studiot Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 No. Go back and actually read it again. I explained how a mass which is accelerated experiences an electromagnetic inertia. You asked me how you calculated the mass with the larmor equation. "Go back and actually read it again." Why the insulting comment? "You asked me how you calculated the mass with the larmor equation." Particularly as that is not what I asked. Rather than continue a fruitless discussion here I have thought the best of the rest of your comments and provided the opportunity to start again in the mass thread and await your reply there.
Aethelwulf Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 "Go back and actually read it again." Why the insulting comment? "You asked me how you calculated the mass with the larmor equation." Particularly as that is not what I asked. Rather than continue a fruitless discussion here I have thought the best of the rest of your comments and provided the opportunity to start again in the mass thread and await your reply there. Well you've started by asking a completely new question.
CaptainPanic Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Consider, for example, that a negative reputation has to be reviewed by a moderator (or some other higher ranking member); [...]What do you guys think? A noble idea, but it would take too much time. It's not gonna happen. The staff consists of volunteers with limited time. Then again I don't pay attention to rep points. I simply forget to look at them. However lately I've been using them when I see people being rude or making too many errors withing a thread. It sounds like you only use the negative rep button??? Please be so kind to press the green positive rep when you see a good post too... then people will complain less about receiving too much negative rep. More to the point, why even have em? As I explained, there is no use for them outside of someone wanting to either denounce a character or like a post because of its content. Exactly. There is no other use for it other than exactly what you said. Luckily, when the system was designed, no other use was required other than that. In other words, it does exactly what it says on the box. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I have seen a number of your posts by now, and frankly, I think that your main reason to get negative rep is not that you're wrong. It's the style of writing that you use. This was actually already pointed out yesterday by Sergeant Bilko (here). Remember that it is not just about being right. The old saying "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is certainly true as well. My advice to get more positive rep: before pressing the "post" button, read your own text again, and tone it down a bit. Keep the contents, but just make it a little friendlier. Maybe this is new to you, but even in science, the presentation matters. A lot, actually. 4
pmb Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) It sounds like you only use the negative rep button??? Please be so kind to press the green positive rep when you see a good post too... then people will complain less about receiving too much negative rep. I use the green positive button a good deal of the time and rarely use the red negative button. Also, I don't complain about negative rep points. As I mentioned above, I don't pay too much attention to them. I know they don't reflect who I am. I'm secure enough not to take things here personally. I also know that the neg-rep gets misused. I think that its hit when I say something someone doesn't agree with. Like when I post the definitions of such things as inertial mass or gravitational force and metion that a gravitational field need not have spacetime curvature to deflect a beam of light. These are all very true things but some people hate to see me talk about them. Edited June 28, 2012 by pmb
swansont Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 You must have lost the punchline. I pretty much quoted Ecoli in his reponse to me the other night, you know, the one you have tried to defend all day. The fact is I understood you perfectly well, and nowhere in any of this have I really thought you where speaking a different language enough for me to think it was not your native tongue. Yeah. I got that. Even better. As an outsider, you should respect my opinion. You know, those opinions you said everyone was allowed to have. I never said you couldn't have an opinion. But by the same token, nobody has said that I have to agree with it. But it's not so much having an opinion, it's the audacity of the idea that we should change to accommodate someone who hasn't been here very long. 2
Aethelwulf Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 Yeah. I got that. I never said you couldn't have an opinion. But by the same token, nobody has said that I have to agree with it. But it's not so much having an opinion, it's the audacity of the idea that we should change to accommodate someone who hasn't been here very long. But it's not just about me. I might have been the boycott, but essentially since I have voiced my opinion, more than one other person has came forward expressing their dislike of the system.
