PDA

View Full Version : Reputation System Explained



GIK
05-02-2005, 10:40 PM
One of the new changes at RedsZone is the addition of the built-in vBulletin Reputation Ranking System. Allow me to explain.

When someone registers as a member at RedsZone they begin with a default reputation of 10. These members are free to read any forum, but cannot yet post at Cincinnati Reds Talk. In order to do so they must reach a reputation of 200. The system level outline is:


-50 User is in the Rookie League
-10 User is in Low-A ball
0 User is in High-A ball
10 User is in AA
50 User is in AAA
100 User is a bench warmer
200 User is a pinch hitter
350 User is a utility player
500 User is a starter
750 User is an All Star
1000 User is a Superstar
1500 User is an MVP
2000 User is in the Hall of Fame

Now, you may notice that there are negative levels. A member may be ranked both positively and negatively. This will allow the community, as an initial level, to moderate itself.

Members are assigned reputation values depending upon the Reputation Power of the member who issues that rank. Only members who can post in Cincinnati Reds Talk can effect reputation.

Reputation Power is derived from multiple factors. Not all members assign the same value. For each year a member has been registered they receive 1 Power-Point. For every 2500 posts a member has made they receive 1 Power-Point. Also, for every 100 reputation points a member has themselves they receive 1 Power-Point. A member must also have made 100 posts at RedsZone to issue any reputation score.

From what Boss and I have seen, most reputation power levels are between 5-7 points, while some are as high as 12-15. What this means is that a member with a power value of 10 can assign 10 positive reputation points or 5 negative reputation points (negative rankings are set at 50% of positive). Also, each member may only make 5 rankings per day and cannot rank the same member twice until they rank 15 other members first.

Lastly, members who can post in Cincinnait Reds Talk can lose that privilege. We all know it takes 200 points to gain entrance to CRT. If a member who achieves (or has) that level drops below 100, they will not be able to post in CRT until they reach 200 points again.

This is a lot of info and a brand-new system, so if you have any questions please ask. Boss and I will observe this process closely and if we see a need to edit any factor, we will do so. Consider this a living document until everything is ironed out.

Thanks!
GIK & Boss-Hog

REDREAD
05-02-2005, 10:50 PM
Wow, be nice to Krono, he probably has 100 power points :)

KronoRed
05-02-2005, 10:57 PM
I think we all start at the same point ;)

GIK
05-02-2005, 10:58 PM
In ranking yes, in power no. :)

Redsland
05-02-2005, 10:59 PM
You guys are doing a great job under difficult circumstances.

That said, I think you're weighting post counts too highly. Yes, they should factor in, but I believe that the real contributions to this site happen on the baseball side. Post counts sometimes turn like odometers on the non-baseball side. That doesn't seem right.

Also, I like that you've placed limits on how much voting someone can do against (or for) another poster. That said, 25 votes seems like a lot between re-votes. You're asking members to do a whole lot of voting in order to help new posters move up.

Boss-Hog
05-02-2005, 11:05 PM
You guys are doing a great job under difficult circumstances.

That said, I think you're weighting post counts too highly. Yes, they should factor in, but I believe that the real contributions to this site happen on the baseball side. Post counts sometimes turn like odometers on the non-baseball side. That doesn't seem right.

Also, I like that you've placed limits on how much voting someone can do against (or for) another poster. That said, 25 votes seems like a lot between re-votes. You're asking members to do a whole lot of voting in order to help new posters move up. I talked it over with GIK and we decided to drop the re-ranking threshold from 25 to 15. We will make further tweaks as needed once we see how the system works out over time.

GIK
05-02-2005, 11:06 PM
Redsland, the default setting was 1000 posts. Imagine that! I think we're OK at 2500 for now. We have edited the "re-vote" setting, however. It is now 15 instead of 25.

"Also, each member may only make 5 rankings per day and cannot rank the same member twice until they rank 15 other members first."

GIK
05-02-2005, 11:07 PM
Oops! Doube admin post. Shame shame. :)

Again, if anyone has any other questions...shoot!

Red Leader
05-02-2005, 11:09 PM
Is there a way to know how many points we're giving out other than to figure it manually? Just curious about these things and I'm not sure I want to sit here and figure out the formula to know how many points I just added to someone. Also is there a way to know the exact number of points we have, or do we just go off of the "pinch hitter" etc...

Unassisted
05-02-2005, 11:14 PM
Is there a place we can see the numerical value of our own reputation? If not, could that be enabled?

GIK
05-02-2005, 11:16 PM
If it's not in your Profile, then I don't believe you can determine either figure exactly. If you're curious as to your exact settings shoot me a PM and I'll let you know (please, everyone, don't do this all at once :laugh: ).

KronoRed
05-02-2005, 11:16 PM
/\
If you click on your scale you see your points

UKFlounder
05-02-2005, 11:17 PM
nm

GIK
05-02-2005, 11:20 PM
/\
If you click on your scale you see your points

Thank you, Krono. :thumbup:

Unassisted
05-02-2005, 11:21 PM
/\
If you click on your scale you see your pointsThat worked! Thanks, K-man.

My next question: Is there any significance to which post we mark reputation on? Say several people mark a negative reputation to the same post, for instance, do you mods/admins get alerted that the post is problematic?

Red Leader
05-02-2005, 11:24 PM
/\
If you click on your scale you see your points

Well then, mine's not working. I keep clicking on it and it just says "Red Leader is a pinch hitter," no numbers or anything.

and WHAT??? No "bonus" points for referrals??? :evil:

Unassisted
05-02-2005, 11:26 PM
Well then, mine's not working. I keep clicking on it and it just says "Red Leader is a pinch hitter," no numbers or anything.Click on the cloud icon in one of your own posts. :)

Red Leader
05-02-2005, 11:27 PM
Click on the cloud icon in one of your own posts. :)

Thanks, brother! :thumbup:

KronoRed
05-02-2005, 11:31 PM
It's a scale! not a cloud ;)

Red Leader
05-02-2005, 11:34 PM
It's a scale! not a cloud ;)

Can you give someone positive and negative points in the same day?? ;) :evil:

smith288
05-02-2005, 11:38 PM
So we dont like showing the reputation rank on the thread pages?

Red Leader
05-02-2005, 11:43 PM
When's the cut-off time for our limit of 5 per day, midnight? I don't plan on abusing my right to award points, just curious as to when the "clock" resets.

Boss-Hog
05-03-2005, 12:01 AM
When's the cut-off time for our limit of 5 per day, midnight? I don't plan on abusing my right to award points, just curious as to when the "clock" resets. I'm not sure exactly when - it just says per 24 hours, so presumably from the time you use your first rating.

RBA
05-03-2005, 12:01 AM
If you click on a member's profile, you will see "cubes" in the upper right corner. I have three cubes which means I'm a "pitch hitter" Others have 1 cube "high A level"

RBA
05-03-2005, 12:05 AM
Where does the comments go to? Can we read them? Do we know who voted for us or against us?

Boss-Hog
05-03-2005, 12:06 AM
Where does the comments go to? Can we read them? Do we know who voted for us or against us? We could enable that option but I don't think people would rate as unbiasedly if the user could see them.

REDREAD
05-03-2005, 12:06 AM
Don't take this as a complaint, it's only a suggestion. How about a quick button to give a positive ranking (one that doesn't make a popup window)? Maybe a plus scale button and a negative scale button. The negative button can have the comment field in it.

