Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas
There will be some sort of fail safe to stop fresh spawns voting as there was in the trial, therefore solving the multiple account issue and if there was a large group of people all down voting for no in particular reason they will quickly get themselves a custom title thus solving that problem.
I got downvoted for mentioning Justin Bieber and reported to a Moderator, guess what? He did nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by evertonjeff
I even posted a thread about my concern about being targeted, thread got closed.
A few people are pointing out that opposers to the system are seeing problems that haven't happened yet, but problems are there and they are being ignored.
Just because it is not happening to you it doesn't mean a problem does not exist.
I'd just like to add that that I think it is awesome that you guys have opened up this poll to gauge the feelings of the community.
Why I haven't received a reply about my inquiry of being downvoted for just mentioning Justin Bieber?Quote:
Originally Posted by Holps
evertonjeff, I believe vegas was refering to brigade voting. It has little to do with fresh spawns and the havock they create.
(Whopee... I have conquered the use of bold text)
Could you please link the post. If downvoting is reinstated I would also like to give you a downvote for mentioning Justin Bieber.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel
Because more us want to down vote you for mentioning JB... lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel
I believe you have found the source of your problem :smirk:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel
This page seriously made me laugh lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by BabeRuth
Yes I know that's why I said at the end that those who club together to purposely downvote people will gain themselves a custome title, and they would have to take a short or permanent break from the forums!
Upvote and downvote needed.
calling ppl names, spamming , etc deserves reporting with further banning, no downvote neededQuote:
Originally Posted by Martvol
agreeing /disagreeing? just quote and discuss
some people think it is fair to get upvotes for agreeing, but it is not fair to get downvotes for disagreeing...isn't it the 2 sides of the same medal?
also it was said that the valuable posts should be upvoted. i see few of really valuable posts, but still some people keep collecting upvotes only because they feel to post in every thread and several times in the same thread, repeating the same things, not really adding something new or important. while some good stuff posted by unknown member passes unnoticed, not even 1 upvote. seems popular people here keep collecting upvotes just because, just because, just because
so do we really face downvoting bullies here? i don't think we do
but i think there is a tendency to upvote some people , especially mods, whatever they say, even if they just make a comment of routine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onetoomany
https://i.imgflip.com/1nvbgf.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by kartikeya2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
Im confused
Ypur first paragraph adopts somebody else's half page post that you agree with.
Your second paragraph berates someone for doing exactly the same thing with a different post that they agree with.
So who is living in the echo chamber??
I hope we keep the voting system, including the downvote, and I also hope everyone doesn't report every incorrect downvote to the mods.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on how I define an echo chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rst
I'll start by saying that I knew the instant I read it how I was going to respond to Oz's post. I wasn't going to respond with an opinion, I was going to respond objectively by pointing out that what he was claiming could not possibly be true on these forums. Onyx beat me to it. It'd be like if he said 2+2=5. That's incorrect, and agreeing with someone's correction that it's actually 4 is not an echo chamber. That's just knowing things.
Now, agreeing with someone's opinion is not sufficient to place someone in an echo chamber. You're in an echo chamber if you actively deflect or ignore all opposing ideas. By taking Oz at his word, people were ignoring the blatant lie in his post to push their own narratives. Just because I agree with someone on a topic does not mean that I don't also take in other ideas. My opinions, while often rigid, sometimes change. My opinion on the downvote recently changed, which you can see in my exchange earlier with Jwp. This is because I thought more about what people were saying and I drew a new conclusion. That's not something that happens if you ignore facts to make your side of an argument seem more impressive
There's something very wrong with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2222
Besides Holps encouraged us to do so, although I'm not holding my breath in the hopes of unbiased results.
I'm still waiting for a response from Moderators.
No he did not. Lach said you can send your requests to press "help" which was a blank pm to Holps. That's a little humor if you missed it...Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel
Holps said they could handle the "strange downvotes". That doesn't mean every time someone down votes you because they disagree with a comment you make that you should reach out to a moderator...
