Thanks. Appreciate it a lot dude. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Martvol
Printable View
Thanks. Appreciate it a lot dude. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Martvol
Ok so been thinking about it today. Is this just a social experiment? See if a rating changes human behavior? Because without negative ramifications for a low rep whats the point? If im scrolling through posts im not gonna think "ok better check this guy's rep before i read the post" lol.... now if there was a system where it blocked me from seeing posts from a poster with rep below a threshold i could see that being useful... thoughts?
sorry if this has been said, but i'm not all that keen to wade through 25 pages of comments...
the only problem i can see, and it's not a big one, is that it'd be fairly easy to get downvoted (make one stupid mistake when you're in a bad mood, a whole bunch of ppl say "i disapprove" and you're -200) but it'd be near impossible to climb your way back out of that. unless you're a mod, gasp, or one of the heavy hitters on the forum (for content and quality, not post count) i imagine it'll be hard to get upvoted.
like i said, not a big deal if the only impact is not being able to give other ppl rep points.
Interesting question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roas
I don't know, no final decision yet. Currently in trial it's more interesting to see how people play with the system.
If you have some reason member should be able to choose whether they wanna show or hide their own reputation to others (normal members), I'm all ears.
We are in the trial and failure phase, aka make mistakes and reflect upon.
That would mean only popular view points would be viewed and unpopular ones would not see the light of day. In some cases as people have pointed out one comment seen by thousands could be downvoted quite a bit thus making it so you could never make another post on that forum account under the system you propose. I personally would consider that a fatal blow to the forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holbomb
Serious question here, if i dont agree with your point am i suppose to downvote it? Im not sure if that is the way its suppose to be used or if its just for mean behaviour. Suggestions?
If people are only downvoting based on toxicity and not viewpoints then i disagree that unpopular viewpoints wouldnt be shared.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyDonkey
But thats a big "if"
In my opinion this has so much potential to be abused, if a couple people have a heated discussion on the forums what would stop them from looking for the other person's post and downvoting just because they don't like them. I very seldom post, but I do enjoy reading a free and open discussion on here. Just seems like we will basically be able to silence the views of people we don't agree with.
To me, a post where I don't agree on a point is just as likely to get my upvote if it's well thought through, respectfully expressed and genuinely interesting and thought provoking. Ones I would downvote are those that are mean, toxic, inflammatory or repeated contentless posts ("lol/10 char").Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyDonkey
Disagree on the "lol 10 char" bit. Some scientists think laughter evolved as a way for a social species to be engaged in conversation without the need for the whole group to be talking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomville
Point being downvotes will be highly subjective and there will be backlash against the system. But hey if it makes the forums less toxic it will be worth it.
Thats a fair point. I just assumed that most would down vote based on disagreeing with the content but if its really meant for toxicity or meaningless posts then I suppose it could be useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holbomb