It would make it a bit easier on those of us on dialup.

smith288
05-03-2005, 12:06 AM
I'm not sure exactly when - it just says per 24 hours, so presumably from the time you use your first rating. There is a date stamp for each reputation ranking you do. So the system will check this field, make sure it meets the requirements set by you guys and then will add the reputation ranking to the system.

I noticed if you click on the Add reputation link for yourself, it tells you your score thus far.

RBA
05-03-2005, 12:14 AM
So this works in the Non-Baseball forums too? I.E. If I post in a political thread on non-baseball and some people disagree with me, they can rate me negative?

Also, if someone doesn't think the actions of a moderator were appropiate, he/she could rate them negative as well?

paintmered
05-03-2005, 12:17 AM
Also, if someone doesn't think the actions of a moderator were appropiate, he/she could rate them negative as well?

I can be rated by other posters, yes.

Redsfaithful
05-03-2005, 12:42 AM
So this works in the Non-Baseball forums too? I.E. If I post in a political thread on non-baseball and some people disagree with me, they can rate me negative?

It probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, but I wondered this myself.

KronoRed
05-03-2005, 12:46 AM
Yes it works in non baseball as well.

Under USER CP you can see the 5 or 6 most recent rankings you have

MWM
05-03-2005, 12:47 AM
It probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, but I wondered this myself.

I think as long as it's coming from a person who has "voting rights", they can vote in any forum. But it takes a lot of negative votes to get thrown off the island. Plus, even when politics are involved, there are also going ot be folks who give you positive votes. I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Redsland
05-03-2005, 12:49 AM
So what's that mean? Can we be booted out of the forum despite our long history of contributions, both monetary and philosophical?

M2
05-03-2005, 12:54 AM
My suggestion would be that once you're in you stay in. I like the idea of giving incentive to folks who aren't CRT members to post good stuff, but having those inside the forum rating each other opens it up all kinds of weirdness.

KronoRed
05-03-2005, 12:57 AM
I think if you drop to 0, you should get the boot, or maybe have a mod check into it at that point to make sure it's not just someone voteing you down for fun.

M2
05-03-2005, 01:00 AM
Krono, if we get points according post count you'll wield Olympian power.

Would you like to see my goat's entrails?

Falls City Beer
05-03-2005, 01:12 AM
My suggestion would be that once you're in you stay in. I like the idea of giving incentive to folks who aren't CRT members to post good stuff, but having those inside the forum rating each other opens it up all kinds of weirdness.

I agree. Visions of Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" come to mind.

NDRed
05-03-2005, 01:50 AM
You guys are killing me- my first 2 positive, or any other rankings.

pedro
05-03-2005, 01:57 AM
Would it be possible to make it easier to give people the thumbs up? Like a link from the members list? It's a pain to search for posts by user and then rate them. MWM made a list of people we need to rate and it's a little tedious to follow his orders, as correct as they might be, help me be lazy. please.

MWM
05-03-2005, 02:02 AM
Would it be possible to make it easier to give people the thumbs up? Like a link from the members list? It's a pain to search for posts by user and then rate them. MWM made a list of people we need to rate and it's a little tedious to follow his orders, as correct as they might be, help me be lazy. please.

For the record, it was people we need to rate positively. :cool:

(and it was only 5 people)

pedro
05-03-2005, 02:06 AM
My suggestion would be that once you're in you stay in. I like the idea of giving incentive to folks who aren't CRT members to post good stuff, but having those inside the forum rating each other opens it up all kinds of weirdness.

We need to be able to vote people off the island. If not, how will the lessons we learned from "lord of the flies" be validated? how I ask? how?

But seriously, M2 is right, once we've let the bad roommate move in, we can't kick them out unless they violate the lease. Otherwise we are them, and let's try and avoid that little mess if we can.

pedro
05-03-2005, 02:12 AM
For the record, it was people we need to rate positively. :cool:

(and it was only 5 people)

and it was a good list.

you killed me in the threadies league.

I'm last. LAST. I like the points league better.

Next year we need a threadies "points" league with 9 starting hitters, 4 starting pitchers, and 4 relievers. It would be much more fun, IMO.

letsgojunior
05-03-2005, 09:26 AM
Can we put the reputation ranking back in the posting profile under the avatar? Not as some "status symbol," but simply because we have limited reputation points that we can give out in a 24 hour period, and I'd like to give it to posters on the cusp of making it into CRT versus someone who has 500 points.

TeamCasey
05-03-2005, 09:46 AM
My suggestion would be that once you're in you stay in. I like the idea of giving incentive to folks who aren't CRT members to post good stuff, but having those inside the forum rating each other opens it up all kinds of weirdness.

I agree. The potential is mind-boggling. I foresee gang warfare. :)

GIK
05-03-2005, 10:02 AM
I think it's OK to rate each other within CRT - but Boss and I will discuss the point of "booting" members who drop below 100 points. IMO it'd be hard to reach that level (as negative points are assessed at 50% of positive, i.e. it'd take a long time). Again, this just started yesterday and if the system needs editing it will be modified.

RBA
05-03-2005, 10:05 AM
Also, each member may only make 5 rankings per day and cannot rank the same member twice until they rank 15 other members first.

How come I only was allowed to rank two posters in the 24 hour period? I did rank some others, but that was before GIK reset everyone. Was this a temporary glitch or do I only get to rate 2 a day?

GIK
05-03-2005, 10:08 AM
It's 5 per day, RBA. Not sure why you were stopped at 2. It's a global setting to so it'd be impossible to set it user-specific.

Red Thunder
05-03-2005, 10:14 AM
I agree. The potential is mind-boggling. I foresee gang warfare.

To make something like this more uncomfortable (I guess you can't prevent it), it should not be possible for someone to rate other posters who are on his/her ignore list. If you prefer not to read other peoples post, you also don't have the foundation to rate them fairly.

Redsland
05-03-2005, 11:47 AM
Can we up the daily vote total to 10?

Particularly in the early going, we're going to want to spread around lots of love. Or whatever. ;)

Red Thunder
05-03-2005, 12:06 PM
Another Point:

I think it would be a good idea, that everyone who already posts on CRT (Cincinnati Reds Talk) is able to see who graded him (positive or negative). Especially in the case of negative feedback due to some kind of childish retaliation this could prevent posters to anonymously satisfy their desire to downgrade the reputation of other posters on a daily basis. And even if someone feels he has to do something like this, then he should have enough guts to stand to his feedback.

In my opinion it's better to solve personal dissent via private message instead of trying to bring down other posters reputation with negative votes on a daily basis.

TRF
05-03-2005, 12:10 PM
Shouldn't TMos and ORG have the highest possible ranking?

I mean really.

Ryan the Reds Fan
05-03-2005, 12:36 PM
A couple of thoughts that come to mind after reading through this:

1. it would be nice if your "rating" was viewed in the post like under your avatar or in that box somewhere. Just nice to see what others rankings are quickly if they are close to get them in or maybe the opposite as well, if they are far and you feel they should be closer.

2. I don't feel post count should be included in power, it should be rating only. I could post 6 million posts with one letter, or could have a bunch of posts that aren't valuable just to get more power. Just because you have a bunch of posts doesn't mean you should have more power. Just my thoughts, I'm not saying that in most cases the people with more posts do always have very valuable input, just from an objective view point seams you may be giving incentive for less valuable posts and just upping your post count.

Spring~Fields
05-03-2005, 12:45 PM
Would it be possible to make it easier to give people the thumbs up? Like a link from the members list? It's a pain to search for posts by user and then rate them. MWM made a list of people we need to rate and it's a little tedious to follow his orders, as correct as they might be, help me be lazy. please.

