well and doesn't need changing. Sadly, a few forumites react to negative rep by throwing their toys out of the pram. The worst case I can recall involved sending four pieces of hatemail in response to a single polite neg rep.
One solution would be a new option allowing the few people mentioned above to opt-out of receiving negative rep.

[Double Trouble]

I have :rolleyes:

Me too:mad:

[Lee Bartholomew]

{snip}

Another solution is for people not to use it just because they can :rolleyes:

[TheTramp]

It's annoying that anyone can neg rep you

Why? They obviously think that you deserve it...


it just causes bad feeling

Hmmm. So, if you've brought someone to the point that they feel they want to send you negative rep (which is just a disagreement with what you've posted), you'd prefer to see their disagreements publicly stating why they think you shouldn't have said that? Personally, I think that I'd prefer most of them privately, so that I can think about them, decide whether or not I agree with them, and maybe do things differently in future. After all, it's just a bit of private neg rep. It's not like the world is going to end or anything (I think I should cut and paste that, I might be saying it a lot in catching up with what I think of this thread).


Also had a few saying that the pointers I give are bad etc. How can me stating what I do to achive something be a bad pointer (most people here know what im talking about).

Because, while it works for you, it might actually be bad technique (say, hypothetically, for example, if you gave out bad advice on spinning which might hold other people back).


So would you also ban pos rep love-fests - when a group of people all seem to pos rep each other constantly?

No. I'd just privately laugh at them.


As you say, You can give people money but you can't steal it.

Ummm. Actually, you can. It's wrong (unless you're the Government!). But you can do it.


I also think it might put some people off from posting if they feel their comments will be taken out of line/context or not agreed with.

What? "I won't post in case someone disagrees with me" (whether it be publicly in the thread, or privately by neg rep!). Presumably, they don't ever talk to anyone else, just in case everything they say isn't agreed with either.


Me? no. But I think others do. Some people take things the wrong way and if people don't have a sense of humor or can't be bothered to read a thread or post properly, then that is their problem, not mine.

I like to think that people appricate +rep and I do freely give it out for things I think worthy. have only ever given 2 neg reps and one of them was accidental.

If it doesn't worry you, why do you keep going on, and on, and on about it then? I neg rep people from time to time. It's nothing personal. And I still like (some of) them face-to-face. Just when I've disagreed with something they've said, and not wanted to carry on a public thing about it. But still want to let them know what I think. Other people have neg-repped me for pretty much the same thing. So what?

Oh, and I've given out accidental rep too. But in my case, I gave out positive rep when it was supposed to be negative.


So in the end the status of a "high reputation" doesn't really mean much.

Of course it doesn't. And I don't really see what the problem is. :flower:


Under those circumstances, I'd expect a post to be reported, rather than a neg-rep to be applied.

Or both maybe?


Like you, I've had a few negative reps. In general I've found them useful feedback.

Absolutely!


Strangely, most people handle compliments better than insults. Funny that.

Of course. Except for the mature people! :rolleyes:


Get rid of neg repping I what I say. (not that that counts for anything!)

But it doesn't bother you. You said so. And you're right. You don't count for anything! :whistle:


Personally. I don't have a problem with neg rep. When I get it, I try to work out why someone has had such an issue with what I've said that they want to leave me neg rep. And a few times, I've agreed with it, and wished that I hadn't said what I did.

The rep system isn't actually worth anything. And if anyone wants my rep points, they can have them. Positive rep is nice to get. Negative rep isn't so nice, but maybe it's deserved*. Either way, who cares really? You'll probably survive It's not like the world is going to end.... :flower:




*For example, I think I'm going to start neg-repping anyone who starts a new thread with any of the words 'sex', 'upstairs', 'balcony' or similar in the title... :flower:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Are you for neg repping DS? http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10683&highlight=tag+team :rolleyes:
i thought it was very funny :) and i got to say only "cowards and imbeciles" neg rep, which having given neg rep, includes me. No one laughed though. As usual :)

[Lee Bartholomew]

{snip} :rolleyes:

So if I neg rep'd you now and just put, I don't agree, you'd be ok with that and not slightly miffed?

[TheTramp]

So if I neg rep'd you now and just put, I don't agree, you'd be ok with that and not slightly miffed?

I wouldn't be at all miffed. I might think that you're even sadder than I already do. But don't worry. You can't go down much in my estimation! :flower:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Can you neg rep twice if a person has posted the same thing you disagree with twice?:nice:

[LMC]

After post 17 I started losing the will to live, so I've gone straight to "Reply".

Are we all adults or what? "S/he neg repped me so I'm gonna neg rep him/her". Big fat hairy deal. Grow up.

Looking at my "place" in the ratings compared with some people whose knowledge and experience of dancing WAY exceeds mine (and this is a dance forum) brings me to the conclusion that the whole system is just pretty pointless and non-representative, frankly.

The comments are useful, and very much appreciated when they are nice - they can really cheer you up. I rarely get nasty comments and they are always from people who probably care as much what I think as I care what they think - after all, you can't get less than zero.

Zapping across a rep comment is far quicker than sending a PM, especially if you just want to send a few words or a smiley. But I would really love "the management" to get rid of the points system. Can we keep the comment facility but ditch the point "assignment"?

[Lee Bartholomew]

{snip}

Thats a good idea. The only people who have got tonnes of rep points are the ones who have been on here since the dawn of the fourm anyhow.

It's not representative of what you dance like or if your posts / comments / advice are worth taking note of, are they Trampy?:D

[TheTramp]

It's not representative of what you dance like or if your posts / comments / advice are worth taking note of, are they Trampy?:D

I'd usually say no, not at all! But the fact that I have about 1300 points, and you have 64 does actually prove differently (in isolation from the rest of people's scores of course!) :flower:

[MartinHarper]

Can you neg rep twice if a person has posted the same thing you disagree with twice?:nice:

Physically you can, provided it's a different post, and you satisfy the various criteria about "spreading it around". I'd recommend against it, though.

[David Franklin]

Thats a good idea. The only people who have got tonnes of rep points are the ones who have been on here since the dawn of the fourm anyhow.Actually, it's only about 2 years since everyone's rep was reset (and 2 years before that, there was no rep system at all), so there's no particular advantage in being here "forever". Trampy's rep score probably corresponds only to the last 15% or so of his posts.

What is far more accurate to say is that the only people with tonnes of rep points are the ones who've made tonnes of posts.

Of course it would be very wrong to draw conclusions about those who've made tonnes of posts and have gained very little rep for them... :whistle:

[Lee Bartholomew]

I'd usually say no, not at all! But the fact that I have about 1300 points, and you have 64 does actually prove differently (in isolation from the rest of people's scores of course!) :flower:

You know what Trampy I actually agree with you.

Having done some quick calculations you have averaged 1.12 rep points per day and I have averaged 2.06 rep points per day.

:rofl::flower:

[TheTramp]

Actually, it's only about 2 years since everyone's rep was reset (and 2 years before that, there was no rep system at all)

Hmmm. I don't think the rep system was around that long ago David.

I've been here just over 4 years now. And I reckon I'd been here over 2 before the rep system started. My recollection is that it was probably around the summer of 2004. But I'm probably wrong :wink:

[Lee Bartholomew]

How much you post should have nothing to do with it either. I do post alot but as far as im aware (and to Trampys dismay), there are no caps on how much you can post.

Think people should be able to see other people rep comments. Anyone agree with that?

[LMC]

Perhaps a fairer measure would be rep/post ratio.

Even if I'm lazy and count Tramp's from the beginning of all his posts - at least half of which must have been made *before* the rep reset if my reckoning is correct? - then Trampy's ratio:

1302/9316 = 1:7 (i.e. 1 rep for every 7 posts) - nearer 1:3 in my estimation if I counted 'fairly', i.e. from all Tramp's posts since the rep system introduced.

Woodface's ratio:

904/64 = 1:14

Case closed.

[TheTramp]

You know what Trampy I actually agree with you.

Having done some quick calculations you have averaged 1.12 rep points per day and I have averaged 2.06 rep points per day.

:rofl::flower:

It's such a shame that the figures you use for your calculations are completely wrong though isn't it. And you use worthless comparison figures anyway - who cares about number of days. It'd be number of posts which counted (if anything did!).

So, even if the rep system had been here since when I started (which it wasn't), and even if I had been capable of getting rep points for all of the posts I've made (which I haven't), I'd still be averaging 0.14 rep points per post. You on the other hand have been capable of getting rep points for all of the posts you've made. And you average 0.07 points per post.

You really, really should learn to just shut up some times :flower:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Then i post alot in non-discussion threads like the next word on ones etc.

That and in response to people who argue for the hell of it.

[TheTramp]

How much you post should have nothing to do with it either. I do post alot but as far as im aware (and to Trampys dismay), there are no caps on how much you can post.

Anyone want to start a poll on this? :flower:

[LMC]

Get thee behind me Satan

(oh, and :respect: )

[Lee Bartholomew]

My point exactly about the rep's

theres always some Billy Big Chips who has a diffrent opinion than the next person along, therefore, the rep system gets used in diffrent ways.:flower:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Thats a good idea. The only people who have got tonnes of rep points are the ones who have been on here since the dawn of the fourm anyhow.

Not true - the rep system has been reset and/or changed several times. The people who post a lot are more likely to get rep, its a simple numbers game. Take DavidJames for example, you don't think he has all that rep on MERIT do you :rolleyes:

[David Franklin]

I've been here just over 4 years now. And I reckon I'd been here over 2 before the rep system started. My recollection is that it was probably around the summer of 2004. But I'm probably wrong :wink:Nah, you're probably right. I was purposefully estimating on the "long side" because I didn't want to be overstating the case.

... sound of Google whirring...