StringJunky Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I never said you couldn't have an opinion. But by the same token, nobody has said that I have to agree with it. But it's not so much having an opinion, it's the audacity of the idea that we should change to accommodate someone who hasn't been here very long. Exactly: "When in Rome...". But it's not just about me. I might have been the boycott, but essentially since I have voiced my opinion, more than one other person has came forward expressing their dislike of the system. I don't think you've been here long enough to form a solid opinion about the rep system. To echo Captain Panic: you are only getting hit with neg rep because of the style of your delivery from what I can see. Edited June 28, 2012 by StringJunky 1
Aethelwulf Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 Exactly: "When in Rome...". I don't think you've been here long enough to form a solid opinion about the rep system. To echo Captain Panic: you are only getting hit with neg rep because of the style of your delivery from what I can see. When did you become the master of my own opinions? I can tell you right off the board that my opinions of it was completely negative when I first learned about it. (I think a bit of psychology is going on here) I can almost understand why posters like the above would absolutely hate the idea of loosing this system. It would mean all those lovely little points they have on their personal profile would no longer mean anything. .. I can almost understand this kind of attitude. I mean after all, you have put work into posts, so why not have a something a little gratifying for it? -2
CaptainPanic Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I can almost understand this kind of attitude. I mean after all, you have put work into posts, so why not have a something a little gratifying for it? I agree. That counts too.
StringJunky Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I can almost understand why posters like the above would absolutely hate the idea of loosing this system. It would mean all those lovely little points they have on their personal profile would no longer mean anything. .. I can almost understand this kind of attitude. I mean after all, you have put work into posts, so why not have a something a little gratifying for it? You personally put a lot of effort into your posts, especially with the math's, isn't it nice to have some small symbolic recognition of that effort? For what it's worth, I quite admire your stance venturing into issues of the probability of the existence of a god and given that you are pretty strong on physics which is fairly unusual here. The only thing you need to deal with is to try and adopt a calm and measured response to those resistant to your ideas. If you get logically outwitted, take it on the chin with grace...there's always another day and another thread to try again. Edited June 28, 2012 by StringJunky
swansont Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 For what it's worth, I quite admire your stance venturing into issues of the probability of the existence of a god and given that you are pretty strong on physics which is fairly unusual here. The only thing you need to deal with is to try and adopt a calm and measured response to those resistant to your ideas. If you get logically outwitted, take it on the chin with grace...there's always another day and another thread to try again. The thing is, if you look at the thread, it's not the OP that garnered any negative rep. I look through the first 25 posts and I see a couple of positive rep for people who raised objections to the argument. Post #26 is condescending and contains little else. Negative rep. Post #28 is an evasion. Negative rep. Post #31 contains an almost crackpottish attack (disappointed/dogma) on people who are challenging the thesis. Negative rep. Post #35 is a complaint about negative rep and an evasion of a challenge. Negative rep. The rep system doesn't reward effort; it's not supposed to. If it rewarded effort every wall-o-text crackpot post would gain positive rep, because spinning a fantasy of how one wants physics to work takes a lot of effort. Reputation rewards quality. Negative reputation punishes flaws. The premise that negative rep is based on agreement isn't supported here. I'd say the system is working exactly like it's supposed to. 4
Arete Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 But it's not just about me. I might have been the boycott, but essentially since I have voiced my opinion, more than one other person has came forward expressing their dislike of the system. I have to wonder - do you actively publish in peer reviewed venues? If so, how do you deal with rejection of articles by anonymous reviewers? The rep system here isn't all that different in concept - people read what you write, evaluate it, and have the option of giving it points based on its merit. As for taking it personally - it's the internet, we could all be 12 year old schoolgirls trolling you or Nobel prize laureates. 3
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The thing is, if you look at the thread, it's not the OP that garnered any negative rep. I look through the first 25 posts and I see a couple of positive rep for people who raised objections to the argument. Post #26 is condescending and contains little else. Negative rep. Post #28 is an evasion. Negative rep. Post #31 contains an almost crackpottish attack (disappointed/dogma) on people who are challenging the thesis. Negative rep. Post #35 is a complaint about negative rep and an evasion of a challenge. Negative rep. The rep system doesn't reward effort; it's not supposed to. If it rewarded effort every wall-o-text crackpot post would gain positive rep, because spinning a fantasy of how one wants physics to work takes a lot of effort. Reputation rewards quality. Negative reputation punishes flaws. The premise that negative rep is based on agreement isn't supported here. I'd say the system is working exactly like it's supposed to. And to elaborate on this post and repeat something a number of people have said but that certain people in this thread continue to ignore, it's not personal. 2
