Game thread forum a mess...

[Eric_Davis]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

Dean Wormer: Mr. Kroger: two C's, two D's and an F. That's a 1.2 grade average. Congratulations, Kroger. You're at the top of the Delta pledge class. Mr. Dorfman?

Flounder: Hello!

Dean Wormer: Zero point two... Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Mr. Hoover, president of Delta house? One point six; four C's and an F. A fine example you set! Daniel Simpson Day... HAS no grade point average. All courses incomplete. Mr. Blu - MR. BLUTARSKY ... ZERO POINT ZERO.


Prolly my favorite scene from the movie.

The first movie, and one of the only ones, I thought was so dang good, I sat through the theater for the next showing and watched it again. It's one of those movies that you can walk in during any five-minute segment and laugh your head off.

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

People who can not spell.

Serriously, very interesting question.

Post of the day.

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Impossible to do, but it would be interesting to see how some of those sarcastic and occasionally condescending remarks would fly if they only had 107 points and 2 months of service time and working their way towards ORG.

The thing is, when I see posts from 20-30 of the top posters (not by rep pts, but by gonelong standards) I read them. Its has nothing to do with rep pts, but it has everything to do with the reputation they have built for themselves over the years.

Many of the top posters here have BUILT this community, it just didn't spring from the ground. They built it by giving ... sometimes money and more importantly, content. The heavy hitters of the site deserve quite a bit more leeway than somebody who joined last week. Sure, almost everyone will be grouchy from time-to-time. I'll give more leeway to the guy that shows a level of respect for 360+ days a year for 5-6 years than I will for someone who showed up last week and is getting his panties in a wad.

IMO the only problem with rep is that it isn't being used enough on the minus end.

GL

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by dabvu2498

What qualifies someone as a person you'd "rather not see" on ORG?

Sorry, I meant it in a generic fashion.. There might be someone that a given person would rather not see. In other words, there's no ORG criteria that would please everyone.. Someone would always think the bar should be raised higher.

Personally, I liked it better when it was just one forum, not seperated. So there's no one on ORG that I want booted out.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by M2

My guess is if you polled every single person on the board with more than 400 rep points whether they ever think about rep when they're making a post, you'd get a 100% response rate of no.

I don't think people actually think about their rep as posting. I just think it confers a little more leeway to "push the boundries" so to speak. That's not a big problem, just sometimes it touches off a wildfire with the newer posters.

That said, I've not been around all that long so I will defer to your input regarding to how things over the life of the board, and people's behavior.

One question for you though, what's the deal with that Willymorocks guy? Has he always been a punk?

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by remdog

I just looked and you're averaging about 1.6 posts per day. There are a number of people that come on here and post in the double didgit category from the get go---those people tend to acquire points very rapidly. (And I understand that, for some people, finding a place to talk to other Reds/baseball fans is a very emotional, exciting thing, so I'm OK with that.) Others, like yourself, tend to take a more conservative approach---one influences the rep points more directly than the other. (For LtlAbner : )

Rem

Sure it influences how much reputation is awarded. People who post more have more opportunities to earn rep. Part of the incentive of ORG is to get people posting in a way consistent with the ideals of Redszone.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

One question for you though, what's the deal with that Willymorocks guy? Has he always been a punk?

Name calling isn't productive.. Just put the guy on ignore if you don't want to deal with him.

[Redsland]

The system isn't broken just because three folks wandered in and peed all over the place. Those people need to be dealt with. Beyond that, the rep system did the job was intended to do and seems to be working reasonably well.

Heck, maybe some of the same "service time" minimums should have to be met before someone can post in the Game Thread Forum. Either that or let the Game Thread forum continue to be the wild west, and have another game thread in ORG.

[remdog]

By LtlAbner: I might start negging you if you keep posting (shrug) in every last one of your posts"

I can type (shrug) faster than opening the smilie screen scrolling down and clicking. Plus that character is just 'dweeby' looking. (shrug)

Rem

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by cincy09

I feel the same way about giving out the rep points. I have never been negged and I always try to post something that adds to the board. At the same time it took me almost 2 1/2 years and 1300 posts to reach Org. When I saw people getting here in a matter of days it was very discouraging. I realize some posters add enough to the board to warrant this, but at the same time rep points should be somewhat tough to come by.

I find myself giving rep based on a body of work rather than single posts. If I get online and read 2-3 posts from someone there username gets in my head a bit. I'll often search out their other posts to see if they have been "on" lately and give them rep that way.

If you are spreading your posts very thin you have probably slipped under my radar.

Quite honestly, now that you have ORG status, does it really seem like a big deal to you?

GL

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by remdog

By LtlAbner: I might start negging you if you keep posting (shrug) in every last one of your posts"

I can type (shrug) faster than opening the smilie screen scrolling down and clicking. Plus that character is just 'dweeby' looking. (shrug)

Rem

Watch it buddy. You are on thin ice.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Name calling isn't productive.. Just put the guy on ignore if you don't want to deal with him.

Uhhh....I was kidding. I guess I forgot the smiley. But serriously, I was kidding because me and Willymo are cool like that. He proof reads all my posts for me to make sure I haven't misspelt anything.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by dabvu2498

What qualifies someone as a person you'd "rather not see" on ORG?

Yes a very interesting and what could be a profound question, one that should be answered in a clear and concise manner by those that want to imply or express a need for the differentiation. I don’t want to drag out psych 101 or sociology, but we all know that there are micro cultures who like to keep their comfortable group in tact. Is that what is going on here or are “others” a serious problem?

[Danny Serafini]

I guess I look at the whole rep system a little bit differently, so maybe my thoughts will make sense and maybe they won't, but here they are.

I very, very rarely will give a positive rep to somebody over 200 points. It's not that I don't like or appreciate their posts, I just don't see the point of adding rep when someone is already in ORG. That's the whole reason we have a rep system. Once you're in it doesn't matter what your number goes to. Sure it's nice to see that number move up, but it's not why I, or anyone else I imagine, is posting here. I don't see much point in keeping score after 200. It doesn't upset me either, I'm not calling for the numbers to be abolished, I just don't really care, and that's why I don't pass rep around like that.

I've got a couple points about negative rep. First, in the very early days of this system you could give a neutral rep. I'd really like to see that option return. I've only given one negative, and it had nothing to do with baseball. There are times where maybe someone deserves a warning, they're teetering on going over the line, but I don't want to hammer their points for it. The ability to say "Hey, watch it" would come in handy sometimes. I think there would be more self-policing by the members if they had the ability to send a message without stripping points from someone.

The other problem with negatives come when someone gets ganged up on. Sometimes someone says something dumb, and deserves to get their rep dinged. The problem comes when 20 other people pile on and neg the person back to the Stone Age. One bad day can destroy an otherwise decent poster. Maybe a limit of 5 negs for one post might be appropriate. If a person gets dinged 5 times for one post that should send enough of a message without the unnecessary piling on.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by gonelong

Quite honestly, now that you have ORG status, does it really seem like a big deal to you?

GL

Maybe the upper limit on rep should be set to whatever the number is to get into ORG. Once you get to 200, or whatever, you can't go any higher. You can always, however, come down if you start acting up and get negged.