Rob Neyer: "Any writer who says he'd be a better manager than the worst manager is either 1) lying (i.e. 'using poetic license') or 2) patently delusional. Which isn't to say managers don't do stupid things that you or I wouldn't."
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
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.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
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?
All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
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.
Makes all the routine posts.
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
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
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?
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.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |