Negative Rep

[StringJunky]

Pretty slick the way it let's you know someone slipped a post in ahead of you while you were typing, huh?

 

The real-time notification that someone has posted is neat.

[mississippichem]

I support the notion of letting rep-votes be visible for a trial period. If it takes the train off the rails it can always be undone.

[Phi for All]

 

One challenge is in politics threads. Sometimes a person is "sincerely" offering a very hateful and ignorant position, and so I will sincerely neg rep them despite the authenticity and sincerity of their post. That's just me, though. Overall, we mostly align and I don't disagree one bit with the spirit of Phi's post.

I suppose the worst part about knowing who gave what rep is when it becomes part of the discussion. If it forces a person to further clarify a position then that's not so bad, but if it degenerates into a brawl about why you clicked a certain button it's going to generate a whole bunch of off-topic reprimands from the staff.

 

Do you think we should have a rule that says discussion of rep points is always off-topic?

 

 

The real-time notification that someone has posted is neat.

Do you know if you can multiquote a new post after you're notified and you see it's something you'd like to comment on? That would be very neat.

[hypervalent_iodine]

For those of you who haven't noticed, the new software also autosaves your posts (see the bottom left of the text window); if you need to refresh the page or if something else happens along that line, it will keep your post saved for you (which I think is amazing).

[StringJunky]

I suppose the worst part about knowing who gave what rep is when it becomes part of the discussion. If it forces a person to further clarify a position then that's not so bad, but if it degenerates into a brawl about why you clicked a certain button it's going to generate a whole bunch of off-topic reprimands from the staff.

 

Do you think we should have a rule that says discussion of rep points is always off-topic?

 

Do you know if you can multiquote a new post after you're notified and you see it's something you'd like to comment on? That would be very neat.

 

I think it would be a good idea to ban commenting on the issuing of rep points in-thread.

 

I don't use the multi-quote feature so can't comment on that. You could try opening another window on the same thread and extract a quote from that...you could refresh that same page as you get a new notification. Basically running two pages in the same thread in parallel. Don't know if this would work.

Edited December 4, 2012 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Do you think we should have a rule that says discussion of rep points is always off-topic?

 

No, I really don't. TBH, I also don't think such a rule would be followed even if implemented, but YMMV.

[Anilkumar]

There is a serious drawback about the rep system. It enables one to give a subjective opinion [Almost all opinions are subjective, except some. And rep is a subjective opinion.] without substantiating their opinion. We are on a discussion forum. Every opinion must be substantiated. An opinion without giving a substantiating argument, i.e. without giving reasons why one likes/dislikes something, is wrong. One cannot do something and be unaccountable for that. Giving a negative rep or a positive rep is not a great thing. Substantiating one’s opinion is the great thing. Any fool can hit & run. Calling something Right/Wrong is not a great thing. Substantiating it is the great thing.

 

Having said that; when one wants to give an opinion, one cannot afford to be lazy. It is an oxymoron. One should stay away from giving an opinion that one cannot substantiate, whether lazily or due to lack of information. The result is the same; no substantiation.

 

And lastly, when a person gives a rep and subsequently substantiates it with an argument, and that argument is found to be unfounded during the course of the ensuing discussions, the person who gave the rep should do justice and retrieve that rep, whether positive/negative. If this is not possible, then the reps have no meaning & have no value.

 

I consider ‘the giving of an opinion without substantiating & being just’ is like shooting a person without giving her the opportunity to explain for herself.

 

I give reps only after the conclusion of a discussion.

 

An opinion is not a small thing to cast it any way we like. The Opinion, is the basic requirement of the free world we envision. Conclusions are derived from it, which will affect our own lives in return. Therefore, we need to be honest in giving opinions and take care that they are not colored by our personal bias. And it is the most valuable thing of our lives and works properly in the intended way or serves the intended purpose, only when it is accompanied with a substantiating argument.

 

Let us remind ourselves; we are not always correct/right. We will know whether we are correct or not, only by substantiation & further discussion. Not by giving reps.

 

Thank you

[Phi for All]

 

No, I really don't. TBH, I also don't think such a rule would be followed even if implemented, but YMMV.

I guess we can assess that on a case by case basis. As I said, it's cool if it results in greater clarity, but not if it starts a whole "you're a great big doody-head" tangent.

[zapatos]

There is a serious drawback about the rep system. It enables one to give a subjective opinion [Almost all opinions are subjective, except some. And rep is a subjective opinion.] without substantiating their opinion. We are on a discussion forum. Every opinion must be substantiated. An opinion without giving a substantiating argument, i.e. without giving reasons why one likes/dislikes something, is wrong. One cannot do something and be unaccountable for that. Giving a negative rep or a positive rep is not a great thing. Substantiating one’s opinion is the great thing. Any fool can hit & run. Calling something Right/Wrong is not a great thing.