pmb Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 And to elaborate on this post and repeat something a number of people have said but that certain people in this thread continue to ignore, it's not personal. We all understand that we're not supposed to get personal. However in practice anybody can give you a negative rep for any reason they want to. I believe I get a lot of that myself, i.e. ne reps by people who don't like me. I don't mind so much because I recognize these facts. You simply can't control why people vote as they do. Some people might love what you posted but not vote it up at all. Then the post might be to correct an error someone made and that correcting post might be voted down because the person who wrote it can't take constructive criticism. People have bad days too and that came show up in the writing. I've been quite sick lately and don't think I've been as polite as I'd like to be because of that. I sure hope not though. Lately I find myself up voting posts for their politeness. I always appreciate politeness. The entire purpose of all my posts is to help people understand the physics of a subject that they ask about. I have no other motive. It'd be nice to have a + vote when people thank you but that doesn't happen. But their thanks is all the reward we should need. 4
imatfaal Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I use rep points all the time - I positive rep for any number of things; agreement to the idea, politeness and geniality, anything that made me chuckle or think, an admission of failure, or just a nicely worded point. The only content that I would negative rep would be a post with extreme political or religious views that I find distasteful; but I regularly neg rep for rudeness, intransigence, condescension, irritability, and general breaches of netiquette. i would love to know from the Capn how many positive and negative rep points I have given. I would bet that positive is several orders of magnitude higher than negative - but maybe I am meaner than I think!
Joatmon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 ........................... it's the internet, we could all be 12 year old schoolgirls ......................... Oh Dear, its been fun while it lasted - suppose I'd better correct my profile then?
Arete Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Oh Dear, its been fun while it lasted - suppose I'd better correct my profile then? Nah, then everyone would just think you're the vice squad... looking for a date, mister?
Joatmon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Nah, then everyone would just think you're the vice squad... looking for a date, mister? Mummy says that since I've been good and finished my homework I can go out tonight as long as I'm home by 9 o'clock 1
pmb Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Mummy says that since I've been good and finished my homework I can go out tonight as long as I'm home by 9 o'clock This is just plain creepy!
swansont Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The danger in automatically assuming it's personal is that it immediately dismisses the possibility that there is an error or shortcoming of either style or substance in the post. You're ignoring data and that's bad science. (Sort of like assuming that someone disagrees with your hypothesis based on personal reasons, which we get waaaayy to much of in the speculations section.) 2
michel123456 Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Some notes of mine: A.the bad things about the rep. system (IMHO) 1. When you vote pos or neg rep., you are supposed to vote for the quality of a post. When the result goes to the poster, it becomes personnal. The result could go to the thread as well(a thread with a lot of neg rep stinks) 2. I have caught myself using the rep. system not to vote about the quality of a post, but as a support to the poster because I agree with his opinion.. So it becomes opinion on opinion: not good for a science forum. I try to refrain doing this but so many times its too late: I vote instinctively and it cannot be undone. 3. I just voted neg in this thread and I guess nobody could notice it. (post#63, HyperIodine has so many pos that a neg from time to time doesn't change anything, the post had 2 pos and now has only one, and I disagreed with his opinion, see points 1 and 2 above). 4. some part of the problem with neg rep is the red color (no red color in post#63, no problem) 5. I have noticed that my best posts (IMO) have got no points (they seem to interest nobody except me). Usually I get pos. points for some "clever-stupid" comments or in the jokes subforum. 6. I also have noticed that rep points are related to how long one is rambling on the forum. Evidently, a newbie will have a low rep., even if he is a Nobel Prize. He may even get neg. rep. for being understood as arrogant, and may even go away after a few posts. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the rep. system is the most effective way to evacuate the brightests minds from this Forum. B. the good things about the rep. system 1. it exists (as an analogy with democracy: a lot of things are getting wrong with democracy, but the simple fact that democracy exists is a good thing) 2. for the few people who resist the envy to go away, it improves politeness. 3. even if you are an arrogant individual (because you know your own credentials, you know what you're talking about and you know that you are right), you may not show it here so evidently and keep arrogance for elsewhere. 