GIK, BOSS

Where is the integrity in this when a poster actually lobbies the group to vote for or against?

Your voting system is now very dubious. Objectivity has been a term that GIK was using, where is the objectivity if the above is occurring ?

princeton
05-03-2005, 12:48 PM
I think it's OK to rate each other within CRT - but Boss and I will discuss the point of "booting" members who drop below 100 points. IMO it'd be hard to reach that level (as negative points are assessed at 50% of positive, i.e. it'd take a long time).

I love a challenge

Ryan the Reds Fan
05-03-2005, 12:51 PM
GIK, BOSS

Where is the integrity in this when a poster actually lobbies the group to vote for or against?

Your voting system is now very dubious. Objectivity has been a term that GIK was using, where is the objectivity if the above is occurring ?

I have to agree with Springfield here. This should be individuals rating their peers, not lobbying to get "friends" into "the Gang". I'm not saying there is a gang, I'm just saying that this makes it look like that, and we all know that this will just add to the negativity. I think that our goal should be to get away from the talk of cliques and get to one group of fans.

One other thing I wanted to add to my previous post was that along with showing current rating status could you show if they are a member of CRT or not. I may not want to rate a CRT member in the live forum, and save my rating for someone who truly needs it.

Ryan the Reds Fan
05-03-2005, 12:54 PM
One more thing, did those of us "grandfathered" into CRT start with the base 200 points?

Spring~Fields
05-03-2005, 12:58 PM
This should be individuals rating their peers, not lobbying to get "friends" into "the Gang".

This whole thing has been exposed for what it is. If it walks like a duck.....talk about biased, slanted, rigged, fixed...............no integrity at all.

MWM, shoot me that memo, so I will know who to vote for and not against.

919191
05-03-2005, 12:58 PM
I think so- I did.

GIK
05-03-2005, 12:59 PM
One more thing, did those of us "grandfathered" into CRT start with the base 200 points?

Yes.

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 01:03 PM
I have to agree with Springfield here. This should be individuals rating their peers, not lobbying to get "friends" into "the Gang". I'm not saying there is a gang, I'm just saying that this makes it look like that, and we all know that this will just add to the negativity. I think that our goal should be to get away from the talk of cliques and get to one group of fans.


I can totally see where you guys are coming from on this. However, I thought the purpose of this was to basically "clean up" the board. Basically its a way for posters to "establish" their credibility on redszone before being allowed to post on the CRT forum. There are some posters that were not included as CRT members because they didn't register in 2000 or weren't subscribers, but have already established their credibility on redszone as valuable posters. If there are people that were included to post in the CRT forum that members don't feel have completely established their credibility, there is a way for those members to rate them negatively to express that as well. MWM was just making a list of people he thought fell into the "established credibility already, but not already added" category and sharing that list with other people, in the event others felt the same way about that poster. Its not like he has naked pictures of us that he's going to share with everyone, if we don't "rate" those people, he was just offering up a list of familar names.

This system is new for all of us. Hopefully, if it works the way it should, it will make redszone a better place. I know I personally am not going to rate another person unless I feel they absolutely deserve that rating, either good or bad, and I definately will not be rating someone just because someone tells me to.

GIK
05-03-2005, 01:03 PM
GIK, BOSS

Where is the integrity in this when a poster actually lobbies the group to vote for or against?

Your voting system is now very dubious. Objectivity has been a term that GIK was using, where is the objectivity if the above is occurring ?

SF, I'm not sure we can stop that from occurring. That is why we set the level pretty high at 200. You would need 25-40 or so unique members to rate positively on a single user for them to hit 200 points for CRT access.

The intent of the system is to honor members who contribute to the RedsZone community with the ability to post at CRT.

Again, this system is brand new. Boss and I are learning along with everyone else.

-GIK

Spring~Fields
05-03-2005, 01:09 PM
SF, I'm not sure we can stop that from occurring.
-GIK

Then what do you have GIK?

Ryan the Reds Fan
05-03-2005, 01:14 PM
I can totally see where you guys are coming from on this. However, I thought the purpose of this was to basically "clean up" the board. Basically its a way for posters to "establish" their credibility on redszone before being allowed to post on the CRT forum. There are some posters that were not included as CRT members because they didn't register in 2000 or weren't subscribers, but have already established their credibility on redszone as valuable posters. If there are people that were included to post in the CRT forum that members don't feel have completely established their credibility, there is a way for those members to rate them negatively to express that as well. MWM was just making a list of people he thought fell into the "established credibility already, but not already added" category and sharing that list with other people, in the event others felt the same way about that poster. Its not like he has naked pictures of us that he's going to share with everyone, if we don't "rate" those people, he was just offering up a list of familar names.

This system is new for all of us. Hopefully, if it works the way it should, it will make redszone a better place. I know I personally am not going to rate another person unless I feel they absolutely deserve that rating, either good or bad, and I definately will not be rating someone just because someone tells me to.

RL, great response, I hadn't thought of this, and agree that there are many individuals that didn't make the cut to CRF at the get go that deserve to be here for their efforts over the years. Thanks for clarifying. My point I guess is that those that have been around know who they are and should make that determination on their own. I understand that MWM had good intentions, all I'm saying is that it can easily be misconstrued and lead to exactly what we are trying to avoid.

Red Thunder
05-03-2005, 01:16 PM
To make something like this more uncomfortable (I guess you can't prevent it), it should not be possible for someone to rate other posters who are on his/her ignore list. If you prefer not to read other peoples post, you also don't have the foundation to rate them fairly.

Honestly, the more I think of the rating system, the less I like it. I have already been rated negative for this post, which isn't against any rules nor meant to cause trouble etc. .... so just because someone doesn't share my view enables him to get me kicked out of CRT over a longer period?

Apparently princeton even seems to look at this as a challenge, or how should I enterpret his response? :confused:

MWM
05-03-2005, 01:16 PM
Please. Give me a break. There a few people who I have thoroughly enjoyed reading over the last couple of years and I mentioned to a few people that I'd like to see them get some votes. I also stated very clearly that it was just my opinion. Jeez!

zombie-a-go-go
05-03-2005, 01:18 PM
Man, I love me some RedsZone drama. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Calm down. Nobody's stolen your car stereo, made out with your sister, drank the last beer in the fridge or fed your dog laxatives.

I think.

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 01:19 PM
RL, great response, I hadn't thought of this, and agree that there are many individuals that didn't make the cut to CRF at the get go that deserve to be here for their efforts over the years. Thanks for clarifying. My point I guess is that those that have been around know who they are and should make that determination on their own. I understand that MWM had good intentions, all I'm saying is that it can easily be misconstrued and lead to exactly what we are trying to avoid.

Yea, as I said, I completely understand how it could have been taken the wrong way, and if that would have been what I thought MWM was trying to do, I would have been right there with you complaining about it. To be honest, I really have no idea who was included and who wasn't. This whole thing is very "new" to me. I don't even know how to check to see if someone is able to post on the CRT forum or not.

westofyou
05-03-2005, 01:20 PM
Some folks did miss the cut, good folks too. As for negative rating on members of the CRT.

I think it's ridiculous, if someone proves to be a problem in there then it's the admin and mods call. Not the other monkeys in the cage.

As for climbing up the boards owners rear end to figure something out asap, might I suggest some patience and a little less drama?

Ryan the Reds Fan
05-03-2005, 01:24 PM
Yea, as I said, I completely understand how it could have been taken the wrong way, and if that would have been what I thought MWM was trying to do, I would have been right there with you complaining about it. To be honest, I really have no idea who was included and who wasn't. This whole thing is very "new" to me. I don't even know how to check to see if someone is able to post on the CRT forum or not.