The link.
https://forum-content.supercell.com/...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel https://forum-content.supercell.com/...post-right.png
I don't know I've heard they are pretty picky about letting anybody in but if you mention Justin Bieber you might actually have a chance lol
It was an attempted joke. It failed.
I don't like the mobile version. I surf this forum exclusively on iOS, on the desktop version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expand
Downvoting because someone finds Justin Bieber offensive sounds pretty strange to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwp721
It was not a joke, people actually had a chance to get in by just mentioning Justin Bieber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martvol
Too late now though, clan is closed for everyone forever.
As I've said from the beginning of the reputation system test it's a solution in search of a problem. Unfortunately, it created new problems without really addressing the ones it was intended to fix.
In either the 'up/down vote' or the 'only up vote' conditions that were tested, there were users that continued to abuse the TOS & community rules of agreed upon behavior.
In order to have an open discussion of competing ideas, especially in the context of an online group, there must be an agreement by all participants to discuss the ideas instead of engaging in personal attacks, fuzzy logic, or name calling.
Applying the voting to the user instead of the initial thread/ ideas being discussed leads to what is essentially a popularity contest/cult of personality situation.
Historically, this kind of toxic behavior and obvious trolling have existed since the first BBS chat system went online w ARPANET at the dawn of the Internet age. The only way that's ever been found to be effective at reducing those types of behavior is a swift removal of posting privileges from individual users that refuse to abide by those rules by a dedicated staff of moderators.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism that prevents the truly toxic, or 'amused by annoying others on purpose' types of users from creating another fresh spawn account in the existing VBulletin architecture.
If the existing moderators are unable to keep up with this then the answer is to add more moderators, instead of attempting to get the user population to police themselves.
cant resist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
We know things, they live in an echo chamber.
joking aside I actually agree with the logic of your post, assuming the perceptions and assumptions are correct.
Haha, joking or not, your post makes me realize how absolutely stupid that sentence was. I should have said it was an objective statement of fact. There can't be an opinion about what 2+2 is, in the same way you can't logically agree with someone saying that bands of people are upvoting each other (or downvoting others) hours apart. "Just knowing things" is a poor way to put itQuote:
Originally Posted by Vikingchief
you have to live in reality, your breaking a forum rule with the post, and going after a moderator, its just silly on your behalf. People are human, and if you antagonise them they will rule against you in 50/50 judgements calls. This is from someone who very much respects your clan, but this is their house, i may or not feel like I have been unfairly ruled against by mods, but at the end if the day, you have to respect the rules and decisions of the rule makers, not for any objective good, but for your own sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel
It would be a loss to the forums to over time lose another forum account associated with a clan who understands metrics like no other, and whether fair or not your current attitude seamingly is going to head you in the same direction as the previous account (i know it wasnt yours). Of course it could be your forum account account lasts a lot longer than mine, but I think the smartest way to act is to obey the rules, accept the decisions, and try as far as possible not to antagonise annyone.
I got what you meant, I understand you can agree without living in an echo chamber, I just thought it was a funny fuzzy logic parrelell to the engineering debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
whats less funny is I seam to be framing and intepreting unrelated arguments and discusions through the mental framework of the engineering debate.
yikes.
There was a fourth option I wish I could have voted on. It would be the "I really don't care about the reputation voting" option.
You have that option my friend, simply vote with your fingers and ignore this thread? Can you see the irony in demanding a vote in an election where you don't care who wins?Quote:
Originally Posted by Backyardigan
Will become a dull place without any anger or emotion, so no voting system please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holps
It would give people an idea of where they think your priorities lie. Say you threw up this poll and 50% of people didn't care. That would show you that the work put into all of this was a waste of time. Then again odds are that person was just trolling or wasting time of their own.
Anyway I don't think any system that supports censorship and suppression of opinion will ever be a good system to have. I took the 3rd option on this vote.
