Printable View
Rather than a relatively small portion, I prefer to think of it as a microcosm, or proportional sampling, both of which are valid samples for research.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexheney
Perhaps the the reason more don't post is the climate of fear this forum has engendered amongst players, to which this rep system is adding, IMHO.
It may be that the outcome is already decided. It may be still up in the air, but they'll go with the decision that some believe is already a foregone conclusion. There's no way that anyone can know that with absolute certainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by pitchfork
Regardless of that, I'm curious. :) I want to know what their thought process was behind the rep system. They've given us glimpses here and there. But in the remaining vacuum, it's too easy for us to flood the emptiness with the worst projections. I detect some may suspect the mods did this to hurt the forum intentionally. It would serve the mods and us to dispel that by fully clarifying their goals.
I skimmed the other post you referenced, and from what I saw, it was mostly a regurgitation of points already made by several forumers prior to that post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff below the dotted line is not directed at pitchfork, who is my personal hero. They're my general observations and opinions related to the post she referenced and the pattern of forum behavior that's commonly sparked by such posts. Hopefully, this is one time when we can be spared that destructive pattern
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The absolute certainty and sense of infallibility communicated by that post, however, may lead to one of the unfortunately common patterns of this forum. Some forumers are moved by the absolutism and the need for affirmation to begin a series of "me too"s. And, sometimes, it foments into a brigade where forumers experience a lot of pressure:
-- to chime in and agree or
-- to be silent if they disagree.
And, this dynamic incorrectly reinforces the mistaken idea that the idea being cheered on is universal.
If it's just an opinion about the game that everyone's rallying against, it's still unfortunate to have groupthink take over, but it's not the worst. The worst is when the vocal part of the forum turns against a person or persons. I've seen this happen many many times against others, and I've also experienced it personally. In this case, I detect the ripples of what are a movement against the moderators, who happen to be people also (with the exception of the cats on the mod squad, of course). It's already happened once in this thread.
I'm not a moderator apologist. I've defied them. I've broken forum rules. I've disagreed with them. But I'm always so disappointed when I see the forum coalescing and succumbing to the social pressures to conform and rail against an idea or person(s) in an almost automatic, hyper-stimulated way that feels more like grooming among primates than thoughtful discourse.
Not everyone is certain that they want the rep system to disappear. There've been voices - presumably lost in this thread - who've said they don't mind it. Others may want the rep system to survive but with changes made. It's not fair to presume that the strong opinions that the rep system should be banished are universal.
Also, stating that the decision has already been made is tantamount to calling alexheney a liar. That when he said it was possible for the rep system to lie inactive in the HD section, he was telling an untruth. It may not have been anyone's intention to do that. But one is necessarily inferred by the other. That sets up a hostile conversation from the get-go. People detect that anger, they absorb it, and that anger is what sparks the mob.
Well, I am one of those who does not mind it.
I don't know what the Mods have to put up with, so I was having problems figuring out what the down voting was all about.
Maybe the report system is being abused and over used?
I have reported on very few occasions: SPAM for sure, one that was soooooo off topic and questionably offensive and I think that is all.
But then maybe I am an anomaly.
As yet, I have not been on the receiving end of a down vote (not intending to invite them now, BTW), however, if I don't feel I have done anything wrong, what do I do?
Move on because I know I did not do anything?
Report it as unreasonable?
(Edit: Don't mind it so far, subject to change... I have been disturbed by the effect it has had on the forum itself and how it has upset many, so maybe the way it was implemented and some indifference to concerns)
Sorry, but your entire post is based on two false assumptions, one of which you state explicitly.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerkyCox
You say " if ALL options for implementing the FRS are not on the table...". But all options very much ARE still on the table.
The fact I say one is (IMO) unlikely doesn't mean it isn't on the table, it just means that at this stage I think it unlikely that there will be sufficient difference between the overall responses of the different game areas to warrant treating them differently. I could well be wrong there.
Your second assumption is that there is any "desired result". You don't state that explicitly, but it is implicit in your last two paragraphs. It is also false. There is no desired outcome.
This is genuinely a trial. The reason for making it that long is to give a chance to get past any knee-jerk initial reactions, and get more of an idea whether it would be workable in the longer term.
I'm glad to know that ALL options are on the table.
I stand by my earlier post.
Time will tell.
LTMP,
Yes, i understand what you're saying and your points are fair. I have a couple of disagreements or clarifications, but essentially yes i understand.
Alex,
I am sorry that my tone was not as diplomatic as it ought to have been, I'm sorry if the implication is that i think you are lying, i don't think that, and i should have put more thought into my posts, i should have worded them more carefully.
I'm not trying to instigate a riot! :O
I don't accuse Alex of being closed minded, i accuse the system.I think this rep system is desired by mods and will be fashioned to suit the coc side of things. I therefore think HayDayists have little to no input on the matter and that the rep system will go ahead.
Alex, thanks for posting honestly about the situation,
Regards.
pitchfork,Quote:
Originally Posted by pitchfork
I think you were cleverly and playfully tweaking alexheney's post. I didn't intend to criticize you at all. I enjoyed and appreciated your open and playful interpretation.
And I'm sorry that I didn't make clearer that I didn't think you were implying that alexheney was lying. What I said below the dotted line did not apply to you. Not at all.
Well. It sorta did. But that's fine because it needed to be said.
But i still think the trial is merely "beta testing" for bugs, sorry, and maybe the mods don't even realise this, who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haystacker
Quote:
Originally Posted by GladeMaid
The above three quotes have appeared in the past couple of days and never seem to get an answer. What actual benefit to the forums is this innovation intended to provide? I don't think that the issue of reporting negative posts and the mods' workload is relevant. Assuming that SC would like to see more active members in the forums, does SC think this will encourage forum participation?? Is there some other potential benefit that we are not seeing?Quote:
Originally Posted by LetTheMusicPlay
I followed Cowslips' links to the other games. CoC has over 100 pages of discussion. Needless to say, I only looked at the most recent few pages, but the Clashers appear to have the same concerns as the farmers. Since CoC is the forum "elephant in the room" and since they are over there on the "love conflict" side, I think that is significant.
There were quite a few posts related to the small number of active forum members and whether there are enough of them to constitute a valid population. Well, I don't see this reputation system as an effective way to increase forum participation. I'd love to know how many other lurkers besides poor Ma jumped into the forums to get 50 posts and be able to give out up/down votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowslips
This may not be a serious request, but even if this particular post was a joke I see it as an absolutely predictable unintended negative consequence of the proposed system. We have enough problems with farmers advertising their neighborhoods in any/every subforum without introducing another way for people to beg for attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyngby
So, finally, I ask again...
What's in it for us? What delightful benefit is the reputation system intended to deliver for active forum members? How is it expected to boost active forum membership?
I just sent my first few rep votes out and added comments. It occurs to me that it will be nice for the recipients to receive, but the comment would better serve the forum community if I had "replied with quote" in the thread. The vote/comment does nothing to increase apparent forum activity. The "old" system of being able to give stars to a thread was more useful. If we could "like" a post and the number of "likes" showed in the post itself, that would be more "reward". You wouldn't need a "down" vote. Discussion in the thread (or a report for violation of ToS) would be more useful in building the forum community. I think I'm done with the rep system. I'll support threads and posts that I like in the forum itself.