Agreed RL, it seems after reading MWM's post this was blown way out of proportion, I apologize if I had something to do with that. I was talking more on the principal of what I thought than what MWM did.

As we've all said, it's a work in progress, it will evolve, something needed to be done, now it is. I applaud GIK and Boss for the changes and I'm confident that in the long run they will work for the best.

GIK
05-03-2005, 01:30 PM
I think this system can work, but like some have mentioned, it's a work-in-progress.

Re: negative rankings, I'm not sure they need to be removed entirely, but I do see the point that actually removing someone from posting at CRT should be the decision of Boss and I (along with input from the mods). I may revise that "100 and you're gone" portion or just give it the boot.

westofyou
05-03-2005, 01:37 PM
One mans opinion.

A get rid of negative ratings, the lack of positive ratings speaks volumns in itself

Take the voting away from the masses and assign the task to a small group of CRT posters every week.

Don't tell anyone who is rating that week.

princeton
05-03-2005, 01:39 PM
I'm up three for the day

even though this'll make it harder for me to get booted by July, I'm not totally disheartened. After all, the Reds also won their first series, and look at 'em now

note to self: start "Trade Wagner!" thread soon

MWM
05-03-2005, 01:46 PM
A get rid of negative ratings, the lack of positive ratings speaks volumns in itself

I agree with taking negative ratings away from those already in. But I don't agree with taking negative ratings away from those not already in. That makes it less likely to artificially get the votes needed to get in.

smith288
05-03-2005, 01:51 PM
Then what do you have GIK? No one is forcing me how to think. For you to think that, well... i dunno.

Redsland
05-03-2005, 01:54 PM
Negative votes in the hands of the community at large will save the mods a great deal of aggravation later.

M2
05-03-2005, 02:00 PM
I'm kind of fuzzy on who's in CRT and who isn't. I'd like my votes to go towards helping to promote folks, but not knowing who's outside of CRT makes it a trickier proposition than I'd like.

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 02:04 PM
I'm kind of fuzzy on who's in CRT and who isn't. I'd like my votes to go towards helping to promote folks, but not knowing who's outside of CRT makes it a trickier proposition than I'd like.

I agree. It's hard knowing who is "in" and who is "out". The only way I've been able to check is by clicking on the "Member List" at the top of the page and sorting by reputation. I don't know if thats a way to do it or not, but I figure anyone with less than 3 bars is "out".

missionhockey21
05-03-2005, 02:09 PM
Can't we get the reputation boxes displayed when someone posts? Not just when you view their profile.

GIK
05-03-2005, 02:10 PM
Well, if you see they joined in 2000, then they're a CRT'er. Also, if they have an avatar, then they're a CRT'er. Other than that, you're right, it's not easy to tell. Not really sure I want a label on members, however.

GIK
05-03-2005, 02:11 PM
Can't we get the reputation boxes displayed when someone posts? Not just when you view their profile.

They were on as a default, but were removed. It's an option I'm sure we could reinstate - just looked tacky, IMO.

zombie-a-go-go
05-03-2005, 02:14 PM
Not really sure I want a label on members, however.

We know how well that worked last time. ;)

Puffy
05-03-2005, 02:22 PM
They were on as a default, but were removed. It's an option I'm sure we could reinstate - just looked tacky, IMO.

Maybe give all CRT members default avatars (like the red "c") that can be changed at any time by the member to an avatar of their choice.

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 02:26 PM
Maybe give all CRT members default avatars (like the red "c") that can be changed at any time by the member to an avatar of their choice.

and the point of that would be???? :dunno:

If someone has an avatar, they are a CRT poster. It doesn't matter what their avatar is.

missionhockey21
05-03-2005, 02:27 PM
Maybe give all CRT members default avatars (like the red "c") that can be changed at any time by the member to an avatar of their choice.
Good idea Puffy. That would look better than having the rep boxes displayed or labeling members, plus it would be easy to recognize. I like that.

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 02:29 PM
Good idea Puffy. That would look better than having the rep boxes displayed or labeling members, plus it would be easy to recognize. I like that.


OOhhh, so you're saying if someone is a CRT poster, don't give them the option to NOT have an avatar, just give them a default avatar.

Please ignore my earlier smart :mooner: remarks, and don't ding me. :laugh:

missionhockey21
05-03-2005, 02:30 PM
and the point of that would be???? :dunno:

If someone has an avatar, they are a CRT poster. It doesn't matter what their avatar is.
Yeah, but not all CRT posters use avatars. I know there are a quite a few posters who are indeed CRT posters but choose not to use avatars. And with some of them who don't post frequently, I think it's hard to remember off the bat who is a CRT poster.

ochre
05-03-2005, 02:36 PM
(cross posting this, as it fits here too)
I think we need to get out of the mind set of "rating posters". This system is really about rating posts. Lets count on GIK and Boss being able to ensure that the people that have proven themselves historically are able to post in CRT.

GIK
05-03-2005, 02:36 PM
True. Good point, ochre.

The reason to rate an indivdual is through the content of their contribution, ie their post(s).

ochre
05-03-2005, 02:41 PM
deja vu.

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 02:45 PM
deja vu.


all over again. :mooner: :laugh:

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 03:00 PM
While the ADMINS are around, I have a question. In my USER CP, it says that I have 2 referrals. Is there anyway you guys can find out who listed me as someone who referred them?

GIK
05-03-2005, 03:08 PM
Not that I'm aware of, RL. I'll look into it, though.

Puffy
05-03-2005, 03:16 PM
OOhhh, so you're saying if someone is a CRT poster, don't give them the option to NOT have an avatar, just give them a default avatar.

Please ignore my earlier smart :mooner: remarks, and don't ding me. :laugh:

You're very lucky I can't negativize you!

:mooner:

Thats right, negativize.

smith288
05-03-2005, 03:34 PM
We need to start a Player reputation ranking... I think we would all feel better. It would be like punching your pillow or throwing a brick through a window...err. Strike that last one...

KronoRed
05-03-2005, 05:51 PM
You're very lucky I can't negativize you!

:mooner:

Thats right, negativize.

That's a cool word.

GIK..Boss..just lay down the rules and make people get used to them.

Boss-Hog
05-03-2005, 05:57 PM
While the ADMINS are around, I have a question. In my USER CP, it says that I have 2 referrals. Is there anyway you guys can find out who listed me as someone who referred them? RL2 and PowerAlley - two aliases, I presume?

As far as a list of all the Cincinnati Reds Talk members goes, we can make that a viewable list, similar to how the subscribers list used to be. I'd like to hear GIK's feelings on it first, though. But you're right - there are some people who don't use an avatar, so you can't rely soley on that.

Red Leader
05-03-2005, 06:06 PM
RL2 and PowerAlley - two aliases, I presume?

As far as a list of all the Cincinnati Reds Talk members goes, we can make that a viewable list, similar to how the subscribers list used to be. I'd like to hear GIK's feelings on it first, though. But you're right - there are some people who don't use an avatar, so you can't rely soley on that.

I signed up as RL2 on the backup board because it wouldn't accept my regular login there for some reason...but I never signed under that name here. :confused:

PowerAlley = not an alias. I'm not sure who that is, I'll have to shoot them a PM.

Thanks, Boss. :thumbup:

SunDeck
05-03-2005, 07:16 PM
and the point of that would be???? :dunno:

If someone has an avatar, they are a CRT poster. It doesn't matter what their avatar is.