Suprised no one mentioned you have to switch to full site just to vote in the poll. People on mobile probably think their post
is their vote.
Your opinion is only being suppressed if you think it might be trolly or against the rules. You are still in control of what you post, and no amount of downvotes is going to stop you from posting it. If you're afraid of a downvote from disagreement, you probably don't handle posts that disagree with you very well either, and no option stops that from happeningQuote:
Originally Posted by Ziaka
Anything against the realm of norm has the potential to become suppressed. Any minority opinion has the chance to go unheard. A simple troll group could cause the administration trouble by becoming the majority opinion flooding the system. Nothing comes without its flaws and this system has major flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
People got downvotes for saying unpopular things like "I don't think upgrading heroes should be available in war"
It's a valid opinion, I even have good reasons for it, but it's not popular and SOME of the community will downvote it because of that.
There were fewer than I though though (I was deliberately provocative on a few threads to see how it went)
I think downvoting should be in the system (perhaps thinking of some ways to limit it's effects?)
How does the reputation system work? Can it stop someone from posting? Does their post automatically get deleted? Why does it matter if someone says Justin Beaver or Dan Quaker.
Anything said in the forum has the potential to become suppressed. It's how it's said that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziaka
They did not get down voted becasue it's an unpopular idea. They got down voted because it is an idea that has been discussed for years, understood why it's not the way it is, and simply an idea has been beaten to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilISuppose
So the need for the reputation system as is will be the cure for that? I am confused, the reputation system is suppose to be for content, quality or lack of not based on individuals subjective whether they like how it is stated...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwp721
No... it's a side effect. And when I say how... I mean the extreme examples. Not the run of the mill questions or comments. Rudeness is rudeness no matter what the topic of discussion. Rep system is not about negatives it's about positives. But you have to have the potential for - to make + even better. I say stuff all the time that I know is pushing the edge, and I am willing to give the system a try. Let you guys judge what and how I say something might not be the worst idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
Besides the forum may decide in a year to try something else. I don't want a forum where everything is never changing so if Moderators and forum want to give this a try, I am along for the ride.
I'm still failing to see the purpose of the vote. A downvote accomplishes nothing. Nada. Zilch. Defenders of the downvote say they can downvote random fresh spawns saying something inept or inane, or to downvote someone who they feel is breaking forum etiquette and being highly toxic. Both of these instances would just be easier to report the account and let proper channels take care of the issue. Because, downvoting doesn't do anything. It can't ban an account, can't lock an account, can't prevent an account from posting. It's just a way of saying "a lot of people don't like this guy (or gal)." Why downvote and say "this person is a toxic flammer, troll thread creator," when that would be highly evident in their posts? It's simply too easy a system to be abused for childish and petty popularity. I mean, why give us a system to help moderate ourselves if it doesn't actually give us the power to do so? -5000000 rep doesn't do anything. If the person wanted, they could create another troll tread every minute and all we can do is say, "hey, look at this troll! Let's downvote him, that'll teach him to not troll around here! Our words will have such an impact this troll will stop and completely reexamine his life choices....ya...."
If we could ban someone with enough downvotes, then I could see a use for this system, and the odd spiteful or revenge downvote wouldn't (shouldn't) really affect a forumer's ability to post. Like, every 24 hours all votes for accounts should be reset to 0, and if an account receives more than -20 rep within a day, than it should be banned unless a moderator views the issue and reverses it. Which should only occur if there was indeed wrongful downvotes, and then the perpetrators would easily be found.
The other way I could see it working, if is you can only upvote or downvote a thread, to help see which issues are a hot topic or popular with the community (and you can only upvote a thread 1 time). This would lead to some abuse (such as recruiters taking on "make sure to upvote clan recruitment page or else..."), but overall I think it would be minimal.
