Reputation!

[Sisyphus]

I wish we could throttle our rep power. Us godlike beings can only hand out ambrosia or thunderbolts, when most of the time I only intend pats on the head or wags of the finger.

[Mr Skeptic]

REPLY: Maybe you ought to quit worring about it unless you are a member of team SUCK HOLE. You seem to be acting that way. ....DS

 

If you're accusing me of being on the same team as iNow, think again.

 

Again though, let me remind you that, as far as I know, negative rep is given mainly due to attitude. Ie, if you want to make big claims you need big evidence, otherwise you really want to state it as your opinion. Because we are a science site we really don't want people to go about reading incorrect/unsupported claims and getting the impression that they are facts. Likewise, being rude or derogatory can get you negative rep, as well as infraction points and in any case is against the forum rules. Positive rep points should be given to posts with excellent content, not just agreement.

 

People who give rep points for agreeing/disagreeing are abusing the system. The mods can do something about it if you report it... But of course only if it appears that it was undeserved and only because they disagree with you.

[swansont]

I suspect that those who abuse the system will not escape staff notice for long. It's not meant to be a system for personal vendetta; those who lash out with personal invective in posts tend to either shape up or be shown the door. One hopes for similar results from abusers of the rep system.

[jackson33]

dr.syntax; Your not going to get much support, although IMO you have a very good understanding of just how the neg-rep points can be used. In three plus years playing the game on two such forums, I've seen some really well educated, very high level posters, including moderators (on other forums), go down in humiliation or just be outright banned, simply for disagreeing with a moderator or an active poster. This includes your nemesis here, several times and a number of real Ph D's in various fields, including a Science teacher from Australia and a retired adviser to NASA from England, both on this forum. I might add, there are at least three moderators that tip toe into a discussion, while diabolically opposed to some viewpoint being expressed, which should not be necessary, at least in my opinion.

 

Ironically the ONLY positive rep-points, I've ever received here came anonymously from a high power poster, likely a moderator, describing the tone of any forum and the then participating under those conditions. As for the neg-points, since originated here, the ONLY one was from a moderator, who was in a heated debate with me and others, then for not answering questions that I'd answered 10 times.

 

I believe iNow has broke a cardinal rule in giving publicly a name to negative rep points, you gave him, but he is correct in that negative points are a destructive tool in the hands of novices and counter productive to the pursuit of an actual disagreement on some issues.

 

I might add, I hope you hang on and mention one of you threads that I feel was wrongly closed. 'Primal Therapy'; While I would argue with Mr. Janov, he has had several peer reviewed papers and has been around for many years, made a good case for his views, has many followers in Germany and other places, which any one could have checked out, rather than lock the thread and be done with it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_therapy

 

As for the rule, not posting in 'Politics' with a negative rating, that's pure discrimination. If going negative has a meaning of the degree of picking out a topic, it should be from the topic the points were received in....Frankly, if I attempted to post in Astronomy, I'd go negative in a day, but that should have nothing to do with my political viewpoints, which on Conservative Forums are highly respected.

 

 

 

Good luck, whatever you do...

 

 

Mr. Skeptic; With 3500 post in two years, you have no doubt earned the right to disagree, by those that earnestly wish the forum to succeed, but I believe your a topic of PM's that float around these forums on many days. With 10 points, in those 3500 points and with my admiration for your efforts to keep some threads from going too one sided, you really can't believe your contribution are rated lower than those with the forums sentiments in mind, for no reason. I certainly don't understand this, taking out the number of post.

[iNow]

I'm trying to figure out whether or not I like or dislike being a lightening rod. My name has come up in this thread so many times it requires scientific notation to express.

[ydoaPs]

dr.syntax; Your not going to get much support,

Not if he keeps that up.

 

In three plus years playing the game on two such forums, I've seen some really well educated, very high level posters, including moderators (on other forums), go down in humiliation or just be outright banned, simply for disagreeing with a moderator or an active poster. This includes your nemesis here, several times and a number of real Ph D's in various fields, including a Science teacher from Australia and a retired adviser to NASA from England, both on this forum. I might add, there are at least three moderators that tip toe into a discussion, while diabolically opposed to some viewpoint being expressed, which should not be necessary, at least in my opinion.

