Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haystacker
I disagree with Haystacker here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnK2015
There are four separate people who have given Haystacker more than 1 upvote (including you who have given 3). If that is reasonable, then why is it unreasonable for one person to have given two downvotes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexheney
I beg your pardon... wrong wrong wrong (3 wrongs don't make rights)... this is targeted abuse:
"Glad to ping you again, Frog. Post #155"
First of all, I don't understand why you're linking those giving the upvotes to those giving the downvotes. Are you considering the negative comments received by Haystacker, some of which I find disparaging because they commented on his personality rather than the content of his posts? I have no idea how they reached this conclusion since they haven't met him in real life yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexheney
I forgot that I had upvoted three posts written by Haystacker recently so thank you for reminding me. I think I was following the FRS rules by leaving positive comments about the contents of his posts and didn't allude to his posting reputation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In contrast, the posters who left negative comments about Haystacker were commenting on his reputation instead of the content of his posts, IMO. These comments aren't available for public viewing anymore because only the ten most recent comments are displayed but I'm speculating that the Mod Squad can check our Reputation Tab and view a complete history of comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexheney
Uhhh -- maybe because the upvotes were for SPECIFIC POSTS with great points, and the downvotes were made to express PERSONAL DISLIKE??
I've pinged Haystacker twice. Both of my +1 points to him are not a campaign to boost his reputation, it's to recognize good posts with what I thought were valid and well-stated points he made on this thread.
The serial downvoter, however, has stated his dislike of Haystacker's PERSONALITY and posting STYLE in the downvotes -- the content of Haystacker's posts are irrelevant.
In each case of the serial upvotes and downvotes, the MOTIVE of the voter is clear. That's why the serial upvotes are reasonable and the serial downvotes are not.
To my mind, one use of the system fits with the design of this Forum Reputation system, in that it recognized good and thoughtful forum posts. The other calls to mind Rule 20.
If Mods do not see targeted downvoting as a problem, then why have Rule 20 at all? If what happened in this instance to Haystacker is not the kind of systemic targeted downvoting that will bring a Rule 20 sanction, then what is?
If what consititutes serial, targeted downvoting is a judgement call, whose judgment counts here? Haystacker clearly believes he has been targeted for downvotes out of personal dislike by the downvoter. Does the fact that he has also received serial upvotes negate his ability to be targeted in the view of the Moderators?
Further, if Mods think targeted (or serial) UPVOTING is an issue, then why allow that?
and then there's this:
I hope Mods are not so invested in having this reputation system that they will weaponize up or down votes by specific players to make a point. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexheney
Sorry, IMHO you are wrong to believe or even state this given the overwhelming evidence that the down votes are not based on the content of the post, and that the person down voting is purposely trying to needle Haystacker.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexheney
This is the very reason the reputation point system is NOT a good idea. There are way too many variables, personality and feelings being the biggest, that make the system too objective. Stop trying to mess with a problem that isn't broken.
Perky, maybe the mods are working on "serial" upvotes. I just tried to give you an upvote for saying exactly what I tried, but you are so much more eloquent, and got right to the issue, but was given the message "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PerkyCox again".Quote:
Originally Posted by PerkyCox
Anyway, beautifully said.
Please refer to Perky, Momscar, Lynn and Wussy's explanations. That pretty much sums it all up.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexheney
Thx guys! :)
Agree, agree, agree! Also, I think it is quite a different thing to have four SEPARATE people give upvotes to specific posts versus ONE person giving several downvotes, which have little to do with post content.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerkyCox
I predict with my next post, I may get a few downvotes lol. :D
::fingers crossed::
OK.
First, I got 4 negative reps about that post, plus all the responses below.
I obviously didn't make myself clear, because not one of those responses has apparently understood the point I was making.
ALL I was doing with that point was refuting the initial point from the post I quoted that " Twice in a week is spiteful and premeditated. It's borderline harassment", and pointing out that if multiple upvotes from one person to another are not somebody doing that, and are acceptable, then so are multiple downvotes without it necessarily being harassment or stalking.
That point had nothing to do with the content of this specific case, and I was not comparing the specific upvotes with the specific downvote (though I will do so further down in this response), or trying to say anything about whether "targeted" downvotes are equivalent to serial upvotes (as one of the negative rep points suggested).