I understand jwp721 what your driving at with no disrespect intended. Its my opinion or belief that other forumers who do not have moderator authority should not be able to influence how people post, thats the moderators duties and the system as is has too many potential negative aspects to all forumers who come here to learn about the game I and possibly a few others love to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwp721
If that were true then all of the people voting in the "Let me use my heroes in war when they are upgrading" thread who DO want it would be the ones getting downvotes, and not the people who are saying "I don't think upgrading heroes should be available in war".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwp721
If you dissent with a wildly popular opinion, even with a cogent argument, then you could and did get downvoted. However it wasn't as much as I thought it would be. Forums should not add consequences to participation for those who oppose ideas they think are bad. Just because it's been discussed for years doesn't make it either a good idea OR an idea that shouldn't be argued against.
But my observation is that in most cases it does do something - the target of the downvote adjusts their behaviour and stops doing whatever is annoying people. The downvote doesn't force them to be less irritating, but peer pressure seems to work well in most cases. I saw a thread where someone was upset, and a fresh spawn just posted "lolz, you got rekt" as their first post. Followed a couple of minutes later by "Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that". Sure enough, someone had downvoted them. No need to make work for the mods, or for a report to sit for a couple of hours in some moderation queue while more and more people reply to the toxic comment. He's apologized and it's sorted within a couple of minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridley123
I also fail to see why reporting is preferable to a downvote, where that works. All the mods can do is ban people or give infractions (basically part way to a ban). Is it really better to keep banning people, when giving the community a way to object to their behaviour without banning them might have worked? Have a look at any real old thread that gets necroed - there's a LOT of people banned from this forum. Often people with hundreds of posts. Isn't all this banning a rather blunt instrument?
And there are cases where you couldn't really report, and the mods couldn't realistically ban. There was a thread someone posted earlier today with a clickbait title about updates as some sort of joke. But there was a strong consensus in the thread that it (a) wasn't funny and (b) was irritating, as well as several comments about needing the downvote button. I don't suppose the thread broke any rules as such, and the mods probably shouldn't give an infraction for it. If downvotes had existed he'd have gotten a handful. And that is exactly the right response: allowing the public to register their displeasure with something that probably wasn't actually breaking any rules.
Hmmm, allowing the public to register there displeasure for something that didnt break any rules, so following thru its perfectly acceptable that a herd mentality can have a effect on a persons right and ability to post, most interesting....Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxDS
It has no effect whatsoever on their right and ability to post. That doesn't relate to what I said at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
Yes it does onyx, enough downvotes given and a person loses their ability to give both positive or negative reputation, losing any privelige to participate in the forums without posting to infraction or banned level is not what the forums are suppose to be or what they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxDS
But if someone is toxic enough to not want to need so many downvotes, why should they get to effect the reputation of others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
They can still post, it doesn't effect their ability to create or reply to threads.
You said "post" before, now it's "participate". You seem to think it's bad if giving rep is taken away from a few problematic members of the forum - but it's good if it's taken away from everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
"is not what the forums are suppose to be or what they were" - only SC knows what the forum is "suppose[sic] to be". You're just making stuff up there. As to what the forum was... it was at times a place with a very bad reputation for toxicity. It was noticeable at FvR round 1 and the forum cup event that a few people who signed up for the events said they had no intention of staying here because they'd heard how nasty it was. So... "not what the forum was": bring it on.
Reverse that train of thought please, if a person doesnt post infraction level or ban level posts why should they lose any privelige to participate in any function of the forums, your way says that this is permissible, which i state goes against the spirit or purpose of the forumQuote:
Originally Posted by PhilISuppose
Obviously we have difference of opinions on what we think a forum that is for clash of clans is suppose to be. You participate in a forum by posting to or making threads and that is how it has been. You are in favor of changing that premise by adding a system that if you arent posting well enough your forumers, not the moderators but fellow forumers have the ability to take away your ability to participate fully untill said forumer meets other forumers standards, all without having posted infraction or ban level posts. Now you want to bring in that at forum related events people wont stay here because it is ' nasty'..... What does that have to do with the arguement, it is sorta theatrical but doesnt add content to the debate, content is what the forum is suppose to be about, not that. I have respect for your personal knowledge and insight of this game we both play and enjoy your clanwar material though it goes over my head often, as a believer in democracy i will abide by the vote and refrain from any more comments, clash onQuote:
Originally Posted by OnyxDS
One point is that toxic people sometimes don't view themselves as toxic. Nobody deserved those downvotes... maybe he was a "little" rude, but in his view what got him downvoted is the single fact that he disagrees... by the way, he is a Forum Superstar.