Seems the rep system was introduced in about June 2004 and the reset was somewhere in Nov 2004.

So Trampy has about 1290 / 700 = 1.843 earned(*) reps / day.
Woodface has 54 / 31 = 1.742 earned reps / day.

So even on that measure, Trampy wins.

(*) Earned reps as you start with 10 just for joining the forum.


there are no caps on how much you can post.

OK, Moderator James - how much would it take...? :whistle:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Not true - the rep system has been reset and/or changed several times. The people who post a lot are more likely to get rep, its a simple numbers game. Take DavidJames for example, you don't think he has all that rep on MERIT do you :rolleyes:

As has been mentioned 3 times now. :nice:

[LMC]

OK, Moderator James - how much would it take...? :whistle:
More rep power than you got big boy :devil:

[David Franklin]

More rep power than you got big boy :devil:You know what they say:


Many hands make cap work...

[Lee Bartholomew]

And there was me just about to start one saying Does it make you a better spinner if you have sex upstairs or on the Balcany. :rofl:

[Dreadful Scathe]

As has been mentioned 3 times now. :nice:
yeah I missed the last page and didnt notice - still a point worth making is worth doing to death :)

you really should neg rep me for that though ;)

[Paulthetrainer]

For what its worth I think its good that you can privately show your appreciation for somebody's post in the form of a positive rep. Obviously there are other ways of doing this, like PM's, but this way works and its quick and easy.

However, I do not think that negative reps are a good idea whatsoever though. I would never negative rep anybody because I think all it does it discourages people to post, and therefore voice their opinion. Some people would be fine about it sure, and such people have come on here and said just that. Fair play to them for not being too sensitive about it, but I wonder if there are people who no longer post on the forum because they took their neg rep to heart? If there are, then they're not going to be around to voice their dissatisfaction at the system, since they already voted with their feet, we just don't know why.

I don't think that just because you have a positive rep system, that you ought to have the opposite. It's said that children who misbehave should not get the same amount of attention for bad behaviour as they do for good behaviour. I don't think that its too different for adults. Here we have moderators who will hopefully sort out anything thats truly out of order, like rude and insulting behaviour for example. Beyond that anything else is subjective anyway, like disagreeing with somebody elses opinion. This is a forum ("a meeting place..........for the discussion of questions of public interest") after all, and its very nature is such that it allows disagreements, and fortunately agreements, to flourish in equal measure.

A 2p piece clinks onto the floor and Paul leaves the room.

Paul

[Dreadful Scathe]

er...you dropped something

i totally disagree. :) well actually, i dont. You made some good points, I mainly disagree with your conclusion.

Yes, a forum is a meeting place, is for discussions etc...but rep doesnt change that. If a person cannot fully articulate why they dislike a post they can still let someone know with a neg rep and not have to face a public humiliation from that person berating a negative comment. Before we had rep, that seemed to happen a lot more.

Lots of negative rep is a sign that people disagree with you - but some people dont like to be told that and would rather "win" by shouting back in public. So really the neg rep option is a boon to the "little guy" and a good way of voicing opinion.

[Lee Bartholomew]

er...you dropped something

i totally disagree. :) well actually, i dont. You made some good points, I mainly disagree with your conclusion.

Yes, a forum is a meeting place, is for discussions etc...but rep doesnt change that. If a person cannot fully articulate why they dislike a post they can still let someone know with a neg rep and not have to face a public humiliation from that person berating a negative comment. Before we had rep, that seemed to happen a lot more.

Lots of negative rep is a sign that people disagree with you - but some people dont like to be told that and would rather "win" by shouting back in public. So really the neg rep option is a boon to the "little guy" and a good way of voicing opinion.


If neg rep was used appropriately and not just given out for the hell of it, then I would agree, but, as you are aware with being tag teamed, doesn't work that way.

Neg rep used to bother me when i first started using the forum but you soon get to know who will leave neg rep and who wont. As I said eairlier, Im sure there is only a small minority of people who actually give out neg rep.

[Dreadful Scathe]

If neg rep was used appropriately and not just given out for the hell of it, then I would agree, but, as you are aware with being tag teamed, doesn't work that way.

I didn't object to the rep at all, i just thought it was very funny to be "tag teamed". I am not going to complain about "why" someone would neg rep me. I don't need to know their reasons and if it seems to me that it's "just for the hell of it" I can be very sure that that is NOT the case....People don't move their mouse over to the icon and click a button "just for the hell of it" i would say, but their reason can be as illogical as they want, it's up to them.



Neg rep used to bother me when i first started using the forum but you soon get to know who will leave neg rep and who wont. As I said earlier, Im sure there is only a small minority of people who actually give out neg rep.

Indeed and their reasons may differ from others reasons. Good luck to them, its not them with the problem, its people complaining about a little red dot that need therapy ;)

[David Bailey]

Blimey, I leave a thread alone for 2 hours and it goes beserk :eek:


One solution would be a new option allowing the few people mentioned above to opt-out of receiving negative rep.
Interesting... I guess they'd have to opt out of the rep system entirely in that case to be consistent? Would people be interested in a "rep-free" membership?


Not true - the rep system has been reset and/or changed several times. The people who post a lot are more likely to get rep, its a simple numbers game. Take DavidJames for example, you don't think he has all that rep on MERIT do you :rolleyes:
Hell no, I got most of it by blatantly cheating and re-writing history once I became moderator. Obviously. Duh.

(Actually, no-one seems to rep moderators much, I'm sure the others will back me up on that :tears: )

Re: limits on post numbers:

OK, Moderator James - how much would it take...? :whistle:
Hah, I'm still waiting for the rest of my flippin' bribe from Trampy... :rolleyes:

Actually, I was wondering whether it'd be a good idea to have some sort of posting limit on non-registered members (say, 100 posts / month), but I dunno whether that'd encourage registered membership (a Good Thing) or discourage people from posting at all (a Bad Thing). Different discussion of course...

[Lee Bartholomew]

I didn't object to the rep at all, i just thought it was very funny to be "tag teamed". I am not going to complain about "why" someone would neg rep me. I don't need to know their reasons and if it seems to me that it's "just for the hell of it" I can be very sure that that is NOT the case....People don't move their mouse over to the icon and click a button "just for the hell of it" i would say, but their reason can be as illogical as they want, it's up to them.



Indeed and their reasons may differ from others reasons. Good luck to them, its not them with the problem, its people complaining about a little red dot that need therapy ;)

my point wasn't if it bothered you or not, it was more to the point that they both done it and as you said "one's done it do the other has" or something along them lines.

If people want to complain about it then thats also up to them. Just like if people want to just 'argue' then they do.

I think there are people more heavy handed with neg reps than others. I would assume you are one of them but hey, if everyone was the same, the world would be a boring place.:nice:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Actually, I was wondering whether it'd be a good idea to have some sort of posting limit on non-registered members (say, 100 posts / month), but I dunno whether that'd encourage registered membership (a Good Thing) or discourage people from posting at all (a Bad Thing). Different discussion of course...

Prob a bad thing. Most heavy posters will register anyhow. Im waiting for my new debit card before signing up to pay pal (unless there is another way)

[David Bailey]

Prob a bad thing. Most heavy posters will register anyhow. Im waiting for my new debit card before signing up to pay pal (unless there is another way)
As I've said about 4 times now, Franck does take cheques, just PM him.

Blimey, I should be on commission...

[Feelingpink]

My point exactly about the rep's

theres always some Billy Big Chips who has a diffrent opinion than the next person along, therefore, the rep system gets used in diffrent ways.:flower:What exactly does this mean? :what: At least you could have the decency to admit when you've been proved wrong on proportional rep. Thought: perhaps when you're on more than 30 "ignore" lists, your posts would just turn invisible to all? :devil:







(Adds another to ignore list).

[Dreadful Scathe]

If people want to complain about it then thats also up to them. Just like if people want to just 'argue' then they do.

exactly :)


I think there are people more heavy handed with neg reps than others. I would assume you are one of them but hey, if everyone was the same, the world would be a boring place.:nice:

Why such an assumption ? I rarely give negative rep. Ive probably given it less than 10 times in total ever, but i don't mind when i get some.

[Lee Bartholomew]

What exactly does this mean? :what: At least you could have the decency to admit when you've been proved wrong on proportional rep. Thought: perhaps when you're on more than 30 "ignore" lists, your posts would just turn invisible to all? :devil:







(Adds another to ignore list).

Yes i was wrong on that as was not aware that it had been reset etc.

If you want to put me on Ignore then im not going to complain, If you can't hear me, I wont hear responses from you :devil:

I have put my opinion across. So have others. If you feel that the only way to put your opinion across is to make personal comments then that is a bit sad. :what::flower:


exactly :)



Why such an assumption ? I rarely give negative rep. Ive probably given it less than 10 times in total ever, but i don't mind when i get some.

I don't know, just made that assumtion. Maybe im wrong. Just in the way you are defending Neg Reps.

I know someone who got her first neg rep along with a comment saying something like 'what the hell do you know about dancing'. She was pretty upset by that as quite a few people would.

Have said all along, it doesn't bother me, but there are others it does bother.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I have put my opinion across. So have others. There you go.

Yup, so let's just stop gabbing on about it! It's completely pointless, and it's getting us nowhere! ;)

[Paulthetrainer]

er...you dropped something

i totally disagree. :) well actually, i dont. You made some good points, I mainly disagree with your conclusion.

Yes, a forum is a meeting place, is for discussions etc...but rep doesnt change that. If a person cannot fully articulate why they dislike a post they can still let someone know with a neg rep and not have to face a public humiliation from that person berating a negative comment. Before we had rep, that seemed to happen a lot more.