Unless your are me and you don't even know how to put one up...or even how to get one...or even why we call it an avatar.
Gimme a big red C.

Unassisted
05-03-2005, 07:18 PM
Unless your are me and you don't even know how to put one up...or even how to get one...or even why we call it an avatar.
Gimme a big red C.Look for "Quick Links" near the top of the page and select "Edit Avatar" from the list. That'll get you a couple hundred avatar choices.

Puffy
05-03-2005, 07:19 PM
Unless your are me and you don't even know how to put one up...or even how to get one...or even why we call it an avatar.
Gimme a big red C.

If you want want SunDeck just go into User CP on the Red toolbar on the top of the page (under the Redszone emblem) and then click on Edit Avatar on the left hand side of the screen.

It will give you a bunch of choices for an avatar, or you could upload your own by using the browse feature (although you'd have to shrink most pictures to fit into your avatar).

Hope that helps :thumbup:

SunDeck
05-03-2005, 07:24 PM
<-- How's that?

Boss-Hog
05-03-2005, 08:14 PM
Your reputation points are now viewable.

SunDeck
05-03-2005, 08:18 PM
Now I feel all this pressure to win friends.

KronoRed
05-03-2005, 08:40 PM
Your reputation points are now viewable.

I worry people seeing the points will lead to a lot of "Please vote for me" and "yer rep is lower then mine! you suck" type stuff, even among CRT people.

IMO

SunDeck
05-03-2005, 08:44 PM
I worry people seeing the points will lead to a lot of "Please vote for me" and "yer rep is lower then mine! you suck" type stuff, even among CRT people.

IMO

Or voting blocs!
Hey Krono, I accidently repped you up a couple times yesterday before I knew what I was doing. So be nice to me or I'll negativize you.

RedsBaron
05-03-2005, 10:16 PM
If we had had this system during last year's election, when politcal posting was running wild, a whole bunch of people here, on all sides of the political spectrum, would probably had a negative "reputation" by now. When emotions run high, I can see a lot of negative rating as a result.

Mutaman
05-03-2005, 11:32 PM
Somebody just gave me a negative for using a "bad" word. I feel like Howard Stern dealing with the FCC. And I've written some great posts without getting any positive ratings. Can we buy some points if we need to? :) :)

Mutaman
05-03-2005, 11:39 PM
Amazingly, I turned on the TV and heard the same word on "Law and Order" .

Mutaman
05-03-2005, 11:44 PM
IMO it'd be hard to reach that level (as negative points are assessed at 50% of positive, i.e. it'd take a long time). .

I might be up for the challenge.

KronoRed
05-04-2005, 12:20 AM
I might be up for the challenge.

Would take ticking off a lot of people ;)

smith288
05-04-2005, 01:09 AM
If we had had this system during last year's election, when politcal posting was running wild, a whole bunch of people here, on all sides of the political spectrum, would probably had a negative "reputation" by now. When emotions run high, I can see a lot of negative rating as a result. Remember, the country is split and most likely, so is this board... positives would outweigh the negative because the negatives are 50% as much as positives. No worries!

zombie-a-go-go
05-04-2005, 06:31 AM
I would like to use this post to humbly campaign for your negative reputation points. If you just feel like you have to 'ding' someone, ding me. It is my goal to get to an "infamous" rating.

I know it'll take some work, and a lot of time, but I feel that if I stick to my guns and keep my nose to the grindstone, I can be the first person on this board with a negative reputation.

So have at me! Drag me into the mire! :)

KronoRed
05-04-2005, 06:35 AM
I would like to use this post to humbly campaign for your negative reputation points. If you just feel like you have to 'ding' someone, ding me. It is my goal to get to an "infamous" rating.

I know it'll take some work, and a lot of time, but I feel that if I stick to my guns and keep my nose to the grindstone, I can be the first person on this board with a negative reputation.

So have at me! Drag me into the mire! :)

Just for that I was going to drag you up but I'm already out of points for today ;)

zombie-a-go-go
05-04-2005, 06:40 AM
Just for that I was going to drag you up but I'm already out of points for today ;)

Jerk. :p: ;)

RedsBaron
05-04-2005, 07:42 AM
Jerk. :p: ;)

That post violated Rule 5. I'm going to report you to a moderator......wait, you ARE a moderator! ;)

princeton
05-04-2005, 10:45 AM
I would like to use this post to humbly campaign for your negative reputation points. If you just feel like you have to 'ding' someone, ding me. It is my goal to get to an "infamous" rating.

copycat.

I defended Gullett and Graves yesterday, and wound up positive. Go figure (I did get one red mark for my pro-Reitsma stance :thumbup: )

but Richard Hand could dip below zero within an hour, without shameless campaigning. He'd be like Pete Rose on 60 minutes

zombie-a-go-go
05-04-2005, 10:49 AM
You know what your problem is, princeton?

You're too subtle. :)

princeton
05-04-2005, 10:58 AM
You're too subtle. :)

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead?

Boss-Hog
05-05-2005, 07:05 PM
I had the following response typed up:




Upon further review, GIK and I have decided that CRT posters can NOT be rated negatively but the negative rating (which again, is weighted at 50% of a positive rating) will remain in place for non CRT members. I guess I think that's necessary as a system of checks and balances and so that EVERYONE doesn't eventually get in and then we're right back at square one with the same problems we were having before.



That means that no one who gets in to CRT can lose access via a decline in points, but rest assured, suspensions and bans will remain in place for those who warrant them.


However, then I realized that there's no built in option to disallow negative feedback about a group - only an option for a specific user group to leave negative reputation. As I said above, I do think a system of checks and balances needs to exist but I don't want this to get tacky to the point that users are negatively rating others for personal reasons. As best I can see, the only option we have is to allow or not allow you guys to negatively rate others. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Puffy
05-05-2005, 07:07 PM
Allow it - if someone is childish enough for a personal vendetta, well, what are you gonna do. I think it should stay so that we keep the checks and balances on allowing trolls to the board.

Of course that is just my opinion, and I have yet, and probably never will, negativize anyone, but its a good option to have.

ochre
05-05-2005, 07:13 PM
I think the negative ratings are ok to have in there.

KronoRed
05-05-2005, 07:14 PM
I'd turn off all negatives, at least for now..the system is new and people are going crazy with it a bit, maybe trying to neg people they have always had a problem with.

Let the everyone get used to it, the newness wear off then bring back the negatives.

Red Leader
05-05-2005, 07:14 PM
I would like "negativized" points to be done away with.

I haven't left any negativized points for anyone yet, but I started typing my user name in the comments field of the rep points so that if anyone has any questions, they can PM me. I'd like to see others do the same so that I know who left me positive or negative points and we can discuss it privately.

If the option is either to turn it off for everyone, or keep it on for everyone, I'd probably rather see it done away with. That way, if a certain person doesn't deserve rep points, they don't get "dinged", you just give one of the 5 you get per day to someone else, if someone else deserves them. Those that are "trouble" won't go anywhere beyond 10 points anyway, so there's no point in taking away points for them, in my opinion.

Creates a better atmosphere on the board if there are no negative points given out as well, in my opinion.

Unassisted
05-05-2005, 07:14 PM
I like knowing what others think about my posts, good and bad.

Sometimes good apples go bad. A little peer pressure might keep the apple from rotting.

ochre
05-05-2005, 07:15 PM
negatives are only half credit. It takes quite some time to be able to rate the same person multiple times, whether positive, or negative. We can, to a certain degree, monitor for harrassment and abuse of the system.

