Negative rep - is it useful?

[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.

What exactly does this mean? 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?







(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.

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? 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?







(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

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.

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?

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

[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?

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

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

[Dreadful Scathe]

Exactly, 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 .

[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 - I don't always sign +ve reps either!