Specifics? When, who, and where? I've been here for over 5 years and I don't recall anything like this happening on this site.

 

As for the rule, not posting in 'Politics' with a negative rating, that's pure discrimination.

No, it's not. Negative reputation is a tool that(apart from giving new users a sense of somewhat who are trolls, etc) gives incentive for proper behaviour. We have positive an negative incentive. Until recently, our negative incentive consisted only of warnings and suspensions.

 

A user should only get negative reputation for inappropriate posting behaviour such as trolling, flaming, or otherwise breaking the rules.

 

Now, politics(and religion, when we had a section for that) tend to get heated when not approached properly. Why would we want people who have a demonstrated tendancy to already have bad posting behaviour posting in a forum that easily tends toward such behaviour?

 

It isn not descrimination. Posting in politics(or on the forum at all, for that matter) is a privilege, not a right. The reputation restriction on the politics section not only lends to more civil discussions, but it makes less work for the moderators.

 

If you don't like our extremely fair system of moderation(and user-based incentives), then you don't have to post here. There's surely an x somewhere on your screen to close this tab.

 

If you think we're unfair, you should check out the recent antics of the CARM staff.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I got a neg rep today which said this:

 

you are a troll and a suck hole...DS

 

 

It didn't effect me since the person had zero rep power, but I want to repeat my previous suggestions when this idea was being considered... months ago... that we not use neg rep at this site. It just creates more problems than we need. My two cents.

 

 

 

EDIT: Ha! I just realized that dr.syntax used the term suck hole in his post above! You rock, dude! You also neg repped me in the "greatest moment today" thread when I shared that I had a hot chick hit on me in the grocery store (asking me to feel her melons). I love you, man!

 

At least it didn't affect your rep points!

[insane_alien]

REPLY: Maybe you ought to quit worring about it unless you are a member of team SUCK HOLE. You seem to be acting that way. ....DS

 

So... your plan to rectify your negative reputation is to call everyone who doesn't agree with you names?

 

this is why you have negative rep in the first place.

[ydoaPs]

So... your plan to rectify your negative reputation is to call everyone who doesn't agree with you names?

 

this is why you have negative rep in the first place.

 

Which, by the way, is not only annoying but also against the rules.

[swansont]

As for the rule, not posting in 'Politics' with a negative rating, that's pure discrimination. If going negative has a meaning of the degree of picking out a topic, it should be from the topic the points were received in....Frankly, if I attempted to post in Astronomy, I'd go negative in a day, but that should have nothing to do with my political viewpoints, which on Conservative Forums are highly respected.

 

In a way, it is discrimination. Really it's more along the lines of profiling. Since politics tends to invoke some emotional responses, we'd rather have people who have demonstrated some level of restraint before they get to post there. It saves wear and tear on the moderators, who, BTW volunteer their/our time. Any time spend doing moderator duties is time not spent discussing the topics of our choice. If I didn't get the chance to discuss some physics here, but instead was only moderating, I'd stop visiting, and I suspect all the moderators feel similarly with respect their areas of interest. So it's a policy of necessity.

[mooeypoo]

I got a neg rep today which said this:

you are a troll and a suck hole...DS

It didn't effect me since the person had zero rep power, but I want to repeat my previous suggestions when this idea was being considered... months ago... that we not use neg rep at this site. It just creates more problems than we need. My two cents.

I disagree.

 

Those who clearly deserve to have their neg-rep not count seem to already have their neg-rep not count (as you noticed yourself). The neg-rep is a good way of telling posters that certain attitudes or behaviors aren't appreciated by the community (or by a person, in which case it counts less) without making personal attacks or irrelevant debates spill into the actual thread.

 

If you see someone that abuses the system (and it won't be hard to notice), then you should report it to the staff, in which case we'll examine it and deal with it, but I don't think this will happen often.