Puffy
05-05-2005, 07:18 PM
I have a question as well - if greens are positive, and reds are negative, why do I have two greys? They didn't add or deduct points, so I'm just wondering what they are for?

westofyou
05-05-2005, 07:19 PM
I see it as a little too Posse IMO.

I'd lose the negative rating, apathy to a post speaks pretty loud and if you're a pest the mods will hear about it before you can garnish enough negative points.

Lack of movement in positive ratings is a negative rating in itself. Having the ability to see that you got dinged in a certain thread leads to jumps in conclusions on who the culprit was, annoucements to the board that Hey I got screwed, etc.

MWM
05-05-2005, 07:21 PM
I'd leave the negatives. If someone wants to waste a vote on a CRT member by voting negative, let them. It won't make any difference as it will be darn near impossible to get to 100 or below. Even so, the easy fix is to mke it policy that once you're in CRT, you stay no matter how many negative votes you get. Then it's absolutely pointless to vote negative on a CRT member.

But I think negative votes are necessary for non-CRT members. That's my two cents.

ochre
05-05-2005, 07:21 PM
I have a question as well - if greens are positive, and reds are negative, why do I have two greys? They didn't add or deduct points, so I'm just wondering what they are for?
When did the grays occur?

Puffy
05-05-2005, 07:23 PM
When did the grays occur?

One yesterday at 8 in the morning, and one today at noon.

KronoRed
05-05-2005, 07:23 PM
When did the grays occur?

I know I got one in the Monday game thread, I don't have a link now though.

Dan
05-05-2005, 07:24 PM
I'm just wondering what my reputation # is. Nice system, btw.

RBA
05-05-2005, 07:29 PM
I don't see how any one person can abuse this system and bring someone down to under the 100 pt cutoff. If you can't rate someone until you rate 15 others, that's your safety net right there. The only way to do it is have a collective group of at least 5 members who have PT rights to knock someone down. Even at that rate it's still like 15-30 points at the most. And in that case, most of us would come to the "victims" defense and post positive pts. and easily gain those pts back with no problem at all.

I understand the negative feelings people could have if they started with 200 pts and go down to 197 pts. But other posters see this and bring that poster back up very quicklly. The potential to abuse the system is really not there, unless someone considers a 3-8 pt drop a whoopdeedoo.

It all comes back around anyways.

KronoRed
05-05-2005, 08:01 PM
I'm just wondering what my reputation # is. Nice system, btw.

Listed on the right below your post count.

Well if most of us agree negatives don't do much damage why not just get rid of them all together?

smith288
05-05-2005, 08:02 PM
I have a question as well - if greens are positive, and reds are negative, why do I have two greys? They didn't add or deduct points, so I'm just wondering what they are for?

It means someone with less than 50 posts (or a number set by the admin) ranked you. Could be a new member subscriber tried to rank you....

Gray means no harm no foul either way.

smith288
05-05-2005, 08:04 PM
I agree RBA. Its too difficult to mount some conspiracy with others to bring a certain member down. To much work than its worth if you ask me.

Though I did get dinged twice on a post and It made me really wonder why. Sure my post could be viewed as slighty in bad taste, but it was obviously in jest. Oh well.

Boss-Hog
05-05-2005, 08:28 PM
I think gray means a 0 net effect rating.

Just tossing out ideas here - what about this?


Can See Own Reputation
This permission allows the user to see which members left the comments that appear in the user's User CP.

It may be useful for some accountability, for those who have complained of baseless boosting/detracting.

Larkin Fan
05-05-2005, 08:34 PM
I think gray means a 0 net effect rating.

Just tossing out ideas here - what about this?



It may be useful for some accountability, for those who have complained of baseless boosting/detracting.

Accountability is a good thing, but the one problem I see with it is cases of "you negged me, so I'll neg you." Could lead to problems and animosity between posters.

Boss-Hog
05-05-2005, 08:39 PM
Accountability is a good thing, but the one problem I see with it is cases of "you negged me, so I'll neg you." Could lead to problems and animosity between posters. Valid point.

TeamDunn
05-05-2005, 09:08 PM
Can you set it to where CRT members can't leave negative or postive reps for fellow CRT members?

A lot of people are giving positives to people already in CRT. Granted if they do not have any poster they want moved I guess their votes are theirs to do with as they wish...it just seems silly to "waste" them on CRT members (IMO).

I think the negatives should stay for Live...and that once they hit a -50 they at least get a suspension or banned. A couple of people have just been testing you like a 3 year old tests its parents. :rolleyes:

TeamDunn
05-05-2005, 09:13 PM
ps...as membership in here grows (over the coming weeks or months) at some point even though 5 seems like so few times to be able to vote a day I would limit it to 2-3 times later. Once you end up 500-700 or over a 1000 in here voting it could get nuts again.

Just thinking ahead.

TeamDunn
05-05-2005, 09:15 PM
Me Again!!! :p:

Is there a way to make the comment a mandatory field? Not that you have to give your name, but just a reason why you are giving negative or positive feedback?

smith288
05-05-2005, 09:38 PM
If we stick with the negative ranking, I say it should be mandatory but if its positive, it shouldnt be...although that means some modding to the script.

Boss-Hog
05-05-2005, 09:55 PM
Can you set it to where CRT members can't leave negative or postive reps for fellow CRT members?

No way to differentiate between different user groups.


Is there a way to make the comment a mandatory field?

Yes - what are everyone's thoughts on that?

TeamDunn
05-05-2005, 09:58 PM
I'm sorry, I thought you meant you could not allow Positive, but stop Negative in the CRT forum. I am lacking sleep. :help: :)

westofyou
05-05-2005, 09:59 PM
I don't care for the comment field, I won't fill it out with anything but nonsense as an act of civil disobedience.

Unassisted
05-05-2005, 10:37 PM
Since some ratings are proving a source of bafflement, the mandatory comments could be helpful.

I think the anonymous ratings allow for more candor. I prefer to get candid assessments of my posts.

remdog
05-05-2005, 10:42 PM
Dump the negatives. Stick with the positives. However, if someone is going to vote a negative make them standup and be counted. Make them post their name and why they voted negative. Anything less is cowardly. Additionally, if someone has to explain why they voted negative they just might realize that it's about something personal and not necessarilly objective. They just might decide not to vote that negative if they need a good reason to do so. At that point I believe the person being 'negatated' should have the right to go to a mod and say, 'this is wrong' and, if he makes a good case, have the negative point removed.

Rem

PS. Whew! Just re-read what I wrote and, even though I believe it that's a whole heck of a lot of work! Just dump the negative votes and skip the rest! :)

DunnersGrl44
05-05-2005, 10:46 PM
Yes I most definetly think that the people that vote negatively should have to put their names and why.

jmcclain19
05-05-2005, 10:49 PM
No way to differentiate between different user groups.



Yes - what are everyone's thoughts on that?

Personally, I'd like to have the ability to see who positive rep'd you (I apologize if this was mentioned earlier in the thread, I haven't browsed back thru to see if it was), I didn't know until yesterday that we weren't using that feature.

I think everyone can use it for different reasons. I plan on using my point to give props to folks who aren't in CRT yet, and I've used my allotment of five every day so far.

I started leaving my SN in the comments field so people can know who is making the props - think it's just more personal that way - especially since I haven't interacted much w/ most of the people I've rep'd so far. I think it fosters a little bit more of a community feeling, but that's just me.

smith288
05-05-2005, 10:54 PM
PS. Whew! Just re-read what I wrote and, even though I believe it that's a whole heck of a lot of work! Just dump the negative votes and skip the rest!