Lots of negative rep is a sign that people disagree with you - but some people dont like to be told that and would rather "win" by shouting back in public. So really the neg rep option is a boon to the "little guy" and a good way of voicing opinion.

I don't know what the forum was like before the neg rep thing was introduced, although maybe the moderators are better/more experienced now?

I see your point about the neg rep being the voice of the 'little guy', or maybe the person who is less articulate (or maybe doesn't have the time to write in full?) but nonetheless still has a voice and wants to use it.

Given that we can't please all of the people all of the time, I guess it comes down to a choice between pleasing the "little guy/inarticulate/shy/time challenged" person, or pleasing the "people who might be too scared to post for fear of getting another neg rep".

Assuming that democracy rules, how do we know how many there are of each type, especially given that many of the latter might have already cleared off and are not there to be counted? A poll might therefore be misleading.

paul

[David Bailey]

OK, there seems to be a bit of a pattern emerging here.

Most of the people defending the -ve rep system are more long-standing members, and most of the ones attacking it are newer members. It's an extremely small sample of course, but would it be reasonable to assume that negative rep comments are seen more, well, negatively, by newer members?

(And no, that doesn't make the more established members better, but it may mean that they're more used to the system)

If so, maybe the answer is to explain the neg rep system better?

Or is this a wrong assumption? Would any long-standing members like to attack the -ve rep system? Would any newbies like to defend it?

(I'm on the fence BTW :) )

Also, a couple of points which I'd recommend to people:
1. Sign your comments
If you give a negative rep, I'd strongly recommend you double-check that the comment is attributed. -ve reps seem to be particularly annoying / hurtful to people if the recipients don't know who's sent them. If you're not willing to attribute the comment, perhaps you shouldn't be sending it in the first place.

2. Don't complain
It's not nice seeing all these comments about who -ve repped whom; it comes across as holding a grudge or as whining a lot of the time. For the love of Pete, people, they're only numbers, OK? As I've said many times before, I'd happily reset the whole lot, personally.

[Lee Bartholomew]

But do you think there should be a guidline in place for their useage. Im all for it if used properly. Is it worth putting in a link so people can see others rep comments?

[David Bailey]

But do you think there should be a guidline in place for their useage.
What, like an FAQ or something (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/faq.php?faq=csf_howdoi#faq_csf_howdopower)?

Boy, there's a good idea. Good thing someone spent hours working on that one, isn't it. :rolleyes:

[Dreadful Scathe]

(And no, that doesn't make the more established members better

yes it does :)


. If you're not willing to attribute the comment, perhaps you shouldn't be sending it in the first place.

What if you consider the person you're repping a "bully" and don't want to. Just WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ;)


As I've said many times before, I'd happily reset the whole lot, personally.

I think you should, its been a while since the last reset. :)

[Lee Bartholomew]

What, like an FAQ or something (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/faq.php?faq=csf_howdoi#faq_csf_howdopower)?

Boy, there's a good idea. Good thing someone spent hours working on that one, isn't it. :rolleyes:

You mean theres a FAQ??? lol

What I mean is err, Using ebay as an exapmle, people will / should only leave bad feedback if warrented. Having said that, it's prob how the rep system was ment to have started anyhow?

What about being able to view others rep comments?

[Lee Bartholomew]

I love being lectured on inappropriate use of negative rep by the only person to have been given an infraction for inappropriate use of negative rep.


Who was that?

[David Bailey]

What if you consider the person you're repping a "bully" and don't want to. Just WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ;)
A leaf on the wind, basically.

As for rep resetting:

I think you should, its been a while since the last reset. :)
I wish I could - for some unaccountable reason, "editing rep values" has been left out of my Moderator Bag Of Tricks. Can't imagine why... whistle:

[MartinHarper]

-ve reps seem to be particularly annoying / hurtful to people if the recipients don't know who's sent them.

"Waaaahhhh! I can't shoot the messenger! Waaaahhhh!"

I may be paraphrasing slightly.


Using ebay as an exapmle, people will / should only leave bad feedback if warrented.

All my bad feedback has been warranted: that is, I only click the "I disapprove" button when, uh, I disapprove. Also, I only click the "I approve" button when I approve.

Exceptions:
1. Giving DavidJames a little red square for mis-spelling "best" (in the phrase "worst (sic) case I end up like MartinHarper").
2. Giving Lou a little red square for wildly inappropriate language (the word B*lgium).
3. Trying (and failing) to get on someone's list of top ten worst dancers.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Using ebay as an exapmle, people will / should only leave bad feedback if warrented.

But they dont do that on ebay consistently either. I think neutral feedback should be left on ebay if the transaction went smoothly - positive and negative should be left for particularly good or bad transactions - most don't agree with me. Also, if I seller does not leave any feedback after i've promptly paid, I'm not going to leave any for them either. Some seem to wait until you give THEM good feedback first. And on ebay far too many people automatically return the same negative feedback regardless of whether it was justified or not causing people to put in fake feedback and make the entire system an utter sham ;)



What about being able to view others rep comments?

if people could still see who left them then the amount of rep would plummet i imagine :)

[Lee Bartholomew]

{snip}


if people could still see who left them then the amount of rep would plummet i imagine :)

Exactly, :clap::clap::clap::clap: and would only be left if the person leaving it, really felt it was justified.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Exactly, :clap::clap::clap::clap: and would only be left if the person leaving it, really felt it was justified.

but the shy people, who otherwise would have let someone know how they felt without everyone else knowing, wont leave it at all.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Unless they don't sign it :nice:.

[David Bailey]

"Waaaahhhh! I can't shoot the messenger! Waaaahhhh!"

I may be paraphrasing slightly.
No, really?

Seriously, the anonymity aspect of -ve reps is discriminatory (to non-registered members) and just generally feels a bit ... icky ... to me.

(I know, I know, but that's a technical term us Moderators use. :) )

Why not sign negative reps?


Exceptions:
1. Giving DavidJames a little red square for mis-spelling "best" (in the phrase "worst (sic) case I end up like MartinHarper").
Hell, I'd forgotten that one. Grrrrr....

Oh, and if you lot keep going on about this silly single neg-rep instance, I'll create a "bicker" thread just for you to play in. I get enough of listening to "family feuds" listening to my relatives at Christmas, thank you very much.

And that also includes discussion of infractions, I've had about enough of listening to those too. See Rule 2.

[LMC]

Why not sign negative reps?
Cos I forget that not everyone can see who they are from :blush: - I don't always sign +ve reps either!

[David Franklin]

OK, there seems to be a bit of a pattern emerging here.

Most of the people defending the -ve rep system are more long-standing members, and most of the ones attacking it are newer members. It's an extremely small sample of course, but would it be reasonable to assume that negative rep comments are seen more, well, negatively, by newer members? OK, as Gus isn't here, let me be Devil's advocate here:

Most of the people defending the -ve rep system are people who have shown themselves to be valuable members of this forum, and most of the ones attacking it, haven't (IMHO). It's an extremely small sample of course, but would it be reasonable to assume that negative rep comments are seen more, well, negatively, by people whose posts receive more of them?

I'd estimate that for every post I give negative rep for, there are at least 20 posts where I think the poster is an idiot, or offensive, but not so far over the line that I would neg-rep them. I also give at least 10 times as much +ve rep as -ve. So if the people complaining have stacked up as much -ve rep, (and so little positive rep), I have to wonder what the reason is.

I don't take the system terribly seriously, but someone makes 900 posts and gets so little rep for it, it does give an inkling as to how their posts are received.


What about being able to view others rep comments?The people thinking "Hey, no-one would neg-rep me if they had to do it publicly" might want to reflect upon that 20:1 ratio I mentioned. For example (and I hope this isn't seen as a personal attack given your wish for people to be 'public'), there are several of your posts where although I wouldn't neg-rep you myself, I would certainly defend anyone else who did so.

[Lee Bartholomew]

OK, as Gus isn't here, let me be Devil's advocate here:

Most of the people defending the -ve rep system are people who have shown themselves to be valuable members of this forum, and most of the ones attacking it, haven't (IMHO). It's an extremely small sample of course, but would it be reasonable to assume that negative rep comments are seen more, well, negatively, by people whose posts receive more of them?

I'd estimate that for every post I give negative rep for, there are at least 20 posts where I think the poster is an idiot, or offensive, but not so far over the line that I would neg-rep them. I also give at least 10 times as much +ve rep as -ve. So if the people complaining have stacked up as much -ve rep, (and so little positive rep), I have to wonder what the reason is.

I don't take the system terribly seriously, but someone makes 900 posts and gets so little rep for it, it does give an inkling as to how their posts are received.

The people thinking "Hey, no-one would neg-rep me if they had to do it publicly" might want to reflect upon that 20:1 ratio I mentioned. For example (and I hope this isn't seen as a personal attack given your wish for people to be 'public'), there are several of your posts where although I wouldn't neg-rep you myself, I would certainly defend anyone else who did so.

All Im saying is That there is possibly a better system. What your saying about my posts is fine because that is your opinion. i have received two neg reps. Was a little upset by the first one but now they don't bother me.

I think my posts do annoy a certain few because I like to try and stick up for people and because if I feel something is wrong, i will say so. Also people don't seem to have the ability to read my posts properly :angry:

To get over the "Hey, no-one would neg-rep me if they had to do it publicly" thing, I said that it would not show up if you viewed someone elses reps and the repper didn't sign it!!!

[Gav]

Or is this a wrong assumption? Would any long-standing members like to attack the -ve rep system? Would any newbies like to defend it?



Most of the people defending the -ve rep system are people who have shown themselves to be valuable members of this forum, and most of the ones attacking it, haven't (IMHO).

I'm a newbie and I think the rep system is fine as it is. The problem is with the people that take it too seriously.