It's really easy being a stone. What is hard is being the window that is about to be broken.
Really hope downvotes will be back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2222
What is "very wrong" with my statement? I hope people do contact the mods if there is a situation where someone is unfairly trolling them and repeatedly giving them downvotes (undeserved downvotes) or if a group of people gang up and drop a user's reputation points significantly (again, for no good reason). However, I hope forum users don't overburden the mods by reporting every single stand alone down vote they get just because they think it wasn't deserved. I suspect those same users don't report their own undeserved upvotes...Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplicantRachel
Why shouldn't certain aspects of the forum need to be earned? Not everyone can delete threads, right? That ability must be earned by becoming a moderator. Maybe we should require a few posts before we allow someone to start a thread in general. That would be a nice way to limit the robo spam link threads as well as the constant daily list of freshspawn terrible new threads. Requiring a certain level of experience both posting and earning reputation points before being able to impact the reputation of others makes sense to me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
I think the key misunderstanding is that you view the reputation system as a right, while Onyx and Phil view it as a privilege. If you don't post poorly, you are allowed to participate. Yes, that's at our discretion, but it can easily be rescinded by not being a negative poster. Note that I do not mean to change your opinion to "fit the mold", I mean to post constructively, or at the very least, not be counterproductive. Rep points come pretty easilyQuote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
Ohh. I guess this is where we differ completly. I want a community where everyone is equal to a greater extent. As soon as I became a member I felt I had a responsibility to make this the best place it could be. After all that's the exact same kinda place I would want to hang out. Titles aren't required to impact the forum in a positive or negative way. If I see something that is inappropriate I report it immediately and if possible try to diffuse things when possible. I don't wait for someone to do it for the forum. If the forum wants to try a rep system I am open to the idea. Empowering people to help decide the direction builds ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
So Members speak up and vote. It's our forum.
Edit. I think there are more than 400 people online. We need more votes...
Couldn't have said it better myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
I think the downvoting I did was when people were posting stuff that was factually incorrect or toxic.
Those sorts of people don't really deserve the ability to change the reputation of others.
No one is suggesting that someone with -1000 forum reputation, but no infractions from a moderator wouldn't be able to post, so they can still contribute to the forums.
The idea is that they just can't comment on others reputation while their reputation is so terrible.
Sigh I understand we all want a better forum for everyone, we all signed a TOS to abide by the rules, if the majority of the forum believes this is what is best so be it. We can debate use of words and terms ad nauseaum, i believe the TOS and the moderators with the tools we have all ready are good enough, others dont and thats ok. At the end of the day what we have in common is our accounts,friendships developed here and ingame, i hope your system works as well as you seem to thimk it will, clash on
If directed to me then.. I am not sure if it will. But if the forum wants to try I will ride along with them. I agree with you about the friends and such. We are a family. Couldn't imagine not checking in here from time to time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambletamble
Lets get those votes in..