 

What's more likely to happen is that people will get positive reputation for great posts and some negative reputation when they were over the line or when their posts aren't up to par, which will encourage everyone to add that much more quality to our posting.

 

I am not sure, but I don't think there's a whole lot of neg-rep going on the forum since the system was opened. Most people seem responsible enough to not give it for nothing, and not abuse it, and those who aren't usually don't have any rep-power anyways.

 

In a way, it is discrimination. Really it's more along the lines of profiling. Since politics tends to invoke some emotional responses, we'd rather have people who have demonstrated some level of restraint before they get to post there. It saves wear and tear on the moderators, who, BTW volunteer their/our time. Any time spend doing moderator duties is time not spent discussing the topics of our choice. If I didn't get the chance to discuss some physics here, but instead was only moderating, I'd stop visiting, and I suspect all the moderators feel similarly with respect their areas of interest. So it's a policy of necessity.

Also, this is a science forum and not a politics forum. The politics thread is a sort of an addition, an answer to some of the members' requests, but as you probably can see from the discussions there, it's VERY different than other discussions in the forum.

 

In the past, we've noticed new members that would sign up and post ONLY on the politics thread - sometimes just stay there to troll or yell/scream their agendas - and clearly having no interest in science, but rather interest in pounding their political agenda. We really don't think the politics forum should be abused like that, so we decided that only members of the forum could use it. Naturally, we had to find some way of discerning "members" from one-time-posters who's sole desire was to argue politcs, so we set up the scale on the post-count and reputation.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A sum total of -388 negative reputation points have been given, compared to 18993 positive points since we re-opened the rep system.

[jackson33]

swansont; My point on two or three post on this issue, has been, it's the system used by the forum. While I personally feel it's discriminatory, I post knowing the potential results. Then the point is whether a poster or moderator is posting with this attitude in mind or his/her true feelings. Since Politics, Law and Religion are subjective/opinionated subject matters to the person, which are argued in the public arena daily, I personally see no reason a person who may be simply asking a question (methods not always cordial), can be driven to the humiliation involved by a person or persons who can't accept a possible disagreement. For instance, 'Jill' seems to be a very good addition to your forum, who was 'BY THE RULES' denied to post in politics and became irritated. If she had been the average poster, she would have just gone on and been lost. Add to this then, on this thread, she again became irritated that some poster gave her a negative point. Now if a person is attracted to your forum and many are for other than Science (Religion. seen two in past few days) you are indicating, they can be denied access to one topic, if they cannot maintain a positive rating getting there or if lost later be denied access to that one forum. IMO, if you need this amount of authority to control posters, make any drop to a negative rating an automatic 7 day suspension from the entire forum. More often than not that poster will be lost, either way, if that's the desired outcome*. Remember though, your making any long time poster an equal to moderators, as I understand the system.

 

*If the poster in paying a price with a 7 day suspension, is reinstated at the entry level or no longer negative, that person would be inclined to try again, possibly correcting whatever the forum felt were faults. Said another way DS will come back, still be in the red and the punishment will continue.

 

 

CR;

A sum total of -388 negative reputation points have been given, compared to 18993 positive points since we re-opened the rep system.[/Quote]

 

This is the point of many who have posted on this thread or others like this, many long gone and one banned today, in reality for posting a legitimate thread, IMO. I'll bet, if you look up those 388 negative points, they have all come from persons involved in a particular argument (both sides). Of the 18993 positive points, it's likely they were not involved at all but simply liked the post for whatever reason, a few for agreeing with the giver of the point. Then, both the negative and the few agreeing with the giver, enhancing their particular side of an issue and my suggested problem with the system.

[mooeypoo]

swansont; My point on two or three post on this issue, has been, it's the system used by the forum. While I personally feel it's discriminatory, I post knowing the potential results. Then the point is whether a poster or moderator is posting with this attitude in mind or his/her true feelings. Since Politics, Law and Religion are subjective/opinionated subject matters to the person, which are argued in the public arena daily, I personally see no reason a person who may be simply asking a question (methods not always cordial), can be driven to the humiliation involved by a person or persons who can't accept a possible disagreement. For instance, 'Jill' seems to be a very good addition to your forum, who was 'BY THE RULES' denied to post in politics and became irritated.