4. [insert here, surely I forget something] C. can it be improved? Yes. _For example, as noted above, linking rep. to the thread and not to the person. (how can one reasonably argue that the rep system as it is today is not personnal???) _ If you want to keep it personnal, in order for the members to get an idea about the quality of a poster, we could add some statistical features like: .the absolute number of neg points (and not only the result of the sum of pos minus neg) .the absolute number of pos points .the ratio of neg/post .the ratio of pos/post _to allow rep system for serious subforums only (not for the jokes). Maybe also evacuate the rep system from politics & religion (suggestion) _maybe introduce a separate rep system where only mod & experts can vote (not very democratic but very instructive0 _[insert here, surely I forget something] 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Some notes of mine: A.the bad things about the rep. system (IMHO) 1. When you vote pos or neg rep., you are supposed to vote for the quality of a post. When the result goes to the poster, it becomes personnal. The result could go to the thread as well(a thread with a lot of neg rep stinks) 2. I have caught myself using the rep. system not to vote about the quality of a post, but as a support to the poster because I agree with his opinion.. So it becomes opinion on opinion: not good for a science forum. I try to refrain doing this but so many times its too late: I vote instinctively and it cannot be undone. You've missed my point, though I could have probably elaborated it a bit better. The idea of using the reputation system is not to punish someone because of personal opinions of them, it is (as you yourself highlighted) to indicate support for a quality post. The act of giving out rep points should not have anything to do with who you are giving them to. Furthermore, the reputation a member earns is not a reflection of the person, it is a reflection of their posting. So again, it's not personal. 3. I just voted neg in this thread and I guess nobody could notice it. (post#63, HyperIodine has so many pos that a neg from time to time doesn't change anything, the post had 2 pos and now has only one, and I disagreed with his opinion, see points 1 and 2 above). *her C. can it be improved? Yes. _For example, as noted above, linking rep. to the thread and not to the person. (how can one reasonably argue that the rep system as it is today is not personnal???) _ If you want to keep it personnal, in order for the members to get an idea about the quality of a poster, we could add some statistical features like: .the absolute number of neg points (and not only the result of the sum of pos minus neg) .the absolute number of pos points .the ratio of neg/post .the ratio of pos/post Again I stress, it is not about the quality of the poster, it is about the quality of their posts. _to allow rep system for serious subforums only (not for the jokes). Maybe also evacuate the rep system from politics & religion (suggestion) _maybe introduce a separate rep system where only mod & experts can vote (not very democratic but very instructive0 _[insert here, surely I forget something] I actually quite like the idea of your first point here, although I think rep points in the Philosophy and Religion and Politics sections can probably stay. Your second point could end up being quite...nightmarish. We do our best to avoid accusations of bias while moderating and I feel that introducing a second reputation system exclusively for staff could open the door to all number of claims about our integrity, etc. 1
studiot Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Before this thread is closed, I would like to add my thanks to Aethulwulf for starting it. Not because I care about reputation, although it is comforting to have a few green blobs rather than red ones. But because it has raised a wider issue of what the moderators are for and do. I think most newcomers to a forum assume that moderators are particularly knowledgeable folks who will answer a query correctly or point the poster in the right direction. They are assumed to possess a certain establishment authority. Whilst some forums work in this way, some do not and I think many have a shock in another very active science based forum about this. I certainly did. The thing I like about SF is that the moderators seem particularly tolerant and very up-front about their reasons. Reading some explanations to others has helped me understand this system here and elsewhere much better. 3
imatfaal Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Of course the other way to get pos reps is to be nice about the staff +1 studiot. 1
Spyman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 You've missed my point, though I could have probably elaborated it a bit better. The idea of using the reputation system is not to punish someone because of personal opinions of them, it is (as you yourself highlighted) to indicate support for a quality post. The act of giving out rep points should not have anything to do with who you are giving them to. Furthermore, the reputation a member earns is not a reflection of the person, it is a reflection of their posting. So again, it's not personal. While I agree with you, I want to point out that the writer choose what, when and where to post, so the posting quality should normally be a reflection of the person writing it and as such the accumulated reputation can be considered a rough feedback of the person from the community. Everyone gets a few neg rep here and there but in general you reap what you sow, so someone with a lot of total neg rep more than likely deserves it. Or as swansont put it in his post #6: There is a pretty strong correlation with negative reputation and posters who run afoul of the rules.
Recommended Posts