[David Franklin]

To get over the "Hey, no-one would neg-rep me if they had to do it publicly" thing, I said that it would not show up if you viewed someone elses reps and the repper didn't sign it!!!So you're advocating anonymous -ve reps? Not many will agree with you there, I think.


The problem is with the people that take it too seriously.In general, my opinion of people's "worth" on the forum is entirely personal, based on how I feel about their posts. Personally, I'd probably put DavidB, DavidJames and Trampy as my top 3 posters. What I do do is use the rep system to estimate how my rating differs from the general consensus. In particular, if I think a particular poster is an idiot, I find it useful to know if their rep is 20 or 2000. In the latter case, I can assume they must have some redeeming qualities (even if I can't see them). Of course, the rep/post ratio is a generally a more useful measure than the plain rep.

This analysis is, of course, somewhat dubious, given my experience is that you get a lot more rep for a fancy picture or avatar than any amount of dance discussion. (Though maybe that should be a hint to me about my dance expertise...)

[Lee Bartholomew]

but then you have the people who have done 100 posts and have 200 odd rep. How's that worked? :what:

[LMC]

They talk far less crap than the rest of us.

[David Franklin]

but then you have the people who have done 100 posts and have 200 odd rep. How's that worked? :what:Generally they:

(a) Make very good, informative posts.
(b) Don't post to the frivolous threads, or get involved in the long arguments.

(a) is clearly to be encouraged. (b) doesn't matter so much, so it's possibly a bit "unfair" that it affects the ratio.

But in general, I've found anyone with a rep:posts ratio over 1 is worth paying attention to.

Edit: LMC said it shorter...

[Lee Bartholomew]

But what fun would the forum be then?

[LMC]

But in general, I've found anyone with a rep:posts ratio over 1 is worth paying attention to.
:yeah:

And those close to it :hug:

[Genie]

I don't know that I would wish to get rid of the rep system altogether. I have really enjoyed reading through some of the lovely comments people leave. The points don't really matter, but the comments are nice.

The negative rep system can be constructive if it is used wisely. Unfortunately it isn't always, from what I have heard. It is a shame. Because people who send neg. rep. just to say nasty things are really spoiling what could be a constructive system.

Sometimes people don't have the time to type lengthly posts, or want to waste time posting just to say "Yeah that!" or "No, rubbish!" So a quick way of sending that message to the poster is useful.

I have only recently begun signing my rep. comments - after reading in the FAQ that some people can't automatically see who sent them. I didn't know *shame* But I don't understand this need to make public who sends what rep. It is a simple way of sending a simple message. In my view, that would simply turn it into a 'name and shame' situation, where people would start neg. repping other people for neg. repping someone they happened to agree with, who neg. repped you last week, who you've just noticed has neg. repped him and therefore really needs neg. repped themselves for being so picky...

It's a simple system. I vote to just leave it as it is.

:flower:

[TheTramp]

What about being able to view others rep comments?

Most of the time these days we can see the negative rep. When people post it up to whine about receiving it! :wink:


I'm a newbie and I think the rep system is fine as it is. The problem is with the people that take it too seriously.

Well said. There had to be something you said that I agreed with eventually! Law of averages and all that! :flower:

[Caro]

Although just numbers, the rep system is obviously very important to some of us and can create just as much heated debate than any 'serious' topic. :rolleyes:

Personally as I still feel as a new-ish member of this forum, and even more a newish member of the dance community, I like to know that posts I make on a dance forum are useful - or not.

So receiving a +ve rep on a post talking about dance really gives me a sense of achieving that and makes me happy. (yeah I'm pretty simple in the end).
Now there's also all the other +ve rep for being helpful, funny, or simply to comfort you when you need it :hug: , and that's very nice too.

I've been neg-repped once, for being 'boring', well what can I say I like 'comique de repetition' and I can understand not everybody does. I did take it a little bit a heart though, since as I said I try to maintain a balance between my posts and the rep I receive for them. (although I suspect that as I know more and more people on this forum the importance I give to that will diminish with time).

I neg-repped only once, somebody who doesn't contribute to the forum at all (3 posts or so) and was just there to post a blatant advert for his stuff. That just annoyed me that day. :rolleyes:
I've been thinking of neg-repping others for comments I find very silly, but I am 'afraid' (well may be not really :rolleyes: ) that their said silliness would lead them to neg-rep me back, and as I said I like my own rep so I don't really want that. Plus they complain so much about it it must really upset them and although I do find them silly, I don't feel the need to upset them.

However I am now thinking of using the 'ignore list' (have never used that before, do you know when somebody puts you on your ignore list?) by fear that those people may actually never post anything I'll find interesting.

All this is in my own little opinion from my own little world of course and although I regret it :wink: , I accept that others might think differently and find those people funny or clever. H*ll, some people might even think their contribution on this forum is more valuable that mine :really: .

So to summarise, I don't really see anything wrong with the rep system as it is, I feel negative rep can (if well used) be a good tool to convey feedback, especially in the dance sections on the forum.

[Gav]

Well said. There had to be something you said that I agreed with eventually! Law of averages and all that! :flower:

Forget all the rep points, it's nothing next to an admission that Trampy agrees with something I've said! :na: :D :rofl:

[Lou]

Sorry - have come to this thread a bit late. Still - better late than never. (And it's a bit long... :blush: )


Personally think it's pointless.
Point - less... less points! V. funny! I geddit! :D :respect:


Quite. Wouldn't be steering the thread, would we DJ? :whistle:
DavidJames? Do that? :eek: :whistle: For example....


Which is why we have infractions - they're the "fines" in that analogy, as administered by duly-appointed authority figures (I know, I know, I'm trying to keep a straight face too).

But generally, you can't be fined by another member of the public.
Ahhh... now we get down to the truth of why DJ is bovvered by Neg reps - they're bad, because they're democratic & give Power To The People. Power which would be better invested in the NewDavidJamesDictatorship! :D


(I'm on the fence BTW :) ) :whistle:


OK, there seems to be a bit of a pattern emerging here.

Most of the people defending the -ve rep system are more long-standing members, and most of the ones attacking it are newer members.
I disagree. I think David Franklin's ODA opinion is more likely accurate. After all...


I'm a newbie and I think the rep system is fine as it is. The problem is with the people that take it too seriously.


Also, a couple of points which I'd recommend to people:
1. Sign your comments
Guilty as charged! I've just checked my list of last reps I've given. All of them were positive, btw, and none of them were signed. You know, it would be easy fro Franck to make the rep sender field visible to all members, but for some reason it's seen as a perk of Silver Membership. Why should I disagree?


But do you think there should be a guidline in place for their useage. Im all for it if used properly. Is it worth putting in a link so people can see others rep comments?
Used "properly"? What does that mean? On the very few times I've given neg rep, I'm sure I've used it properly. Like Martin says...


"All my bad feedback has been warranted: that is, I only click the "I disapprove" button when, uh, I disapprove. Also, I only click the "I approve" button when I approve. However...

2. Giving Lou a little red square for wildly inappropriate language (the word B*lgium).
And I deserved it. :blush:


What I mean is err, Using ebay as an exapmle, people will / should only leave bad feedback if warrented. Having said that, it's prob how the rep system was ment to have started anyhow?
So, how would that work? On eBay, you leave feedback when you've bought or sold something. Are you proposing we leave feedback every time we read a post? I can just see it now, as my mouse hovers over an unspecified post....

Lou thinks that this particular posting is ridiculous and does not recommend this forumite's posts to anyone.


And that also includes discussion of infractions, I've had about enough of listening to those too. See Rule 2.
Ahhh. Infractions. Mind you, does anyone else think it's odd that people seem to get more worked up about Neg Rep than they do about infractions? To me it's like they're more happy to wear their Infraction like an ASBO Badge of Honour, however they'll go on about Neg Rep like someone on the Jeremy Kyle show complaining about abusive text messages from their BabyFather's ex's new girlfriend, etc.... :rolleyes:

I don't care if we have Rep or not. However, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't be told how to use it by a vocal minority whose posts receive more Neg Rep than average.... :whistle:

[Lee Bartholomew]

I don't care if we have Rep or not. However, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't be told how to use it by a vocal minority whose posts receive more Neg Rep than average.... :whistle:

And who are they? In the 950 odd posts I have made. I've had two neg reps. One was from Andy M and the other was a Harper rep so nothing unexpected.

I think that must be a pretty good average. Was going to + rep you till that last comment.

OK. Should the Rep's be reset every year?

[David Franklin]

OK. Should the Rep's be reset every year?Software permitting, I think it would make more sense to put in a 'decay' factor. Given most of us agree that the rep/post ratio is most significant, a system where you also lost a fraction (say 0.05%) of your rep every time you posted would work quite well.

[Stuart M]

I don't care if we have Rep or not. However, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't be told how to use it by a vocal minority whose posts receive more Neg Rep than average.... :whistle:

I'm sure variants have been suggested here (haven't read everything in detail), but on some old thread I'd posited the following rule:

"Any post complaining about or even alluding to NR received should be neg-repped by as many folk as possible."

It might even be worth going further and suggesting such posts earn infractions, to make it clear such wailing is simply not the done thing.

My reasoning is, I'd thought one of the initial purposes of neg rep was to keep some of the negative stuff off the Forum. As things stand, giving NR actually puts more negative stuff on the Forum.

Of course, you might end up with people being persistently harassed by neg rep from specific sources. But that sort of bullying can be sorted privately by moderators, whereas public wailing about neg rep is in a sense a very public form of bullying ("don't NR me or I'll tell") which annoys everyone.

And another 2p piece clinks onto the floor.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Software permitting, I think it would make more sense to put in a 'decay' factor. Given most of us agree that the rep/post ratio is most significant, a system where you also lost a fraction (say 0.05%) of your rep every time you posted would work quite well.

