DrP Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I gave you the neg rep for that last post.... It was the first I have ever given you. I will explain why if you like.... although I feel under no obligation to do so and why I even bothered to read through this dross is slightly puzzling even to myself. Quote " I believe that.... .. to better indicate the value of their posts" As you say - it represents the VALUE of your posts... If a new member or a young person ask for advice here they have some indication of who knows what they are talking about who is likely to state something as a fact.... even if it is wrong. If you state - "in my opinion (or I believe)"... followed by rubbish.... then I can conclude that your opinion is not worth much and it is reflected in your +/- rep so other less educated people won't be fooled by your words or accept them as fact. Sorry if it upset you - no hard feelings... I'm not bullying you at all. It is important (in MY belief) that people have some idea of who knows what they are talking about when taking advice from people here that they have never met.,,,, 3
Strange Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I I thought at the time Strange was responding more like a politician than a scientist Maybe a significant number of other people thought your reaction was unreasonable. I believe this kind of "carry-on" will deter new ideas from coming to Science Forums.net! If those new ideas are not based on evidence then deterring them is a Good Thing.
Bignose Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Ant, do you not see that you're in 'danger' of going backward in this thread too? You're deliberately ignoring everyone who is replying to you, and only replying to yourself. To stop this bleeding, you need pay attention and at least try to understand others' point of view. Just replying to yourself is the equivalent of clasping your hands over your ears and yelling. This is acting like a child. This is why you are getting -1s. 1
Ant Sinclair Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Strange Scientist Senior Members4, 242 postsLocation 他国 Posted 13 October 2014 - 08:01 PM Ant Sinclair, on 13 Oct 2014 - 7:59 PM, said: Please Strange look over the thread again, this is a speculation that has a different take on atomic make up! But it is giving the wrong results. It is as simple as that. Shouldn't you have abandoned it as soon as you discovered that? quote name="Strange" post="858568" timestamp="1426683284"] Maybe a significant number of other people thought your reaction was unreasonable. If those new ideas are not based on evidence then deterring them is a Good Thing. Ant, do you not see that you're in 'danger' of going backward in this thread too? You're deliberately ignoring everyone who is replying to you, and only replying to yourself. To stop this bleeding, you need pay attention and at least try to understand others' point of view. Just replying to yourself is the equivalent of clasping your hands over your ears and yelling. This is acting like a child. This is why you are getting -1s. I do Bignose and after the exchange with Strange in Canadians & Aliens told Myself "I will not get caught out like that again", but I do feel I have been unfairly treated and wanted to state that!, and the accumulating -ve Rep points over one issue do not fully represent My contributions to SF.net!
Bignose Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I do Bignose and after the exchange with Strange in Canadians & Aliens told Myself "I will not get caught out like that again", but I do feel I have been unfairly treated and wanted to state that!, and the accumulating -ve Rep points over one issue do not fully represent My contributions to SF.net! Ant, I can understand your feelings here. I guess all I can say is my comments above, in that I wouldn't expend any unnecessary thought on fake internet points that don't really mean anything at all. All you really have to do is follow the rules. If you have unpopular opinions, then so be it.
Ant Sinclair Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Ant, I can understand your feelings here. I guess all I can say is my comments above, in that I wouldn't expend any unnecessary thought on fake internet points that don't really mean anything at all. All you really have to do is follow the rules. If you have unpopular opinions, then so be it. Thank You Bignose I have "listened" to You on this issue and will conduct My posts accordingly in future!
Phi for All Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I do Bignose and after the exchange with Strange in Canadians & Aliens told Myself "I will not get caught out like that again", but I do feel I have been unfairly treated and wanted to state that!, and the accumulating -ve Rep points over one issue do not fully represent My contributions to SF.net! By the standards we use for everyone in determining if you've been unfairly targeted for negative or positive reputation, we've determined that you have NOT been unfairly treated. I completely agree that the negative points you garnered over a single issue don't represent your contributions to our discussions. The ONLY thing to be done is to pay more attention to what you're posting from now on, make sure you aren't doing any of the things the other members know are detrimental to our conversations. When I think of these threads as tables where people have taken a seat to discuss a certain topic meaningfully, it helps me understand that it's my responsibility to communicate efficiently with everyone. I realize that we're all here trying to talk about some intensely interesting subjects, and that we want those talks to be based on science's best explanations. Nobody wants to hear blanket assertions backed up by nothing, because frankly, anybody could do that. We want to talk about what the preponderance of evidence suggests to a rational mind, and we have little patience when someone brings a bad attitude to the table. Hey, Ant Sinclair, I have a suggestion, for what it's worth. In going over rep points to see if either you or Commander were being targeted, I noticed a habit you have when you're making a rebuttal. You ask a question, or make an exclamation, and then you put four question marks, or four exclamation marks after it. It looks really condescending and amateurish, sorry, just sayin'. If you're using them for emphasis, then doing it so often lessens the impact. In writing, it just looks like you're either yelling or talking down to us. I also noticed a few times where you asked a strawman question, changing the argument your opponent made into something more easily refuted, and you punctuated it with the four question marks. That's the kind of behavior that comes off as rude, but not breaking-the-rules incivility, so someone gives you a negative point instead of staff giving you a warning. 2
Strange Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I also noticed a few times where you asked a strawman question, changing the argument your opponent made into something more easily refuted, and you punctuated it with the four question marks. That's the kind of behavior that comes off as rude, but not breaking-the-rules incivility, so someone gives you a negative point instead of staff giving you a warning. I doubt you would do this if we really were sitting down at a table. I am guessing that sort of behaviour was the result of some of the negative votes in the Canadian Aliens thread. Many of the posts appeared to be more like random non sequiturs than strawman arguments.