Actually, that's inaccurate. Jill was allowed entry into the Politics thread after her 50th post and with a good reputation. She posted a thread asking why she can't get in at the DAY of achieving those goals.. it just took the system a bit longer to "process" it.

 

Second, even if the above wasn't true and Jill would have asked to post in the Politics thread, we - the moderators - would have examined her other posts, and make a decision particularly for her. We did that before with other members that specifically asked to get into Politics. We sometimes allowed them even "before" the "official" time and sometimes we didn't allow for it, for various reasons.

 

The point is that we came up with this specific regulation for a reason; the forum didn't always have it, and we were suffering over it (and not just mods). People came for "hit and run" posts, trolling, and derailing the threads for no other reason than to just yell and scream.

 

And since we define this forum as primarily scientific, we decided that the politics forum is, as far as we're concerned, a "bonus" feature. It's by far not the main feature, and it shouldn't be the reason people join us. But since people like talking and debating those issues, it exists.

 

It really isn't some attempt to hold people's opinions back, jackson.

 

If she had been the average poster, she would have just gone on and been lost.

We had a few examples that prove you wrong, actually, I just don't remmeber them off hand. There were a few relatively new members that asked to get into the Politics forum and were granted the request. The others just had to wait patiently for the (seriously not that horrible) request of 50 posts of good quality.

 

Add to this then, on this thread, she again became irritated that some poster gave her a negative point. Now if a person is attracted to your forum and many are for other than Science (Religion. seen two in past few days) you are indicating, they can be denied access to one topic, if they cannot maintain a positive rating getting there or if lost later be denied access to that one forum.

If people give you negative rating for your opinions, that shouldn't happen, and if that happens repeatedly, you should let us know.

 

As it is, though, the negative rep is USUALLY an indicator of a poster's attitude and method of argument. Use of logical fallacies, disrespect, etc. That's a pretty good measure of knowing we don't want that person involved in threads that are ALREADY a delicate balance of emotion and fact.

 

It's also the membership and staff's decision, as maintainers and founders of this forum, to make up the rules and "spirit" of where this forum is going. The forum was decided to be SCIENTIFIC in nature, and not political. The reason the political forum was left open when the Religion forum was shut down is because of the huge demand for it from existing members. Otherwise, it likely would have been shut down too.

 

IMO, if you need this amount of authority to control posters, make any drop to a negative rating an automatic 7 day suspension from the entire forum. More often than not that poster will be lost, either way, if that's the desired outcome*. Remember though, your making any long time poster an equal to moderators, as I understand the system.

That's not the goal, nor is it a proportional response to what is likely a minor "offense" and therefore is entirely irrelevant.

 

*If the poster in paying a price with a 7 day suspension, is reinstated at the entry level or no longer negative, that person would be inclined to try again, possibly correcting whatever the forum felt were faults. Said another way DS will come back, still be in the red and the punishment will continue.

If DS comes back and corrects his ways, his red dot will gradually turn to a green dot, as both moderators (some of which hold a relatively large rep-power) and members will rep him up. This happened before, by the way. We've had a few members that started off on the wrong foot (I will leave their names confidential unless they want to expose themselves) but corrected their ways and some even became quite the important pillars of the community.

 

These happen, but they don't happen to people who disrespect others, curse, troll, hijack threads or are generally being annoying. If you think that's "punishment" then you're right. We don't want those who act this way and don't improve their ways to stay here, plain and simple. That's why we have rules.

 

If they change, their reputation changes (proven, it happened) if they don't change, they might as well leave.

 

This is the point of many who have posted on this thread or others like this, many long gone and one banned today, in reality for posting a legitimate thread, IMO.

Really?