But that would stop people posting!!!!

What about the threads like word association and what track are you listening to?

Thats where most of my posts go. My post ave is 30 a day.15 of them are in the one word posts. 10 are defending myself/someone else and the other 5 prob have a decent bit of content. Got a new project starting soon so won't have as mush time to post (everyone breaths a sigh of relief (esp Trampy))

[Dreadful Scathe]

But that would stop people posting!!!!


nah, it would stop people caring about rep though. :)

[straycat]

"Any post complaining about or even alluding to NR received should be neg-repped by as many folk as possible."


Including this one? :grin: :devil:

(couldn't resist that, sorry. My main reaction to your statement is a huge: :yeah: )

[Gav]

But that would stop people posting!!!!


Only those who give a t0ss. :na:


nah, it would stop people caring about rep though. :)

Was I supposed to care? No-one told me! :mad:

[straycat]

But that would stop people posting!!!!

In some cases, that might not be such a bad thing... :what:

[David Franklin]

But that would stop people posting!!!!Only if they obsessed about their rep score. Most people look at the rep to posts ratio now, with the assumption that someone with lots of posts and little rep must basically be posting huge amounts of drivel. It doesn't seem to noticeably affect people's behaviour.


My post ave is 30 a day.15 of them are in the one word posts. 10 are defending myself/someone else and the other 5 prob have a decent bit of content.Doing a vgrep over your last 200 posts:

200 posts ago was 7:58pm on Dec 12th. So you've made 200 posts in a 3 and a half days - roughly twice your claimed 30 a day. Of those 200 posts, I saw 9 relating to the one word threads - I might have missed a few, but not many, I think. (At least, nowhere near enough to get to the 50% of your posts that you're implying above).

[Cruella]

In the 950 odd posts I have made. I've had two neg reps. I think that must be a pretty good average.
Really? I'm on 3,222 posts and never once had neg rep.(Doesn't mean i want any either!) So to get 2 neg reps so soon after joining seems quite high to me.
I've only ever given it out once, when someone said something very personal about me i didn't want everyone to know about. I think i'd only give it to someone if they were being deliberately cruel and hurtful to somebody.

[Lory]

I think i'd only give it to someone if they were being deliberately cruel and hurtful to somebody.

:really: I think you might be inviting trouble, with an offer like that! :devil: :wink:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Only if they obsessed about their rep score. Most people look at the rep to posts ratio now, with the assumption that someone with lots of posts and little rep must basically be posting huge amounts of drivel. It doesn't seem to noticeably affect people's behaviour.

Doing a vgrep over your last 200 posts:

200 posts ago was 7:58pm on Dec 12th. So you've made 200 posts in a 3 and a half days - roughly twice your claimed 30 a day. Of those 200 posts, I saw 9 relating to the one word threads - I might have missed a few, but not many, I think. (At least, nowhere near enough to get to the 50% of your posts that you're implying above).

I was using my stat ave from when i started. Your figures are def wrong as alot of my posts that type of thread. I havn't sat there and worked out the actual percentage but it must be around that kind of figure.

If I din't post as much it wouldn't give the moaners as much to moan about would it :whistle:

[TheTramp]

And who are they? In the 950 odd posts I have made. I've had two neg reps. One was from Andy M and the other was a Harper rep so nothing unexpected.

Yeah. But you should have had 3. I so meant that rep I sent you to be negative. And I pleaded with Franck to change it from positive to negative. (Of course, that would have left you on 55 rep points, not 64)


"Any post complaining about or even alluding to NR received should be neg-repped by as many folk as possible."

Hey. Nice plan. I did start neg-repping people who were blatently asking for rep at one point. But I like your idea too!


But that would stop people posting!!!!

Only the really sad people who actually care about the rep points that they have. :whistle:


Thats where most of my posts go. My post ave is 30 a day.15 of them are in the one word posts. 10 are defending myself/someone else and the other 5 prob have a decent bit of content.

Don't be silly. 5 with a decent bit of content. You've overestimated that. By. Well. By 5! :rolleyes:


Got a new project starting soon so won't have as mush time to post (everyone breaths a sigh of relief (esp Trampy))

Oh no. Trust me. It's not just me. I'm just more vocal that some of the people here!


Really? I'm on 3,222 posts and never once had neg rep.(Doesn't mean i want any either!) So to get 2 neg reps so soon after joining seems quite high to me.

Me too. But I can also help you with that figure Cruella.... :whistle:


:really: I think you might be inviting trouble, with an offer like that! :devil: :wink:

Great minds there Lory.... :flower: :hug:

[Cruella]

Me too. But I can also help you with that figure Cruella.... :whistle:


:tears: What's wrong with my figure? :tears: :wink:

[TheTramp]

:tears: What's wrong with my figure? :tears: :wink:

Ummm. Are you sure that you want to ask that question on a public forum? :love:

[Dreadful Scathe]

I refuse to give you negative rep in case you stop showing us your puppies :(

[Cruella]

Ummm. Are you sure that you want to ask that question on a public forum? :love:

I'm sure i wouldn't hear anything i didn't already know! Although not sure if i want a deluge of posts telling me! So make it by PM please, my inbox has room for 4,000. :sick:

[Lee Bartholomew]

If your really not that bothered about reps then why post in a thread about reps?

As I said my posts give the moaners something to moan about :whistle:

[Dreadful Scathe]

akin to the warblings of an emaciated chicken
this thread with woodfaces posts does thicken
always a delight with words squeezed like a pimple
his posts bring a clarity and things seem so simple

[straycat]

If your really not that bothered about reps then why post in a thread about reps?

I think something's wrong with the forum software. It seems to be saying that Woodface posted this, but there's surely no way he of all people would need to ask a question like that? :really:

[straycat]

akin to the warblings of an emaciated chicken
this thread with woodfaces posts does thicken

^thread^forum^

[Trouble]

:really: I think you might be inviting trouble, with an offer like that! :devil: :wink:

inviting me........ :D im a nice girl i am :whistle: :D

[LMC]

I've been thinking of neg-repping others for comments I find very silly, but I am 'afraid' (well may be not really :rolleyes: ) that their said silliness would lead them to neg-rep me back, and [snips bit not relevant to me]. Plus they complain so much about it it must really upset them and although I do find them silly, I don't feel the need to upset them.
:yeah:

Life is just too damn short.

[TheTramp]

If your really not that bothered about reps then why post in a thread about reps?


I think something's wrong with the forum software. It seems to be saying that Woodface posted this, but there's surely no way he of all people would need to ask a question like that? :really:

Oh. Come on. He's only posted 38 times in this thread about reps ( way more than twice as many times as the next highest poster (15)). Having told us that he's not bothered about himself already....

I mentioned something about hypocrisy in another thread today too! :whistle:

[LMC]

Sorry Trampy, but surely you are mistaken. After all, why wood [sic, leaving that typo] someone who doesn't care post a poll about whether you take rep seriously?

EDIT: Hang on, that doesn't make sense, even to me. Oh hell, haven't got time to work that one out, I'll go and work on my next lame trying-to-be-a-smartarse comeback :rolleyes:

Talk amongst yourselves...

[Lee Bartholomew]

Oh. Come on. He's only posted 38 times in this thread about reps ( way more than twice as many times as the next highest poster (30)). Having told us that he's not bothered about himself already....

I mentioned something about hypocrisy in another thread today too! :whistle:

Im honored that you have taken the time out to count the posts I have made Trampy. Make that 39.:flower:

[TheTramp]

Im honored that you have taken the time out to count the posts I have made Trampy. Make that 39.:flower:

Click on the number of replies to a thread at any point where it lists the thread name, and it'll tell you how many people have posted in that thread.

Took me about 2 seconds to find that out. Wouldn't have spent any more time on it! :rolleyes:

[straycat]

Took me about 2 seconds to find that out.

I'm sure he already knows that. I think he meant he was honoured by the two seconds. Which, of course, he should be ;)

[MartinHarper]

I've been thinking about posts that disagree with me (as I do), and two powerful arguments have been made against them.

1. "Taking points away"
A disagreeing post, particularly one that makes sense, makes "my" points seem less convincing. This is intrinsically unfair, as these are my own points. People can of course agree with my points, but shouldn't be allows to make them less effective. People can clean your car, but shouldn't set fire to it.

2. "Bad feeling"
Like it or not, being disagreed with tends to annoy me, and I often then post about it, which generally doesn't help the overall tone of the forum. Reading some threads, one could be forgiven for thinking that everyone disagrees with me, and this is a nasty place full of stupid people who don't accept my brilliance. It feels a bit too flame-y, in other words.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: what purpose does disagreeing with me serve, that's not covered by either getting a life, or shutting the heck up?

[Lee Bartholomew]

{Stuff}

Maybe you should get a neg rep every time someone disagrees with you. Then we will see how you feel. :-P

[Gav]

stuff

So, I guess what I'm asking is: what purpose does disagreeing with me serve, that's not covered by either getting a life, or shutting the heck up?

LMFAO!

Welcome to the MartinHarper forum. Resistance is futile! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[David Franklin]

Maybe you should get a neg rep every time someone disagrees with you. Then we will see how you feel. :-PBelieve me, if that rule gets applied globally, you will not enjoy the consequences...

[Lee Bartholomew]

Believe me, if that rule gets applied globally, you will not enjoy the consequences...

It's the MH rule.

[TheTramp]

Believe me, if that rule gets applied globally, you will not enjoy the consequences...

Oh. Come on. What's the worst that can happen? -235962352 rep points. It's not that bad! :whistle:

[LMC]

I would just like to make an announcement at this point.