I mostly agree with your argument, but the neg or pos rep means more than just Right/Wrong. It can also mean:

 

Positive Rep

 

1. That was funny

2. I feel the same way but there is really no reason for me to duplicate what you just said

3. You answered the quiz question correctly

4. Thank you for taking the time to explain

5. etc.

 

Negative Rep

 

1. I've already explained three times why you were wrong to say Einstein and Shakespeare were the same person, and I don't intend to do it again.

2. Calling people names is not acceptable behavior on this forum

3. Dodging the question over and over again is getting old

4. No, you are not just like Newton

5. I think Phi for All has beady eyes also, but you need substantiation to say it

6. etc.

[ydoaPs]

I mostly agree with your argument, but the neg or pos rep means more than just Right/Wrong. It can also mean:

 

Positive Rep

 

1. That was funny

2. I feel the same way but there is really no reason for me to duplicate what you just said

3. You answered the quiz question correctly

4. Thank you for taking the time to explain

5. etc.

 

Negative Rep

 

1. I've already explained three times why you were wrong to say Einstein and Shakespeare were the same person, and I don't intend to do it again.

2. Calling people names is not acceptable behavior on this forum

3. Dodging the question over and over again is getting old

4. No, you are not just like Newton

5. I think Phi for All has beady eyes also, but you need substantiation to say it

6. etc.

 

Also, a low neg rep limit minimizes the amount of "drive-by" neg repping. I still think that making votes public would also help, because it makes people think before they click.

[swansont]

 

One challenge is in politics threads. Sometimes a person is "sincerely" offering a very hateful and ignorant position, and so I will sincerely neg rep them despite the authenticity and sincerity of their post. That's just me, though. Overall, we mostly align and I don't disagree one bit with the spirit of Phi's post.

 

Quite. A sincerely offered bigoted statement is still worthy of downvoting.

 

———

 

As a point of perspective, we used to have a system where the amount of reputation (or whatever we called it) you could give was proportional to your own, which was (IIRC) a combination of rep points, number of posts and length of membership. So if I neg-repped someone new, even back then, it was as if I were wielding Mjölnir. Feedback from me was worth something like 35 points, not 1. Whatever the perceived drawbacks are for the system we currently have, it's an improvement on what we used to have.

[Anilkumar]

I mostly agree with your argument, but the neg or pos rep means more than just Right/Wrong. It can also mean:

 

Positive Rep

 

1. That was funny

2. I feel the same way but there is really no reason for me to duplicate what you just said

3. You answered the quiz question correctly

4. Thank you for taking the time to explain

5. etc.

 

Negative Rep

 

1. I've already explained three times why you were wrong to say Einstein and Shakespeare were the same person, and I don't intend to do it again.

2. Calling people names is not acceptable behavior on this forum

3. Dodging the question over and over again is getting old

4. No, you are not just like Newton

5. I think Phi for All has beady eyes also, but you need substantiation to say it

6. etc.

 

Zapatos,

 

Nice meeting you,

 

Sure, I agree with you, that the Rep system is meant for that. However, it is mostly not used for that, and even if it is solely used for that purpose [suppose we invent a system that senses & prohibits & maintains the Rep system so that it is used solely for that purpose], even then, the problem with the system, is that the system is secretive. You never know why the person gave the rep. Instead of giving the Rep for the above mentioned reasons, those same words could be used to say what one wants to say, by which everyone including the person to whom it is directed, knows one’s feelings and the reasons behind it. Moreover, that way, it is more effective, because reasons are stated and issues are brought up.

 

I would like to discuss on the examples mentioned by you as a case study;

 

Let’s take the Negative Rep example 1;

 

1. I've already explained three times why you were wrong to say Einstein and Shakespeare were the same person, and I don't intend to do it again.

 

Here instead of saying it in the above words, if one gives a rep, what happens is the reasons are not made clear and the issues are not brought up. The reason & issue in this case are;

 

Reason: I don’t want to repeat the same thing.

 

Issue: You are not heeding the explanations.

 

That would make the person, answer to why she/he is making one repeat, and why she/he is not heading the explanations. The person is forced to become accountable for, her/his wrong actions.

 

And let us remind ourselves that the other way round, could also be true. That is;

 

What we have held that, we have repeated it many times over, may not have actually even touched the issue raised by the other person. We could have made a mistake in actually identifying the issue raised by that person. May be the person is not at all saying that ‘Einstein and Shakespeare were the same person’. On the other hand, maybe the other person is saying that both Einstein and Shakespeare are identical in the sense that they both have made a profound effect on the world.

 

The essence of Discussion/Debate is patience. We can’t get rid of our responsibility, by giving a Rep; and also we can’t deprive the other person’s right to explain for herself by hitting her with a negative rep.