Perfectly said.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
If you think that was perfectly said, it must be based on some evidence that I haven't seen. What is that based on? I didn't see any evidence of it in the 30 day test.Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamMunny
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
I'm probably gonna end up tooting my own horn here a little bit, but I do have a point, so bear with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamMunny
I think my personal reasoning for liking the reputation system so much is that prior to its implementation, I was not one of the cool kids around here. I don't have many friends and I'm not part of any groups. I just do my own thing. I mean, I posted in the same way, and I got more or less the same replies from people, but short of the odd reply that went along the lines of "Well stated", or "^^^^^^^This", I never really got the impression that my posts were making a difference. I had no reason to. If someone agrees with me, they aren't likely to say so in a response. Sometimes they do. Phil did just a while back. But often it isn't necessary, and you're far more likely to get replies from people with a dissenting opinion. And that's totally fine, I wouldn't have it any other way. But with the rep system, I now get feedback on my posts. Now I know that people see value in what I post, without having to post themselves, and it encourages me to post more. Not because I want more points, but because I know now that my posts make a positive impact around here. I think that's a benefit that isn't touched on enough. Positive rep points do encourage more and better posting. You need negative points to counter them, of course, otherwise gaining reputation is as easy as throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. It also identifies and discourages counter-productive posting.
Anyway, if you don't want to read all that, my point is that if it were truly a popularity contest, I never would have ended up with the reputation I have now. I got my points by posting constructively and helpfully, not because people like me
Keyword "I" just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't going on. For some reason ppl on this forum think the world revolves around them. All you had to do was click on a few profiles & read the comments & then refer back to the thread to see what was really going on. People were getting down votes for the silliest of reasons & getting upvotes for simply saying things like "10 chars" whatever that means. Guess it's the cool kids way of saying I agree. A simple like/dislike button is all what was needed & not this rep nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2222
Sums it up very well. Saw a poster during the downvote open a toxic thread, borderline reportable, but sometimes it feels harsh to report someone knowing infractions are forever, and bans can be permanent. After he individual received 8 downvotes he apologised, changed his OP text and stopped out of the thread. It was resolvd quickly than usually and without infraction to the OP, so everyone won.Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxDS
A lot of behavior is only borderline toxic, but its enough to make others toxicit so the rep is a system that acts to stop trouble before it starts. We saw an improvement over the period where we had the downvote, and a marked change when it was removed.
The internet is notorius for being a troll haven, and this is due to many factors that make people act totally different to how they would in reality. There are many reasons for that, and one is that reputation matters far less on the internet due to annonimity. The reputation system is designed to be a system which mimics a real life reputation, where we all get constant up and downvotes (in peoples heads of course) and allthough our accounts are annonomous, they still have some value to us and they get linked to the reputation, which makes us act more carefull.
I know I think things through more carefully when the downvote is in existance, it is restrictive but also leads to less conflict, which leads to a more positive experience. It doesnt change what you can say as much, but more how you say it.
can you honestly say that on balance the negatives outweighed the positives? i agree some downvotes were silly, and upvotes are usually "i agree" vites rather than "awesome content" or "great attitude" votes, however I saw a lor less toxicity during the downvote period. For me some silly voting doesnt trump a significant toxicity reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
Ill second that, before the rep system when I saw Tiler I just thought "oh its that stupid mushroom thing again", when I clicked on his profile for some reason I noticed he was getting a lot of rep points, and it helped me to find a poster who posts good content, outside of my normal areas of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
I dont think its about giving the cool kids rep points, I think posters with value and a good attitude tend to on average get more rep points and less downvotes. Ive given out quit a few rep points to people who I dont get along with at all, and try to do it as fairly as possible.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingchief
And to add another point, it also gives feedback to those whose behaviour isn't infraction-worthy but is found by others to be low value/tiresome/annoying etc, and does so in a better way than someone snidely replying to a post of theirs in a thread. Think, for example, of the case of someone who seems to be a silly almost compulsive poster, flooding threads with high volume low quality posts, or who starts a lot of essentially pointless threads, or replies to everyone who posts on their thread in a meaningless empty way that adds no fresh point but is rather borderline-but-not-actually-bumping the thread. That's another place the negative rep may help make the forum a better place - collecting a downvote from 10 different people on a range of today's 50 comments and posts you made is likely to give even the dimmest bulb a clue that a change of posting habit might be desirable if you wish to be seen by others as a valuable contributor.