I have, in the past, received positive rep from Martin Harper. Unfortunately, I can't prove it, as you can only see the last 20 or so comments. But it's true. I've probably had -ve rep too, but can't remember (which means it was either well-deserved or unimportant [shrug]).

The point is that MH, as someone else has said, actually reads the content of the posts he reps, and is brave enough to respond accordingly, where others of us can't be bothered, sometimes for the reasons Caro outlined so articulately above. Mr Harper, I salute you :worthy:

[Shodan]

LMFAO!
Welcome to the MartinHarper forum. Resistance is futile! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I hope I get some good standing on the MartinHarper forum, afterall my surname is also Harper. :nice:

[David Bailey]

Ahhh... now we get down to the truth of why DJ is bovvered by Neg reps - they're bad, because they're democratic & give Power To The People. Power which would be better invested in the NewDavidJamesDictatorship! :D
Hey. a man can but dream...

In truth, I'm conflicted.

I think there are flaws in the system. Originally, the argument against them was put very strongly to me by another forumite, and I put this argument on to kickstart the discussion. I didn't say I believed fully in it, however.

In hindsight, I'd describe the system in the same way Winston Churchill described democracy - "the worst possible system, except for all the others" :)


I disagree. I think David Franklin's ODA opinion is more likely accurate.
I'd not want to be so judgemental; I'd say rather that it's too early to tell. Heck, even I may have posted the odd less-than-scintillating post in my early days. :devil:


Why should I disagree?
Why not? You do everywhere else... :rofl:


however they'll go on about Neg Rep like someone on the Jeremy Kyle show
I always thought you would be a JK watcher somehow. :na:

[Lou]

I'd not want to be so judgemental;
Why stop now, just when we're enjoying it. :D :na:


I always thought you would be a JK watcher somehow. :na:
Well.... It used to be Jerry, then Trisha... I have to keep up an understanding of the underclass somehow. ;) And i was poorly for a couple of days last week, with only daytime telly to keep me amused... :rolleyes:

Posted from carriage H, on the 20:45 from Paddington. Just pulling into Didcot

[TheTramp]

And i was poorly for a couple of days last week, with only daytime telly to keep me amused... :rolleyes:

Which in itself is a good reason to go to work anyhow! :rolleyes:

[Clive Long]

For me, negative rep is a reminder that there are people who disagree with what I think or say or have taken offence at something I have written that I have thought witty or clever.

So that's neg rep trying to understand the sender's point of view.

It is my choice whether to agree or disagree with the other person's opinion on my comment. I should always consider his/her comment but I don't have to agree with him/her. I won't get upset that a person disagrees with me and has chosen to let me know they disagree or taken offence with what I have written.

So that's neg rep from the receiver's point of view.

Arrogance expresses itself when you do not consider the other person's point of view or think he/she is automatically wrong when he/she disagrees with you.

And then they all went to bed with a nice, warm cup of Horlicks.

Oh, and I will neg rep anyone who persists in quoting the whole of someone's post in a reply without "directing" the response to the relevant part of the original post. S38, I'm on your case.

[David Franklin]

I think there are flaws in the system. Originally, the argument against them was put very strongly to me by another forumite, and I put this argument on to kickstart the discussion. I didn't say I believed fully in it, however.

In hindsight, I'd describe the system in the same way Winston Churchill described democracy - "the worst possible system, except for all the others" :)Partly going from the other thread going on outside, I do wonder if it makes sense for -ve rep to be automatically signed (or similar). It does seem strange for this to be the one area where you can do things anonymously.

One argument is that people may be 'too scared' to give -ve rep if the recipient can see who sent it. But given Silver membership allows you to see who sent you rep, even under the current system you can never be sure they won't find out. (Plus the workaround using ignore lists).

A second argument is "knowing who sent you rep is one of the 'carrots' of paying for Silver membership". But most people always sign their rep anyhow, so I'm not sure how much difference this makes. And if the "real" carrot is "knowing who sent you intentionally anonymous -ve rep", I'm a bit dubious about the morality of needing to pay for it.


I'd not want to be so judgemental; I'd say rather that it's too early to tell. If you look at the post, you'll see I was actually rather careful not to rule out that it might be too early to tell. Conversely, several 'formally respected' posters have ended up losing the plot to the point where everyone was sick of them. (Who remembers the "joy of NZ Ceroc" threads...?)

[Clive Long]

<< snip >> I do wonder if it makes sense for -ve rep to be automatically signed (or similar). It does seem strange for this to be the one area where you can do things anonymously. << snip >>

Yes! Absolutely. If you disagree enough with someone to neg rep them, then let the recipient know who you are.


Conversely, several 'formally respected' posters have ended up losing the plot to the point where everyone was sick of them. (Who remembers the "joy of NZ Ceroc" threads...?)
Oooh. I missed that one. HarperLink anyone?

[Trouble]

[QUOTE=David Franklin;321336]Partly going from the other thread going on outside, I do wonder if it makes sense for -ve rep to be automatically signed (or similar). It does seem strange for this to be the one area where you can do things anonymously.
:yeah:

This is a major flaw as i have already expressed on the other thread. If you disagree with something, you should have the ability to tell them so via the rep system but not anonymously, this to me is no different to receiving hate mail in the post. AND BY THE WAY, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY EXCEPT ONCE FROM MH - SURPRISE SURPRISE.

[David Bailey]

Blimey - can it be we've reached a consensus here? Even, dare I say it, some level of ... agreement?

[TheTramp]

Blimey - can it be we've reached a consensus here? Even, dare I say it, some level of ... agreement?

Ummm...... Don't think so. I still think that if people don't want to sign neg rep, then that should be up to them.

Of course, if people want to find out who's sent it, and not signed it. That's up to them too!

[Trouble]

Blimey - can it be we've reached a consensus here? Even, dare I say it, some level of ... agreement?

no :D

[MartinHarper]

Personally I slightly prefer not to know the sender of negrep comments I receive, but other folks prefer to know. At the moment the ability to know is linked to being a Silver Member. This has slightly discouraged me from becoming a Silver Member (the other factor is that I'm a cheapskate). I wonder how easy it would be to add that as an option on the profiles of Silver Members.


I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY (anonymous neg rep) EXCEPT ONCE FROM MH - SURPRISE SURPRISE.

If you know it's from me, then it's not very anonymous.

[Dreadful Scathe]

If you disagree with something, you should have the ability to tell them so via the rep system but not anonymously, this to me is no different to receiving hate mail in the post.

So if you receive nasty mail buts its signed, its not hate mail and if you receive a nice valentines card, which is of course anonymous, you label it hate mail ? you're really quite weird :)



AND BY THE WAY, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY EXCEPT ONCE FROM MH - SURPRISE SURPRISE.

As MH pointed out, its hardly anonymous then. So what you are saying is you have never received negative rep where you did not find out who sent it ? :) Was MH the badly spelt, capitalised "YOUR OUT OF ORDER" neg rep then ? It must be if you've only had one ? :)

[LMC]

Personally I slightly prefer not to know the sender of negrep comments I receive, but other folks prefer to know.
I think MH has a point here. Only a small one though, I'm still sitting firmly on my fence.

Any reps should, IMO, be for the post, not the person. In which case, it shouldn't matter who sent it, should it? Having said that, I paid up, 'cos I really really want to know who's commented, 'cos I'm a nosy cow.

Especially when it's a nice comment, it's good to know who sent it - I take 'more notice' of some people's opinion than others - and that's life innit?

[Lou]

Blimey - can it be we've reached a consensus here? Even, dare I say it, some level of ... agreement?
Nope. Sorry. I still disagree. If I wasn't so charitable, I'd think you were still trying to steer this discussion.... :flower:


Ummm...... Don't think so. I still think that if people don't want to sign neg rep, then that should be up to them.
Exactly. And that also, of course, applies to positive rep. :D

There's no such thing as anonymous rep. I don't sign any of my rep, as it includes my name beside it. Surely, if someone is that bothered about finding out who repped them, it's more altruistic for them to pay Franck the princely sum of £6 for all the hard work and expense he incurs in providing this forum, than to come on here & moan about receiving anonymous rep?

So, the forum becomes a nicer place following that act of kindness, and then there's less need for neg rep. :flower:

[TheTramp]

If I wasn't so charitable...

Well. It is Christmas (almost!) :flower:

[David Bailey]

Nope. Sorry. I still disagree. If I wasn't so charitable, I'd think you were still trying to steer this discussion.... :flower:
Good grief, of course I'm trying to steer it.

I'm trying to see if there's any element of consensus, to see if we need to make any changes. A certain amount of chivvy-ing along is required under these circumstances.

At the moment, based on people's comments so far, my inclination is towards doing a specific "negative rep" entry in the FAQ.

[Lory]

Hmm, I've been thinking about this and I've got mixed feelings...

if I'm honest, one of the reasons I hardly ever give neg is, although I may disagree vehemently with a sentiments of post or how its been worded (unnecessary vulgarity, off topic, personal attacks or just plain stupid, etc.), I fear that the neg rep would be interpreted as I didn't like the 'person' and not the 'post.'

I'm fortunate, I've been brought up in a close family where debate is seen as healthy and one's opinions are valued, even though not always agree'd with. Under those circumstances, even though arguments can get heated, we all know that the argument is just about that particular issue.

There's a big difference in saying.. your opinion is stupid because.. and 'your stupid' but too many people fail to see that.

Moving on, How much use is it? Well I suppose it depends on how constructive the comment is and whether it opened my eyes to something I hadn't previously taken into consideration..

The only reason i'd like to see the name of the person who might neg rep me, is to have a better understanding of perspective of where the comment has come from, also, the amount of respect I have for the 'repper', will have bearing as to how much attention I pay to it, which may be a lot, or very little! :wink:

[Lou]

At the moment, based on people's comments so far, my inclination is towards doing a specific "negative rep" entry in the FAQ.
Maybe it could be based on the following....