I like the idea of dumping negatives and making comments mandatory. If you put jibberish, so be it, but i think it will add personal touches to a ranking of a post.

Mutaman
05-05-2005, 11:01 PM
The problem I see with the negs so far is that there are a bunch of polyannas here who object to any post with the slightest bit of edge to it. TOO PROVACATIVE!! God forbid anybody use the internet to say anything provacative. Particularly when their team has lost seven in a row. Other than that i think the new system has been interesting (i've even gotten some positive votes).

remdog
05-05-2005, 11:03 PM
OK, I'll go with making comments mandatory. What I ment was drop the 'appeal' part. That's just too much work for the mods over a 1/2 point.

Rem

jmcclain19
05-05-2005, 11:10 PM
Personally, I like the negs. I've done one so far and I left my name and why I did it too. That's another reason why I think we should have the names of who rated you available. Accountability.

RFS62
05-05-2005, 11:14 PM
I don't really give a rats ass what you do with the rating system. I'm just so happy to see the board improve so much that I can't put it into words.

I feel badly for those caught in the middle, the good posters or semi-lurkers who posted very infrequently, but never, ever caused any problems. On the other hand, it seems to have caused a lot of these guys to step up and post, and their posts have been across the board great. I really believe that a lot of people were intimidated before and were reluctant to post, and now that they are kind of being forced to, we're seeing a lot of great baseball knowledge.

I'm using all my votes for posters who have the balls to post now when they didn't post a lot before, but obviously love this board. You can tell from the tone of their posts that they want to be a part of all this, and that's all I need to know.

I never, ever would have thought that I'd ever be interested in posting on a message board until I got hooked on the old Cincy board, and then RedsZone. It was such a blessing to find a community of people who loved baseball and loved the Reds and wanted to hang out and talk about it. I don't want to be part of excluding kindred spirits from that experience.

So, even though I did vote today a negative vote for someone who literally asked for it, I won't do it again. All my votes will be for people who love baseball, and want to be a part of a community of fans.

Red Leader
05-05-2005, 11:17 PM
I mentioned this before in one of these threads, but I will share it here as well, because I think its somewhat valid to this thread.

I have received 1 negative rep. I received it on a post that I made in response to a post Puffy had made. I was being 100% sarcastic in the comment I made to Puffy and someone "dinged" me for it. Puffy knew that I was totally joking around with him, but the person that "dinged" me for it, obviously did not. To make a long story short, that's the only problem I have with these negative points. Not everyone understands the relationships between the person that made a post, and the response that follows, and could take it out of context. It's really a tough decision. There's good and bad to either way you decide to go, and I trust that after reading all of the responses you've received so far on this, and future ones, that you'll make the correct decision for all of us.

jmcclain19
05-05-2005, 11:22 PM
I mentioned this before in one of these threads, but I will share it here as well, because I think its somewhat valid to this thread.

I have received 1 negative rep. I received it on a post that I made in response to a post Puffy had made. I was being 100% sarcastic in the comment I made to Puffy and someone "dinged" me for it. Puffy knew that I was totally joking around with him, but the person that "dinged" me for it, obviously did not. To make a long story short, that's the only problem I have with these negative points. Not everyone understands the relationships between the person that made a post, and the response that follows, and could take it out of context. It's really a tough decision. There's good and bad to either way you decide to go, and I trust that after reading all of the responses you've received so far on this, and future ones, that you'll make the correct decision for all of us.

Point is RL, those of us who are already at 200, shouldn't care one bit what are scores are, who rated us, etc etc. We're already in.

KronoRed
05-05-2005, 11:23 PM
/\
Echoing what Red Leader said...

I've been dinged down twice today, both posts made in jest, joke posts really, yet someone used one their 5 times to ding me down for it, I can't figure out why, I didn't flame the Reds or a member of this forum

Nothing is without a downside, make people know who neged them and it could lead to neg/pos wars like LF said, just dumping the neg part seems to me like the best option, but of course I'll support whatever you decide to do..the forum does seem quite a lot better lately.

KronoRed
05-05-2005, 11:25 PM
Point is RL, those of us who are already at 200, shouldn't care one bit what are scores are, who rated us, etc etc. We're already in.

Well then we should go back to green dots instead of a number, it's going to be hard for people not to notice their number decreasing, then wonder what they did :confused:

jmcclain19
05-05-2005, 11:27 PM
I think you miss my point KR. Don't care about the number. If your over 200, I think the number is irrelevent.

The whole point of the system is to gain the ability to post in the CRT forum. Once you're there, it's like the Hotel California. You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

ochre
05-05-2005, 11:29 PM
Well then we should go back to green dots instead of a number, it's going to be hard for people not to notice their number decreasing, then wonder what they did :confused:
How about we declare a hiatus on all discussion about the reputation system for a few weeks so we can see how it shakes out :)

I really think once the excitement dies down a bit the usefullness of both the positive and negative ratings will be evident (one way or another). People are going nuts rating things now, but as time goes on it will be the truly exceptional (negatively and positively) that will be rated.

Red Leader
05-05-2005, 11:32 PM
Point is RL, those of us who are already at 200, shouldn't care one bit what are scores are, who rated us, etc etc. We're already in.

I understand that, really I do, but to me it isn't "in" vs "out".

Just because I have 200+ points doesn't mean I can trash someone, or their posts, or post total crap myself. There are levels above "200", that mean something to me. They tell me that I am adding informative information that made someone learn something, made them laugh, something where I added something "positive" to someone's experience on this board, and to get a negative over something stupid like being sarcastic to one of my "best friends" on this board, Puffy, is wrong, IMO. I shouldn't be given positive points unless I earned them, and I shouldn't be given negative points unless I deserve those either.

ochre
05-05-2005, 11:38 PM
I understand that, really I do, but to me it isn't "in" vs "out".

Just because I have 200+ points doesn't mean I can trash someone, or their posts, or post total crap myself. There are levels above "200", that mean something to me. They tell me that I am adding informative information that made someone learn something, made them laugh, something where I added something "positive" to someone's experience on this board, and to get a negative over something stupid like being sarcastic to one of my "best friends" on this board, Puffy, is wrong, IMO. I shouldn't be given positive points unless I earned them, and I shouldn't be given negative points unless I deserve those either.
its peer review. All that means is that a poster(s) didn't like a post you made. Its their right to feel that way and now there is a way for them to let their feelings be known. I think that is a good thing. The things that trigger a response like that right now are fairly mundane. The longer people are exposed to ratings, the more severe of a post it will take to merit notice.

Lets let this thing settle in for a bit before changing anything drastically. So far I think the results are positive.

remdog
05-06-2005, 12:28 AM
I don't really give a rats ass what you do with the rating system.[QUOTE]

Can we say ass on this forum, even if the ass in question does belong to a rat?

[QUOTE] I'm using all my votes for posters who have the balls to post now when they didn't post a lot before, but obviously love this board.

Can we say balls on this forum, except for those of the baseball kind?


So, even though I did vote today a negative vote for someone who literally asked for it, I won't do it again. All my votes will be for people who love baseball, and want to be a part of a community of fans.

Well, if that person literally asked for it then you did them a favor. If you wanted to 'punish' that person then a positive vote would have done the trick. Except if that person were using reverse psychology, in which case you would have neged them so that their ploy to get positive points was snarfed out. OTOH, if that person were using reverse-reverse psychology....ummmm, nevermind. :p:

Rem

Disclaimer: see post 157 in this thread.

Reds Nd2
05-06-2005, 01:20 AM
Quote:
Is there a way to make the comment a mandatory field?