No it wasn't. That was a positive rep point by PerkyCox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wussypuss
I did not link "those giving" anything. As above, I was merely pointing out that if multiple upvotes are acceptable (which they are), then multiple downvotes are not necessarily unacceptable - that of course, is assuming you accept downvotes at all, which I am not a fan ofQuote:
Originally Posted by LynnK2015
I have no idea which post the first negative comment was about so I can't say whether that was about the personality more than the post.Quote:
Are you considering the negative comments received by Haystacker, some of which I find disparaging because they commented on his personality rather than the content of his posts? I have no idea how they reached this conclusion since they haven't met him in real life yet.
The second negative rep, I disagree with the person who gave it, but I can see how somebody could see the post that way. Yes, there was reference to the poster more generally, but there also is in many of the positive rep posts
You are not at all wrong. Everybody seems to have read a lot more into that short post by me than I intended :(Quote:
I forgot that I had upvoted three posts written by Haystacker recently so thank you for reminding me. I think I was following the FRS rules by leaving positive comments about the contents of his posts and didn't allude to his posting reputation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Even as mods, what we can see is fairly limited. We can see aa complete list of comments given (and edit them if necessary), but other than the ones still shown on the profile, we can't see whether the rep was plus or minus, or which post it was given against.Quote:
In contrast, the posters who left negative comments about Haystacker were commenting on his reputation instead of the content of his posts, IMO. These comments aren't available for public viewing anymore because only the ten most recent comments are displayed but I'm speculating that the Mod Squad can check our Reputation Tab and view a complete history of comments.
I disagree on both those points. Many of the upvotes say little about the post and more about their appreciation of Haystacker. Even your last one just said "Glad to ping you again, Frog. Post #155". Others have just said things like "you always make me smile".Quote:
Originally Posted by PerkyCox
And while the one negative I can see the post for did express some personal dislike, it was at least partly about that specific post. And partly a reaction to Haystacker giving him a rep which did include name-calling.
That latter part shouldn't have been there, he should instead have reported the one he was given.
No issue at all with that.Quote:
I've pinged Haystacker twice. Both of my +1 points to him are not a campaign to boost his reputation, it's to recognize good posts with what I thought were valid and well-stated points he made on this thread.
<snip>
It is, of course, a judgment call. And my judgment was that this wasn't what you are calling "targeted". I have to be honest, I'm not sure why you are using that word, since ALL reps given are "targeted" at the person making the post. But I think I understand the point you are trying to make.Quote:
If Mods do not see targeted downvoting as a problem, then why have Rule 20 at all? If what happened in this instance to Haystacker is not the kind of systemic targeted downvoting that will bring a Rule 20 sanction, then what is?
If what consititutes serial, targeted downvoting is a judgement call, whose judgment counts here? Haystacker clearly believes he has been targeted for downvotes out of personal dislike by the downvoter. Does the fact that he has also received serial upvotes negate his ability to be targeted in the view of the Moderators?
To you it seems clear it is targeted, to me it is not at all clear it is.
We don't think it is an issue. But turn that around. If serial upvoting is not an issue, then why is serial downvoting an issue?Quote:
Further, if Mods think targeted (or serial) UPVOTING is an issue, then why allow that?
I can't imagine any of us would dream of doing any such thing, so no s=need to "just say" it.Quote:
and then there's this:
I hope Mods are not so invested in having this reputation system that they will weaponize up or down votes by specific players to make a point. Just sayin'.
I see very little such evidence, never mind "overwhelming evidence".Quote:
Originally Posted by Momscar
We are talking two negative comments here.
The first just said "snobish with an atitude problem" - and while I don't know which post that was given for, it is perfectly possible for a single post to come across that way. It may be that one was about the general attitude of the poster, but I don't know that without knowing which post it was for.
The second one said "attitude on fórum post and name calling on reputation coments". The first part of that is about the forum post.
The second part wasn't about that post, but was factually correct - after the first negative rep, Haystacker had given one themselves with name calling (and absolutely no relevance whatsoever to any post). I agree the second part really shouldn't have been in the rep comment, but if he is going to get a warning or infraction for that, then Haystacker definitely gets one for the rep that prompted it.
Neither should be allowed, but we are going a little easy during the trial, and only giving warnings or infractions for more serious breaches than that.
As I said above, I am not a fan of the downvotes at all.Quote:
This is the very reason the reputation point system is NOT a good idea. There are way too many variables, personality and feelings being the biggest, that make the system too objective. Stop trying to mess with a problem that isn't broken.
I have seen forums where they work, but those have been far less toxic than the Suercell ones. Most of the forums I have been involved in have some form of "thanks" or "props" or similar, but few have the corresponding negatives.
It has always been in place that you cannot vote for the same person again (up or down) until you have voted for 10 others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Momscar