As for Neg rep, I see it as 'infractions' for all forum members and as such a good guide of what is not acceptable on the forum. As ever, if a rep comment is abusive, rude or inappropriate, please report the message so moderators can take appropriate action.
:flower:

[David Bailey]

Maybe it could be based on the following....
Absolutely, as a statement of principles.

However, I was thinking more about explaining how people should view rep received, and perhaps explaining the whole "anonymity" thing a bit better. It'd be a challenge, I'll admit.

[Clive Long]

Ummm...... Don't think so. I still think that if people don't want to sign neg rep, then that should be up to them.



Exactly. And that also, of course, applies to positive rep. :D

Why exactly? Why of course? I can't see anything from either of you that even attempts to explain or justify why anonymous neg rep is a "good thing".

Clive

[Lee Bartholomew]

thought I would post again as a day without a trampy argument is too long.

I agree with maybe just making the thing about giving (and receiving) neg reps it's own section in the FAQ might be a good thing.

Neg reps are clearly a point that people disagree on so maybe just some clearer guidance on their use.

I wholehartedly agree that if someone posts a neg rep then it is up to the recipiant to decide if they want Silve rmembership or not. £6 is not alot.

I do think there is maybe a select few that hand them out on a more regular basis than others, but that is the way of the world. Infact I think Collins are including Harper-rep in the next dictionary. :na:

[Feelingpink]

...

I do think there is maybe a select few that hand them out on a more regular basis than others, but that is the way of the world. Infact I think Collins are including Harper-rep in the next dictionary. :na:Do you, infact (sic), mean HarperCollins? :wink:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Do you, infact (sic), mean HarperCollins? :wink:

Yep. I don't read them myself (but you can prob tell that by my shocking spelling) :whistle:

[Lou]

Why exactly? Why of course? I can't see anything from either of you that even attempts to explain or justify why anonymous neg rep is a "good thing".
That's because I'm not saying that, Clive.

I'm saying that there is no such thing as anonymous rep. As I said in the post you quoted:
There's no such thing as anonymous rep.

The subject of the thread is whether Negative rep is useful. And I think negative rep is a good thing, as it allows the forumites, as a democracy, to shape the atmosphere of a forum. It's a means of letting someone know when their behaviour is against the community spirit, in a private way. Whereas, comments made publicly (as has been proven in the outside thread) have led to more arguments and bad feeling.

Hope this helps. :flower:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Sure neg rep has it's uses. The point Lou made is a good one.

My argument is more about whether they way they *sometimes* get used is usefull. A neg rep comment like "I don't agree" or "not funny" doesn't really have any use.

[David Franklin]

whether they way they *sometimes* get used is usefull. A neg rep comment like "I don't agree" or "not funny" doesn't really have any use.It depends on context. It's hard to find a situation where "I don't agree" is appropriate (but not impossible - I can think of contrived examples). But "not funny" is a reasonable response to someone posting an inappropriate attempt at humor. For example:


Poster A: Just to let everyone on the forum know, I'm having a bit of a bad day at the minute - my cat's just died and I've been burying her in the garden.

Poster B: Well, at least it's good news for the worms!might well earn Poster B such a neg-rep.

[TheTramp]

That's because I'm not saying that, Clive.

I'm saying that there is no such thing as anonymous rep. As I said in the post you quoted:

The subject of the thread is whether Negative rep is useful. And I think negative rep is a good thing, as it allows the forumites, as a democracy, to shape the atmosphere of a forum. It's a means of letting someone know when their behaviour is against the community spirit, in a private way. Whereas, comments made publicly (as has been proven in the outside thread) have led to more arguments and bad feeling.

Hope this helps. :flower:


Why exactly? Why of course? I can't see anything from either of you that even attempts to explain or justify why anonymous neg rep is a "good thing".

Clive

What Lou said :flower:

I'll also say that it depends on how it's used, and like a lot of things, can be used (and viewed) both positively and negatively (I feel a need to add, "Grasshopper" in here).

If it's done on the post, rather than the person, and the person receiving it is mature enough to accept that, then I don't see a problem with it.

[Lee Bartholomew]

It depends on context. It's hard to find a situation where "I don't agree" is appropriate (but not impossible - I can think of contrived examples). But "not funny" is a reasonable response to someone posting an inappropriate attempt at humor. For example:

Poster A: Just to let everyone on the forum know, I'm having a bit of a bad day at the minute - my cat's just died and I've been burying her in the garden.

Poster B: Well, at least it's good news for the worms!might well earn Poster B such a neg-rep.

I shouldn't have found that funny should I. :whistle:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Poster B: Well, at least it's good news for the worms!

Having a "circle of life" way of thinking, I may well give you positive rep for that comment :) Rest assured, if I die and someone says that on here, I DO find that funny :)

[David Bailey]

OK, here's what it says now in the FAQ:


How do I give rep?
To gain / lose reputation, anyone can click on the little scales (or cabbage) icon to the left of the post (beside the on-line green light) and post a comment with an "I approve" or "I disapprove" tag.

To see your current rep, click the "User Control Panel" link at the top of the page and it appears: Thread/post title (linked to specific post), Good (green), bad (red) rep, Date, and Comment. A grey rep button means there is no rep gain associated with that comment.

Most people add a comment like "good post - I know where you're coming from. {Gadget}" or "What are you talking about; sheer nonsense - {Gadget}" Note the names on the end. You don't have to put your name, and if you subscribe you can tell who the rep is from, but otherwise you may not know who has complimented / dissed you.

Note: For some forum areas (such as "forum suggestions" or "Let's talk about dance"), your rep given will increase - this reflects the additional value that these areas are seen to have over areas such as "chit chat". Think "double clubcard points".

And here's what it could be changed to:


How do I give rep?
To gain / lose reputation, anyone can click on the little scales (or cabbage) icon to the left of the post (beside the on-line green light) and post a comment with an "I approve" or "I disapprove" tag.

To see your current rep, click the "User Control Panel" link at the top of the page and it appears: Thread/post title (linked to specific post), Good (green), bad (red) rep, Date, and Comment. A grey rep button means there is no rep gain/loss associated with that comment.

Most people add a comment like "good post - I know where you're coming from. {Gadget}" or "What are you talking about; sheer nonsense - {Gadget}" Note the names on the end.

Note: For some forum areas (such as "forum suggestions" or "Let's talk about dance"), your rep given will increase - this reflects the additional value that these areas are seen to have over areas such as "chit chat". Think "double clubcard points".

What’s this “negative rep” thing?
If you do not like a particular post, you have several options – you can report it to the moderators, you can debate the comment in public, or you can send a negative rep comment to the poster. (Or you can just ignore it of course!).

Negative reps are peer “infractions” for all forum members and as such a good guide of what is and is not acceptable on the forum.

If you send a negative rep comment, please ensure it is not abusive, rude or inappropriate – such messages should be reported to the moderator team for action as for normal posts. Also, please be aware that if your comment is unsigned, an unsubscribed member will not know who the comment is from – and this anonymity may cause (more) upset to the recipient.

If you receive a negative rep, please take it as constructive criticism, received by one of your fellow dancers, about a specific post. Remember that Rep comments are aimed at posts rather than people. Also, please be aware that many people see it as bad form to complain in public about specific negative reps received - it may even get you more negative rep (!).
Comments?

[David Franklin]

Having a "circle of life" way of thinking, I may well give you positive rep for that comment :) Rest assured, if I die and someone says that on here, I DO find that funny :)Damn! First time I've had people argue against a joke I've made because it was too funny!

[Lee Bartholomew]

I thinks it's better and covers everything

[David Franklin]

Comments?Good effort. Personally I think the "net sum of forum happiness" would be increased by making all rep "signed" (as with Silver membership), but it seems there are enough people implacably opposed to it that it isn't likely to happen.

I don't know if it's worth pointing out that, as Lou says, there's really no such thing as truly anonymous rep - for the price of a silver subscription, the recipient can always find out who sent it.

[Clive Long]

Comments?
Generally good AFAI am concerned

except ....


publically

Inexplicably dictionary.com indicates that is a valid spelling variant of publicly.
*shakes head in bemusement and mild disgust*

I was so close to neg repping you for publically ... :whistle:

[Gav]

What’s this “negative rep” thing?
If you do not like a particular post, you have several options – you can report it to the moderators, you can debate the comment publically, or you can send a negative rep comment to the poster. (Or you can just ignore it of course!).

Can we debate the comments publicly as well as publically? :na:

EDIT: Jinx?

[Trouble]

Personally I slightly prefer not to know the sender of negrep comments I receive, but other folks prefer to know. At the moment the ability to know is linked to being a Silver Member. This has slightly discouraged me from becoming a Silver Member (the other factor is that I'm a cheapskate). I wonder how easy it would be to add that as an option on the profiles of Silver Members.



If you know it's from me, then it's not very anonymous.

i didn't know it was from you when i got it... found out when become full member.....

[David Bailey]

Can we debate the comments publicly as well as publically? :na:
Blimey, what are you, a writer or something?

OK, I've changed it to "in public" :rolleyes:

I'll not put in any other stuff about upgrades - it's a good point but a bit to wordy for an FAQ.

[Trouble]

So if you receive nasty mail buts its signed, its not hate mail and if you receive a nice valentines card, which is of course anonymous, you label it hate mail ? you're really quite weird :)




As MH pointed out, its hardly anonymous then. So what you are saying is you have never received negative rep where you did not find out who sent it ? :) Was MH the badly spelt, capitalised "YOUR OUT OF ORDER" neg rep then ? It must be if you've only had one ? :)

what are you Mr memory. Your out of order didn't count. from Witty..:whistle:

and with regards your first paragraph HELLO - how does a valentines card even compare to my comment. Me weird,,,, kettle pot black.....