 

We just can’t say ‘I told you three times now, you have reached a point where enough is enough’. When we are bent on making the other person become ‘Aware’, we never reach that point where enough is enough. If you say that, your mission fails, there. Only if we are bent on making the other person, ‘Submit’ or ‘Tread our path’, we pick the Gun. Yes, a negative rep is a gun in the sense that it doesn’t give the other person the opportunity to explain for herself. And the spirit of the free world is, never closing that Opportunity.

 

What we are doing here, is, we are trying to find and give solutions. We have not gathered here to give or take Reputation.

 

Moreover, I am not interested in knowing the person who gave it. I have no business with him/her. I want to know the REASON why it was given. It helps me decide, conclude, to change my mind or to become firm.

 

Reputation is Unscientific. Reasoning is scientific. And we are on the science forum.

 

Thank you for coming.

[iNow]

You can easily choose not to use the rep system if you don't want to. You may receive rep votes from others, but you can ignore those, too. While you are correct that this is a science forum, it is also a social venue wherein social feedback is useful. We aren't here to submit journal publications. We're here because we share a love of science and a passion for learning about the universe. Your opinion on the rep system is noted, you can choose not to use it and to ignore it when others vote your posts up or down, or you can go somewhere else if neither of those options is acceptable to you. Thank you for reading.

[michel123456]

IMHO the importance of the reputation system is overestimated.

Both by young members who get angry with the first neg points and on the other side by the dinosaurs who believe having accumulated thousand points give them some social status. (particularly I hate this invitation to push the + button some members put in their signature*)

 

After some analysis, I think that the rep point system gives a clue on how intellectually old is a member, how long did he (she) integrated the Forum, and how well he (she) follows the rules.

-------------------

(edit)

* I suddenly realize that the + sign has been replaced by an arrow. You have to edit your signatures now.

Edited December 7, 2012 by michel123456

[ydoaPs]

You can easily choose not to use the rep system if you don't want to. You may receive rep votes from others, but you can ignore those, too. While you are correct that this is a science forum, it is also a social venue wherein social feedback is useful. We aren't here to submit journal publications. We're here because we share a love of science and a passion for learning about the universe. Your opinion on the rep system is noted, you can choose not to use it and to ignore it when others vote your posts up or down, or you can go somewhere else if neither of those options is acceptable to you. Thank you for reading.

 

Some forum software allows you to disable your rep altogether. If you do that, you can't get rep either. I don't know if this software has that feature, though. That's a question for Cap'n.

 

After some analysis, I think that the rep point system gives a clue on how intellectually old is a member, how long did he (she) integrated the Forum, and how well he (she) follows the rules.

 

I think this is true now more than it was when they had to nurf if since swansont was giving out OVER NINE-THOUSAND rep points per click. With one point per click, it's a bit of a better indicator (especially if you do posts/rep). For example, swansont gets one rep point for every 8.47 posts and I get one for every 8.41 posts.

 

I did like it when we had the options to send a little message with the rep. Can we do that with the new software?

[iNow]

I did like it when we had the options to send a little message with the rep. Can we do that with the new software?

 

Definitely not if the decision is to keep rep anonymous...

[Spyman]

 

Definitely not if the decision is to keep rep anonymous...

I don't think there is any intention to prevent us from telling who we voted what for and why, if we want to share it.

[Anilkumar]

You can easily choose not to use the rep system if you don't want to. You may receive rep votes from others, but you can ignore those, too. Your opinion on the rep system is noted, you can choose not to use it and to ignore it when others vote your posts up or down, or you can go somewhere else if neither of those options is acceptable to you. Thank you for reading.

 

Don’t be concerned, I can handle it. Nevertheless, it is not what you need to be worried about. You should be more worried about the unsubstantiated wrong feedback, whether it is a social or scientific feedback.

 

iNow, on 07 Dec 2012 - 09:48, said:

While you are correct that this is a science forum, it is also a social venue wherein social feedback is useful. We aren't here to submit journal publications.

 

I never said we should behave like journal publications. I simply said that, the rep system has the drawback; that anybody who cannot substantiate their vote, can give a rep, and it fails the very purpose of the system. While you are right that it is also a social venue, however the community on this forum believes in the scientific spirit. We can’t make this an amusement park. We need to substantiate our opinions. As long as there is the opportunity to slap an unsubstantiated, unjust rep point, the system doesn’t have the scientific spirit, it is false amusement.

 

iNow, on 07 Dec 2012 - 09:48, said:

you can go somewhere else if neither of those options is acceptable to you.

 

 

Your telling me to go somewhere else due to my criticism of the Rep system, shows you love it much. However, you would definitely enjoy it more if those points were genuinely substantiated ones, and they are repealed subsequently, if in the ensuing discussion, it is proved that the point given was unfounded.