Ant Sinclair Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 By the standards we use for everyone in determining if you've been unfairly targeted for negative or positive reputation, we've determined that you have NOT been unfairly treated. I completely agree that the negative points you garnered over a single issue don't represent your contributions to our discussions. The ONLY thing to be done is to pay more attention to what you're posting from now on, make sure you aren't doing any of the things the other members know are detrimental to our conversations. When I think of these threads as tables where people have taken a seat to discuss a certain topic meaningfully, it helps me understand that it's my responsibility to communicate efficiently with everyone. I realize that we're all here trying to talk about some intensely interesting subjects, and that we want those talks to be based on science's best explanations. Nobody wants to hear blanket assertions backed up by nothing, because frankly, anybody could do that. We want to talk about what the preponderance of evidence suggests to a rational mind, and we have little patience when someone brings a bad attitude to the table. Hey, Ant Sinclair, I have a suggestion, for what it's worth. In going over rep points to see if either you or Commander were being targeted, I noticed a habit you have when you're making a rebuttal. You ask a question, or make an exclamation, and then you put four question marks, or four exclamation marks after it. It looks really condescending and amateurish, sorry, just sayin'. If you're using them for emphasis, then doing it so often lessens the impact. In writing, it just looks like you're either yelling or talking down to us. I also noticed a few times where you asked a strawman question, changing the argument your opponent made into something more easily refuted, and you punctuated it with the four question marks. That's the kind of behavior that comes off as rude, but not breaking-the-rules incivility, so someone gives you a negative point instead of staff giving you a warning. I see where You are coming from Phi for all on this and these question marks/exclamation marks were not for that reason just as I deliberately put Iam and not I am and also why in quoting Max Planck the "existance" was spelt wrong because of the faith I have. None of these were done to belittle any members as after working on large engineering projects in the UK have come across many intelligent minds and have respect for such minds in their efforts to have gained their knowledge, like with Bignose I have taken Your words on board.
swansont Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 In My oppinion I believe I have been targeted/unfairly treated, lets see what the other members oppinions are as they read the latest posts on this thread! And again I call for both +ve & -ve Rep points to be shown on a memebers profile to better indicate the value of their posts! !!! Your opinion does not jibe with the facts, and this is a factual matter, not one of opinion. Your call for a change in the way we do business has been acknowledged. Consider it, at least for the moment, rejected. Simply repeating yourself is unlikely to change anyone's opinion. In fact, you are probably reinforcing the upside of the system. Negative points apparently get your attention, and in a way that posts do not —and you are not alone in this. Now if there were only some way to translate this into actually modifying how such people post! 2
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I see a lot of new members get negative reps where they are not used to the way we tend to debate. It might help them to conform, but at the same time they end up somewhat in the hole starting out. I think it would help if anyone with negative reputation received an automatic +1 once a week. 2
Commander Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) If it's not easy (one click) people won't use it. Also you've not explained what the colours mean. Complicated confusing systems tend to help no one. Yes, it is not a one click method and not for anyone to become an assessor. It is for one dedicated assessor to assess designated posts and display color coded outputs which can be made public or retained in secret ! Edited March 19, 2015 by Commander
Strange Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 It is for one dedicator assessor to assess designated posts and display color coded outputs which can be made public or retained in secret ! Who should that assessor be? And will you demand they be replaced when they give your posts a poor ranking? Your system also invites comments on the member and their character, something which is discouraged (if not forbidden) by the current rules.
Arete Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Yes, it is not a one click method and not for anyone to become an assessor. It is for one dedicator assessor to assess designated posts and display color coded outputs which can be made public or retained in secret ! I've brought this up before in similar threads - you do realize that the cornerstone of scientific validation - the peer review process is anonymous, right? The whole point of an anonymous review system is to allow people to express themselves without fear of vendettas or reprisal. It has longstanding use in science. What exact purpose would knowing the name of the "repper" actually do, except to allow for grudges and vendettas - which is exactly what the anonymity of the system is there to eliminate? I often wonder how people who dislike the rep system's anonymity would react to getting a bad review of their work. Would they ring the editor and demand that douchebag reviewer three's identity be revealed? 4
swansont Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I often wonder how people who dislike the rep system's anonymity would react to getting a bad review of their work. Of course, we already have some anecdotal results here, since we have a record of who publicly complains about the rep system, and who reacts negatively to criticism of their ideas. There is certainly some overlap.