[Clive Long]

Blimey, what are you, a writer or something?

OK, I've changed it to "in public" :rolleyes:

I'll not put in any other stuff about upgrades - it's a good point but a bit to wordy for an FAQ.
Is it possible, when someone registers, for the Forum software to send that person an email containing a link to the Forum FAQs and encouragement to read them?

Wedge

[David Bailey]

Is it possible, when someone registers, for the Forum software to send that person an email containing a link to the Forum FAQs and encouragement to read them?

Wedge
I imagine so (in fact, I imagine it's possible to force them to read them, as with the rules, but that's a little harsh).

A typical Usenet welcome is "Hi, pull up a keyboard, post lots, read the FAQ", of course no one ever does read it, but it allows people to just reply RTFM once the manual is actually there... :D

[David Franklin]

Is it possible, when someone registers, for the Forum software to send that person an email containing a link to the Forum FAQs and encouragement to read them?Yes(*). Will they actually do so? No.

What we really need is to make people pass an exam before they're allowed to post. Oh, and pay David James a "examiners' fee"...

(*)I actually have no idea whether it's possible, but it doesn't change my point.

[Clive Long]

I imagine so (in fact, I imagine it's possible to force them to read them, as with the rules, but that's a little harsh).

A typical Usenet welcome is "Hi, pull up a keyboard, post lots, read the FAQ", of course no one ever does read it, but it allows people to just reply RTFM once the manual is actually there... :D

Will the existence of the FAQs stop people complaining?

[TheTramp]

What we really need is to make people pass an exam before they're allowed to post.

Will they get a blue card then? :rolleyes:

[David Bailey]

Will the existence of the FAQs stop people complaining?
:rofl:

I assume that was a rhetorical question?

[Lou]

Also, please be aware that many people see it as bad form to complain about specific negative reps received publically.
You could always add that some forumites feel that this may result in some justified neg rep. :wink:

As does...

Oh, and I will neg rep anyone who persists in quoting the whole of someone's post in a reply without "directing" the response to the relevant part of the original post.
Not mentioning any (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=321802&postcount=186) posts (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=321807&postcount=188).... :whistle:
What we really need is to make people pass an exam before they're allowed to post. Oh, and pay David James a "examiners' fee"... :rofl:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Is it possible, when someone registers, for the Forum software to send that person an email containing a link to the Forum FAQs and encouragement to read them?

Or just redirect them elsewhere and never let them logon at all? much simpler in the long run :)


what are you Mr memory. Your out of order didn't count. from Witty..:whistle:

Can't be, Witty can spell "you're" :) On your advice though, Ill ignore her from now on ;)


Me weird,,,, kettle pot black.....

Just cos you're weird doesn't mean I'm not! :)

[Trouble]

Can't be, Witty can spell "you're" :) On your advice though, Ill ignore her from now on ;)



Just cos you're weird doesn't mean I'm not! :)

absolutely..... with regards spelling, when one is working hard as i am, when i do get onto the forum some small type errors may occur. If you feel better picking them up for me, please do so, it makes me smile and also allows me to have the warm feeling spread over my body at the thought of you caring so much to try and help me out by pointing them out. thank you DS...your a little angel. :flower:

[Clive Long]

Also, please be aware that many people see it as bad form to complain about specific negative reps received publically.

How about ...

Also, please be aware that many people (86.72%, in fact) <s>see</s> consider it <s>as</s> bad form to complain publicly about specific negative reps received <s>publically</s>.

May I commend Pedants' Corner (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6799), a much neglected corner of this Forum?

[David Bailey]

You could always add that some forumites feel that this may result in some justified neg rep. :wink:
Good point, I've added that in.


{ stuff }
Hell, you'll be dissing my waistcoat next.

[Dreadful Scathe]

absolutely..... with regards spelling, when one is working hard as i am, when i do get onto the forum some small type errors may occur. If you feel better picking them up for me, please do so,

It doesnt make ME feel any better particularly, but I feel its a public service. Working hard doesnt switch on a "bad spelling" part of the brain afaik, so thats not much of an excuse ;)

[Lou]

It doesnt make ME feel any better particularly, but I feel its a public service. Working hard doesnt switch on a "bad spelling" part of the brain afaik, so thats not much of an excuse ;)
Aggggh! Get some apostrophes! :eek:

[Trouble]

It doesnt make ME feel any better particularly, but I feel its a public service. Working hard doesnt switch on a "bad spelling" part of the brain afaik, so thats not much of an excuse ;)

excuse, no excuse, just letting you know that your service is appreciated. By the way, what is AFAIK? I do not seem to recognise that word. :D

[David Franklin]

By the way, what is AFAIK? I do not seem to recognise that word. :DGIYF (Google Is Your Friend)...

[Trouble]

GIYF (Google Is Your Friend)...

Thank you David. SWALK :flower:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Aggggh! Get some apostrophes! :eek:
i need a punctuation monkey to correct me , Im the spelling monkey :)

[David Bailey]

OK, we've now got a revamped section in the FAQ (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/faq.php?faq=csf_howdoi#faq_csf_howdopower), with a sub-section describing this negative rep thingy.

Hopefully that should answer most questions :)

[Dreadful Scathe]

well its an ok summary, spoiled somewhat by the scales/cabbage comment at the start, as I use apple white as my style I dont have that, and if changing style from the garish orange is the first thing someone does, which is not unlikely, then its confusing donchathink ? :)

[ducasi]

[...] changing style from the garish orange is the first thing someone does, which is not unlikely, [...]
I'd say it's quite unlikely – I'm sure most people use the "garish orange" theme, and with those that have changed, I doubt it was "the first thing [they did]". :)

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'd say it's quite unlikely – I'm sure most people use the "garish orange" theme, and with those that have changed, I doubt it was "the first thing [they did]". :)
Perhaps it is quite unlikely to be the "first thing" (after all , Im only one person and clearly "unique" :) ), but its quite likely that someone will alter the style to make the page more readable BEFORE they consider reading the FAQ, and if so, it makes the FAQ WRONG. Which, really, is not very good for a FAQ is it ? :) All im suggesting is non-style specific instructions.

[Mezzosoprano]

Thanks heaps folks... I had NO IDEA what a "rep" was but I think I've got the gist of it now! Basically if I have enjoyed/agreed with or liked the content of something someone has posted I can give them points?

[Gav]

Thanks heaps folks... I had NO IDEA what a "rep" was but I think I've got the gist of it now! Basically if I have enjoyed/agreed with or liked the content of something someone has posted I can give them points?

Well, not just yet. Your rep power is at 0 at the moment and that is what decides how many points you give (or take away with neg rep).
I think you need to post 10 times before you get a rep power of 1 and can start handing it out.

[TheTramp]

Well, not just yet. Your rep power is at 0 at the moment and that is what decides how many points you give (or take away with neg rep).
I think you need to post 10 times before you get a rep power of 1 and can start handing it out.

Well, I think that you can still hand it out. It's just that it won't count for much! But then, it doesn't really anyhow :rolleyes:

[Gav]

But then, it doesn't really anyhow :rolleyes:

:tears: :tears: :tears: You've completely destroyed my world you b4st4rd! I thought rep meant everything! :tears: :tears: :tears:
All this time I've been posting stuff I don't really believe just so people will rep me. :tears: :tears: :tears:
:rofl:

[TheTramp]

:tears: :tears: :tears: You've completely destroyed my world you b4st4rd! I thought rep meant everything! :tears: :tears: :tears:
All this time I've been posting stuff I don't really believe just so people will rep me. :tears: :tears: :tears:

So sorry! :flower:

[ducasi]

All this time I've been posting stuff I don't really believe just so people will rep me. :tears: :tears: :tears:
:rofl:
You've not been doing very well, have you?

;)

[Gav]

You've not been doing very well, have you?

;)

Taking the p1ss out of rep-tarts seems to have worked though :blush: .

Apparently I could've had a much better career in the Army, but I mis-heard when they said I should 'kiss' officers 4rses, I thought they said 'kick'. :D

[Mezzosoprano]

Not that my reputation is everything to me but.... it's a detail of my life... suspect 'tis so for others also?! Why give a negative comment to someone - the moderator would, I assume, remove offensive content so ... why bother? Or am I being naive?

:sick:

[TheTramp]

Not that my reputation is everything to me but.... it's a detail of my life... suspect 'tis so for others also?! Why give a negative comment to someone - the moderator would, I assume, remove offensive content so ... why bother? Or am I being naive?

:sick:

You can be negative without being offensive.

"I don't like the way you said that", isn't in the least bit offensive, but lets the poster know that at least one person didn't like what they posted....

Oh. And don't forget to sign your reps, else that starts up another whole can or worms again! :what:

[Lee Bartholomew]

You can be negative without being offensive.

"I don't like the way you said that", isn't in the least bit offensive, but lets the poster know that at least one person didn't like what they posted....

Oh. And don't forget to sign your reps, else that starts up another whole can or worms again! :what:


It's one of those times people should think before they comment. thing is with neg reps are at times people are wound up about something and don't think about their comments.

Most forumites don't really care what their rep is (or at least they say they don't :whistle:), however, I think alot of people do care when they first start out on here. Esp with their first neg.

Personally, Mine will prob be in neg figures by the end of the month.

[MartinHarper]

Not that my reputation is everything to me but.... it's a detail of my life.

No, your life is the thing in the real world. Your forum "reputation" is a meaningless number.

[Mezzosoprano]

Good thing to bear in mind!:nice:

Mezzo