 

I mean.. did you look at the posts for which this specific poster was suspended or did you just assume it was the post you've seen in this thread? You might be surprised. We aren't blood-thirsty suspension-hungry trigger-happy moderators, you know; We usually give quite the large leeway to any member - sometimes a bit too much leeway, it can be argued - and encourage them to correct their ways. A suspension and/or ban only comes after it is clear they either need a break or (as it seemed to have been in this case) when it's clear that the ranting, frustration and disrespect are flowing rapidly everywhere in multiple posting.

 

Judge not what you do not know, eh?

 

I'll bet, if you look up those 388 negative points, they have all come from persons involved in a particular argument (both sides). Of the 18993 positive points, it's likely they were not involved at all but simply liked the post for whatever reason, a few for agreeing with the giver of the point. Then, both the negative and the few agreeing with the giver, enhancing their particular side of an issue and my suggested problem with the system.

That's an interesting endeavor, we might end up looking at those points. But the bigger and more important statistics here is that the fear of "taking advantage of the neg-rep" is shown to be exaggerated. A bit over 2% of all reputation given was negative. That's it. That's the big deal? That's the huge "OMG PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT" scare? really, guys, we're losing sense of proportion here.

 

Just like positive rep exists to let someone know that a specific post is appreciated, a negative rep is to let someone know that a specific post is NOT appreciated. That simple.

 

No one is banned for having low reputation, and there are a number of ways to reduce the chance of a member being attacked for nothing; And the bottom line is quite clear -- so far, those with low rep deserved it, and those with some offenses don't have THAT low of a rep.

 

C'mon now. Let's not blow this out of proportion, shall we?

 

 

 

~moo

[ydoaPs]

I'll bet, if you look up those 388 negative points, they have all come from persons involved in a particular argument (both sides).

 

Then you'll lose your bet. 388 negative point? I've got a rep power of 14 and I've given out plenty of negative rep. Do you know how many times it was in an argument of which I was a part? None.

 

I'm probably not the only one, either.

[iNow]

jill was allowed entry into the politics thread after her 50th post and with a good reputation.

 

<...>

 

the others just had to wait patiently for the (seriously not that horrible) request of 50 posts of good quality.

30.

[ydoaPs]

It should be noted that members have undergone drastic improvement. Cap'nReffsmat and I are great examples. If I still posted the way I did 5 years ago, I'd have a rep power of -14.

[A Tripolation]

I think I was actually let into the politics forum with like 14 posts, because I asked the mods real-nice like.

And they let me

[JillSwift]

Jill would like to take a moment to say that Jill was never irritated by the rule that disallowed her from posting in Politics. Jill understands how rules come about

 

I just couldn't find information on what constituted the criteria for posting.

 

Now that information is out in a nice, concise form. I think it all worked out rather well ==

[mooeypoo]

30.

I was testing you.

 

... yay!

[ydoaPs]

I was testing you.

 

... yay!

 

....sure......

[mooeypoo]

....sure......

Party pooper.

 

Neg rep!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding! ... Probably..

[ydoaPs]

Party pooper.

 

Neg rep!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding! ... Probably..

 

Flame on!

[swansont]

swansont; My point on two or three post on this issue, has been, it's the system used by the forum. While I personally feel it's discriminatory, I post knowing the potential results. Then the point is whether a poster or moderator is posting with this attitude in mind or his/her true feelings. Since Politics, Law and Religion are subjective/opinionated subject matters to the person, which are argued in the public arena daily, I personally see no reason a person who may be simply asking a question (methods not always cordial), can be driven to the humiliation involved by a person or persons who can't accept a possible disagreement.

 

One's first 30 posts are outside of politics, meaning they are in subject areas that are not subjective in nature. Your opportunities to garner negative reputation are pretty much limited to bad information or a problematic attitude, neither of which bodes well for what might happen should the poster be able to post in politics.

[Baby Astronaut]

It didn't effect me since the person had zero rep power

To be mathematically accurate, when someone in the minuses gives neg rep, it should instead add positive rep

 

(But no, since this can easily be loopholed to supply high amounts of positive rep)

[insane_alien]

but it doesn't as the rep power has a lower bound of 0.