Nice choice of words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomville
Some may not be of the highest educated standard, But labeling someone as dim because you don't value their contribution, is well as said classy:rolleyes:
i dont think he was saying a person is dim because the contribution was not valued, as I think its obvious anyone can write a bad post, he was saying the downvote will be effective at getting the massage accross that that specific thread or post was not valued to just about anybody, even those with very low perceptive ability (which is separate from analytical ability, in extreme causes can be inversely correlated). He used dim I assume as its a fairly easy term to understand, so as not to have to go down a rabbit hole regarding what type of characteristics are likely to prevent someone understanding the reasons for multiple downvotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goonerwinone
I am not sure if I have misunderstood your post though or if you were joking (if you were a good example of perception failure on my end), in which case dont mind me.
Thanks, I did just mean that it would make it obvious to almost anyone, even those who miss more subtle cues. So it could equally apply to a very smart well educated person who just didn't get why someone was irritated by them, even when pretty much everyone else in the room can spot it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingchief
As a fairly new member of the forum, I don't believe the rep system is a necessary function. To be honest, it has made me less likely to post on any subject/topic within the entire forum.
Just my own input on the trial.
I don't think the rep system was designed to make people less likely to post, only to make them think a little bit more about it before they post.Quote:
Originally Posted by JNats
If you have an opinion on a subject you should feel free to post a reply or even a new thread, obviously keep it within the forum rules, everyone's opinion is valid. It helps if you give some reasoning for your opinion, a lot of toxicity seems to spring up from people just replying with 'you are wrong' with no explanation of why it is they think something or someone is wrong.
What was it about the rep system that made you less likely to post?
I have given positive rep to people who I disagree with but have put their point of view across in a constructive and informative way.
It should not be about wether or not you agree with someone, it's more about the quality of the contribution.
With the current torrent of useless update speculation threads being started (and I only mean the ones outside the sticky) I guess the negative rep would be getting a lot more use. But this is because most of the posts have no substance, no facts, no new information and are not good content for people to read (some are just blatant lies).
Anyway, glad you did feel you could put a reply in this topic, a step in the right direction.
downvotes don't really bother me, if they are added , it will balance the whole rep system
but i don't agree with the idea to downvote the posters only because someone thinks that their contribution is poor or less valuable than of those who hit the downvote button
seems smart posters will discourage "those with very low perceptive ability "from posting
not all the people possess the eloquence skills. i see many members here collecting upvotes for "nice put" comments, while they don't really add any valuable info or contribute in any way. they just keep repeating the same their idea on a matter with different icing on the same cake
anyway, my personal feeling about the rep system: i don't care if i'm upvoted, it will not make me post more,
it will not make me post less, if i'm downvoted, and of course i will not run to the mods to cry about the downvote because someone does not agree with me or thinks to be smarter
This is a poll, therefore voting ‘I do not like the reputation system and I do not want to see it implemented’ should not be classed as ‘you are wrong’.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevejnr
Having 15 up votes to cast has been difficult to use and I refuse to up vote anything, just so I can up vote the threads that are enjoyable, such as Forum 101 and Diary of the Moderators Helsinki Expedition.
In respect of the down vote, I didn’t use this during the trial period.
Therefore, in answer to your question, my reason for choosing option 3 in the poll is I prefer to engage in the threads that are entertaining, informative and positive, rather than engage/start useless threads.
Understandable too mate, it seems like a daunting system to put in.Quote:
Originally Posted by JNats
But imo, from my experience it has many benefits to have both up and down votes, it really does help keep order having a down vote button.
I hope it doesnt put you off should it be implemented, the forums are a great place (usually)
dont forget, even should the votes be in favour of it, doesn't mean its set.
So don't quit too soon ;)
Great points in here mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevejnr
I especially liked the bit bolded. Theres people on the forums that absolutely rub me up the wrong way and sometimes i find are a little frustrating, but ya know what.. I upvoted some of their posts because damn it... they (sometimes) have had a good point haha
and the how it should work, none of this vendetta "he downvoted me I'll down vote him" business, give the ups and down on merits and usefulness.