 

 

iNow, on 07 Dec 2012 - 09:48, said:

We're here because we share a love of science and a passion for learning about the universe.

 

 

How do the rep points, show the love of science and a passion for learning about the universe or help us to learn about the universe. Are the points the measure of our love for Science or learning about the Universe; those unsubstantiated, merciful, points?!

 

They are just Amusement;

Like C.E.M. Joad, puts it; ‘Treacle toffees of the grownups’! [The story of civilization (1931)].

 

 

michel123456, on 07 Dec 2012 - 18:25, said:

After some analysis, I think that the rep point system gives a clue on how intellectually old is a member, how long did he (she) integrated the Forum, and how well he (she) follows the rules.

 

I agree. Yes they can be, if they are not wrongly given.

 

 

Spyman, on 7 December 2012 - 08:57 PM said:

After some analysis, I think that the rep point system gives a clue on how intellectually old is a member, how long did he (she) integrated the Forum, and how well he (she) follows the rules.

Spyman,

Hi there,

Glad to interact with you after long time. Interaction with you was bliss. It always comes to my mind.

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

Evidently, the system has been introduced, to get/imply a measure [as Michel123456 puts it] of the ability of a person to; help the community, give accurate information, just & gentle behavior, compassionate demeanor, give guidance, place logical arguments, present genuine solutions, and at the same time also to, object Falsehood, illogic, etc.

On the contrary the system is being used to; settle scores, put down opposition [imagine a person, who strongly believes in something, discards all logicality, cannot counter a logical argument that falsifies his wrong belief, but is dissatisfied with his belief being stripped, so bangs with a neg rep and runs off! This is like giving a fool a gun, to maintain his supremacy.], do tomfoolery, build the strength of a post even when it is false because it supports his belief, put down a logical post by giving a +ve rep to the post in opposition even when doing so is not right.

------------ 0000000 ------------

I am not against the Rep system. I have given some +ve points on the forum. I am against its drawbacks, against its falsity. Why can’t the person who gives it, justify it by discussion and make the points genuine?

 

And then, a question presents itself before me; when we give a good reply/post, be of help to someone, present a logical interpretation, of course yes, it is pleasing to both the giver & the receiver. However, it ends there. What is the necessity of carrying that pleasure in the form of green feathers in our hats?

 

Treacle toffees?!

 

Similarly, when someone is wrong or does wrong, we can correct the person by giving substantiated opinions. Why smear the person’s face with Red.

 

For the pleasure of it?!

Like they throw stones in the public to punish someone; in some countries.

[Ophiolite]

I award positive rep for informative answers, amusing posts and ones which are insightful or compassionate.

 

So it is logical to award negative rep for posts utterly devoid of valid data, deeply foolish ones, or those which are mind numbingly trite, or disgustingly self centred.

 

No one has explained what is wrong with that.

 

 

 

Edit: Insert missing word, one, in last paragraph.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Ophiolite

[StringJunky]

I award positive rep for informative answers, amusing posts and ones which are insightful or compassionate.

 

So it is logical to award negative rep for posts utterly devoid of valid data, deeply foolish ones, or those which are mind numbingly trite, or disgustingly self centred.

 

No has explained what is wrong with that.

 

Quite. Also one needs to be mindful not to potentially derail a thread with inserted comments about a person's style and negging them is a quick and relatively unobtrusive symbolic 'slap' without doing that.

Edited December 11, 2012 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Again... Anilkumar, your opinion is noted. I have shared my opinion, as have others. Your recourse is to deal with it or leave. There's not a lot of space in between since the decision to keep the rep system was made long ago.

[Klaynos]

I award positive rep for informative answers, amusing posts and ones which are insightful or compassionate.

 

So it is logical to award negative rep for posts utterly devoid of valid data, deeply foolish ones, or those which are mind numbingly trite, or disgustingly self centred.

 

No has explained what is wrong with that.

This is pretty much how I approach the rep system.

[Phi for All]

Spyman,

Hi there,

Glad to interact with you after long time. Interaction with you was bliss. It always comes to my mind.

When I feel this way I give the person some positive rep.

[ydoaPs]

Any chance of us getting the rep-comment feature back? It was nice getting/giving feedback without potentially derailing a thread.

[Spyman]

Spyman,

Hi there,

Glad to interact with you after long time. Interaction with you was bliss. It always comes to my mind.

Hi Anilkumar, long time no seeing!

 

I think individuals can misuse the system but the community as a whole are able to counter this. For instance when I find a post with a negative vote it doesn't seem to deserve I can vote positive on it to undo one unfair negative vote. Since we in the community are many and we can give much more positive votes than negative, any alone individual trying to cast unfair votes will normally get outvoted by the community as a whole.

 

Also to consider is that the staff are able to see who votes what and can take action if needed.

 

(BTW, I think you mixed my quote with Michel's.)