Strange Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 On another forum there is (was) a "like" mechanism, which showed the names of those who liked a particular post. Even though there was no negative voting, some people (you know the type ) would sneer when "your gang of cronies" supported a particularly cogent post. Some people will never be happy with any system.
swansont Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Some people will never be happy with any system. Which includes having no system at all. So the question becomes whether a particular change would actually result in improvement.
Commander Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 Who should that assessor be? And will you demand they be replaced when they give your posts a poor ranking? Your system also invites comments on the member and their character, something which is discouraged (if not forbidden) by the current rules. Yes, true if a more rigorous treatment like this is done on anyone's post it can spread the spectrum of scrutiny. Perhaps a numeric score is avoided and even if the color codes are shown to public the meanings can only be exchanged between the assessor and assessed thru PM and will be only between them. At present it may not replace the current numeric rep system [the suggestions for improvement of that is a separate matter] but can be a parallel process. If a Poster wants his post rated by an assessor so as to get a third party view on it he can ask for it and get enriched by the response. Any member may ask any other member / friend to assess his post. Also a moderator or Admin can assess and convey his rating to the poster [part of the structured warning / merit system]. Maybe to start with the suggested format can be used and tried out.
Phi for All Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Yes, true if a more rigorous treatment like this is done on anyone's post it can spread the spectrum of scrutiny. Perhaps a numeric score is avoided and even if the color codes are shown to public the meanings can only be exchanged between the assessor and assessed thru PM and will be only between them. At present it may not replace the current numeric rep system [the suggestions for improvement of that is a separate matter] but can be a parallel process. If a Poster wants his post rated by an assessor so as to get a third party view on it he can ask for it and get enriched by the response. Any member may ask any other member / friend to assess his post. Also a moderator or Admin can assess and convey his rating to the poster [part of the structured warning / merit system]. Maybe to start with the suggested format can be used and tried out. You do realize that the staff are all unpaid volunteers? This sounds like a LOT of work for questionable results. This system isn't supposed to be that big a deal. It's one aspect of your account, and a minor one at that.
Commander Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 You do realize that the staff are all unpaid volunteers? This sounds like a LOT of work for questionable results. This system isn't supposed to be that big a deal. It's one aspect of your account, and a minor one at that. Phi : Yes, I do realize that. Can you please clarify another thing. I included a spoiler in my signature but nothing as signature seem to be showing. I wonder why. I see a lot of new members get negative reps where they are not used to the way we tend to debate. It might help them to conform, but at the same time they end up somewhat in the hole starting out. I think it would help if anyone with negative reputation received an automatic +1 once a week. A nice suggestion ! + 1 from me.
Phi for All Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Can you please clarify another thing. I included a spoiler in my signature but nothing as signature seem to be showing. I wonder why. I see a little doh emoticon slapping his forehead, and a message in spoiler tags that reads, "Please add me to your friends list ! Thank you !" Is this what you wanted? Why do you mention it here?
Strange Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Yes, true if a more rigorous treatment like this is done on anyone's post it can spread the spectrum of scrutiny. Perhaps a numeric score is avoided and even if the color codes are shown to public the meanings can only be exchanged between the assessor and assessed thru PM and will be only between them. At present it may not replace the current numeric rep system [the suggestions for improvement of that is a separate matter] but can be a parallel process. If a Poster wants his post rated by an assessor so as to get a third party view on it he can ask for it and get enriched by the response. Any member may ask any other member / friend to assess his post. Also a moderator or Admin can assess and convey his rating to the poster [part of the structured warning / merit system]. Maybe to start with the suggested format can be used and tried out. Do you realise, you didn't answer any of my questions? If a Poster wants his post rated by an assessor so as to get a third party view on it he can ask for it and get enriched by the response. Do you feel enriched by the feedback system showing that you often make irrational or otherwise poor quality posts?
dimreepr Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I see a lot of new members get negative reps where they are not used to the way we tend to debate. It might help them to conform, but at the same time they end up somewhat in the hole starting out. I think it would help if anyone with negative reputation received an automatic +1 once a week. TBH I struggle to see the benefit of such a system, perhaps a moratorium of neg reps to new users, for say a week, would be more beneficial. It would allow early mistakes to not be so costly while a new member gets accustomed to a more rarefied system of debate; perhaps with an accompanied series of mod notes pointing them in the right direction.
Commander Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) I see a little doh emoticon slapping his forehead, and a message in spoiler tags that reads, "Please add me to your friends list ! Thank you !" Is this what you wanted? Why do you mention it here? Oh great, but I am unable to see it myself in the posts. Thank you for confirming. Yes, that is what I had put up. I think of all members as my friends and has requested them to add me as a friend if they too consider me so, Instead of me adding them up just bcoz they have allowed it. Perhaps a 2 way agreement. Edited March 19, 2015 by Commander
dimreepr Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 TBH I struggle to see the benefit of such a system, perhaps a moratorium of neg reps to new users, for say a week, would be more beneficial. It would allow early mistakes to not be so costly while a new member gets accustomed to a more rarefied system of debate; perhaps with an accompanied series of mod notes pointing them in the right direction. Such notes could be automatically generated when neg reps are registered, so as not to disallow a member’s ability to neg rep.
Recommended Posts