Yes - what are everyone's thoughts on that?

I don't like it. I feel the voting will be more honest if it's kept confidential. I mean, who wants to get into an argument because they voted negative and that person takes it personally. After a couple of times, people may quit voting negatively all together and then you may be back where you started to begin with. And I have to agree with Woy, I'd post @$&#^*% instead of giving a reason or comment just because I don't like be forced to do anything. The way I look at voting negative is the same way I look at booing the players on the field, you have to keep doing something pretty bad for that to happen and no comment is necessary.

The comment field is there for people who choose to utilize it. If anyone wants to give props to a member of Live or offer encouragement, thats fine. If someone feels the need to offer constructive criticism, I think thats fine too. No need to make it mandatory. IMO

M2
05-06-2005, 01:37 AM
Why do we have to make a comment? Vote and be done with it.

Yachtzee
05-06-2005, 01:41 AM
Well, if that person literally asked for it then you did them a favor. If you wanted to 'punish' that person then a positive vote would have done the trick. Except if that person were using reverse psychology, in which case you would have neged them so that their ploy to get positive points was snarfed out. OTOH, if that person were using reverse-reverse psychology....ummmm, nevermind. :p:



You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line." Hahahahahah.

KronoRed
05-06-2005, 03:16 AM
Why do we have to make a comment? Vote and be done with it.

Well some people might not understand why they get a negative one, a little comment "You went a little negative on that topic" or something might help.

TeamDunn
05-06-2005, 07:16 AM
No one is asking anyone to leave their name in the comment field, just the reason for the comment.

TeamCasey
05-06-2005, 07:17 AM
I think it should be up to the giver to remain anonymous if they choose. There's a comment field if people want to put their names or comments there.

Leave it alone. Leave it private. Keep it honest.

It's like a curtain on a voting booth.

TeamCasey
05-06-2005, 07:23 AM
No one is asking anyone to leave their name in the comment field, just the reason for the comment.

It was mentioned earlier on the page.

TeamDunn
05-06-2005, 07:33 AM
It was mentioned earlier on the page.

It was mentioned earlier that their name automatically appear when they vote. It was never mentioned/asked that anyone submit their name in the comments section. Two different things the way I am understanding it.

zombie-a-go-go
05-06-2005, 08:46 AM
When you speak ill of someone, is it more honorable to say it to their face or say it behind their back?

smith288
05-06-2005, 09:00 AM
Quote:
Is there a way to make the comment a mandatory field?




I don't like it. I feel the voting will be more honest if it's kept confidential. I mean, who wants to get into an argument because they voted negative and that person takes it personally. After a couple of times, people may quit voting negatively all together and then you may be back where you started to begin with. And I have to agree with Woy, I'd post @$&#^*% instead of giving a reason or comment just because I don't like be forced to do anything. The way I look at voting negative is the same way I look at booing the players on the field, you have to keep doing something pretty bad for that to happen and no comment is necessary.

The comment field is there for people who choose to utilize it. If anyone wants to give props to a member of Live or offer encouragement, thats fine. If someone feels the need to offer constructive criticism, I think thats fine too. No need to make it mandatory. IMO Well, why dont you just type "123" in the comment field then? Its a value and you arent saying anything constructive.

TeamDunn
05-06-2005, 09:02 AM
Do you want to have to deal with the animosity that will bleed onto the board when people start cat fights on here because it is known who left negative feedback?

If so, by all means. If you agree to make it mandatory to disclose usernames leaving negative feedback then there should be yet another rule making the discusion of it cause for banning on the forum. Meaning if someone gets mad and posts so-in-so (or even "somebody") left me negative feedback...yadda yadda yadda. Automatic suspension or banning. There are groups of friends here and if one of them gets "picked" on then others will retaliate. This will turn into an ugly mess.

smith288
05-06-2005, 09:04 AM
Geesh TD, I blink and your rep is all the way up to 246....I spread the rep, where's my rep?? :lol:

TeamDunn
05-06-2005, 09:07 AM
Geesh TD, I blink and your rep is all the way up to 246....I spread the rep, where's my rep?? :lol:

If it would fit I would put something about Spreadin' the rep to those under 200! ;) Too long though. If you think of something shorter lemme know! ;)

So many great posts from Live only members...must go spread it there first! ;)

smith288
05-06-2005, 09:17 AM
If it would fit I would put something about Spreadin' the rep to those under 200! ;) Too long though. If you think of something shorter lemme know! ;)

So many great posts from Live only members...must go spread it there first! ;) Sorry to make you think it was a request for rep point, I didnt mean it that way.

Some CRT folks like your posts though, thats for sure. :) I saw someone was up to 295 already. WOW.

TeamDunn
05-06-2005, 09:20 AM
I didn't think that at all! I thought you were just teasing me about the "Spreadin' the rep" part!! :) :thumbup:

Unassisted
05-06-2005, 11:20 AM
I agree completely with what ochre said in #162 and #164. I should leave him a tip. :)

KittyDuran
05-06-2005, 01:36 PM
Hmmm... is anyone [that can] having trouble giving out points? Is it based on actually points given or to how many people? I've just given a poster points and now when I try again [to another poster] it states that I need to wait another 24 hours... :confused:

REDREAD
05-06-2005, 01:39 PM
Hmmm... is anyone [that can] having trouble giving out points? Is it based on actually points given or to how many people? I've just given a poster points and now when I try again [to another poster] it states that I need to wait another 24 hours... :confused:

I think you can only give out points to 5 people (maybe it's 6) within 24 hours.. So you have to wait 24 hours before giving any more out.

So, wait until tommorrow to hit that post.

KittyDuran
05-06-2005, 01:41 PM
I think you can only give out points to 5 people (maybe it's 6) within 24 hours.. So you have to wait 24 hours before giving any more out.

So, wait until tommorrow to hit that post.I've only given points out today to 1 person. :confused:

ochre
05-06-2005, 01:48 PM
its a rolling count not a set time per day. You must have done the other reps later in the previous day. Once the time rolls around to the appropriate time those should open up too.

KittyDuran
05-06-2005, 01:51 PM
its a rolling count not a set time per day. You must have done the other reps later in the previous day. Once the time rolls around to the appropriate time those should open up too.OK, that's sounds about right... Thanks! :)

Red Leader
05-06-2005, 01:52 PM
yea, basically that means that you gave your 2nd rep yesterday after 12:55pm or so. Have to wait until 24 hours after that second rep was given.

TeamCasey
05-06-2005, 02:24 PM
The rolling part is a pain. I skipped a day, so I could do reps in the morning. That first time, I did them in the evening, when I'm normally not at the computer. Then I was stuck doing them at that time. I did a couple this morning and my last one around lunchtime.

Now I can't do any tomorrow morning when I'm usually hanging out over a cup of coffee.

Not a big deal, just a pain in the butt.

TeamCasey
05-06-2005, 02:32 PM
I think you have to wait until the last rep was given.

Reds Nd2
05-06-2005, 07:09 PM
Well, why dont you just type "123" in the comment field then? Its a value and you arent saying anything constructive.

I posted that incorrectly. I wouldn't actually post something that resembles cursing. I just meant I'd probably post some gibberish. I guess I look at voting negatively different than others. It would take alot of bad posts before I negged one and then it should be obvious and warrent no further comment.

Spring~Fields
05-07-2005, 10:05 AM
GIK,

Have a good laugh at the negative rep point I received on the Kentucky Derby thread.........I realize that you and Boss try really hard but....Hello!, I guess one missed the point that you and Boss were really trying hard to make this a better forum yet.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34345