Thats what im hoping for anyway.
i dont think he was calling you wrong, i dont think anyone could if they tried. Both you and stevejnr have presented your thoughts in such a neutral and platonic way anyone calling it wrong would just be flaming :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JNats
even if it is to stay as is, or down votes with ups, never feel obligated to use it. It's just an option, dont let it rule your style.
(btw thanks for a shoutout as an enjoyable thread ;))
Which is of course why I asked YOU what evidence YOU hand and pointed out I never saw it. I saw lots of people claiming it would be a problem, yet no one ever was able to point to evidence of it (note, I don't think the occasional undeserved downvote mixed in with a dozen upvotes is a problem). Over and over when someone claimed this big problem was going to happen, I clicked on their profiles and their "big problem" was they got a couple downvotes along with some upvotes too. I do agree with you people got both undeserved downvotes and upvotes, which cancel each other out (or if anything the upvotes outnumbered the downvotes), leaving only those who regularly posted false or toxic posts ending up with anything close to a negative reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
I feel you may have misunderstood me a little, I don't think there was anything wrong with your post, you stated your opinion and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JNats
I was trying to convey that you shouldn't be worried about posting, especially if it was over worrying about a down vote. Any advice I was offering up regarding what sort of thing can lead to toxicity was certainly not meant to imply you were or had been, merely to help you and others avoid it and therefore avoid any negative rep as well.
Hey your on a roll now, 2 decent posts in the matter of a few hours :)
Nobody should feel like they have to give out reputation just because they can, I think giving people feedback on what they have posted can be helpful in encouraging exactly the sort of threads you mentioned, the ones we all want to read. Therefore I don't give out huge amounts myself, but negative can be just as helpful as positive as long as it is constructive.
Something I did notice as a result of the rep system is that there are less people than you would think that create the really good threads, because more than once I found I could not give that person any positive rep until I had 'spread some love around'.
I think Tiler mentioned earlier the feedback from the rep system he/she has received has encouraged them to post more, which is always a good thing.
11 hours and only 25 more votes??
Come on people voice your opinions by casting your vote. With almost 11,000 views from all the game forums we need more people participating...
ive shared my opinion and i think its not needed or if you really want to add downvote again then remove the edit functionQuote:
Originally Posted by Jwp721
Thanks! I just want to make sure everyone participates in the poll no matter which choice they pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by freakazoid1985
I'm just totally apathetic to FRS at this point & could not care less what the result is. It's become a distraction and tedious IMO. Even venturing into this thread was a chore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwp721
The FRS threads feel like a good old fashion engineering or maxer vs rusher debate which I've learned to pass right by.
Whatever everyone else decides is fine.
Edit: Plus voting and rep-ing require switching to full site and then back and that's a hassel too. Mobile game co with less than friendly mobile forum. :p
Been cast my vote, and my thought...
Up and down all in or nothing.
I don't think we shouldn't keep an upvote alone and remove the downvote, this is a forum, a place where specific community people socialize, learn and exchanging information and pov which is different with fb or other social app who specilaize on social aspect only.
Even in general community forum there is an up and downvote because when people entering some specific subforum or section it's not an social aspect alone anymore but kind of mix up with information and opinion.
That's why we need up dan down all together to challenge and forge the idea and opinion into maximal point to build and help community growth better.
It's the reason why reputation should not affect in off topic section, forum game section and others section or sub for socializing.
And if implmented i would like in below every post show how many upvote and downvote on that post so the readers can now how useful the post. If not then it'll come less informative and bias.
Aboat the forum police or gank up downvote, i think we shouldn't hold the implementation of something we thought can advanced this community forward under such threat.
You really expect ppl to run around screen shotting or linking something so petty for the sake of evidence? Thats worser than ppl really expecting you to search out a mod just to get a bogus downvote removed. Evidence for a petty thing as a downvote that's funny😂Quote:
Originally Posted by 2222
Evidence always helps a discussion when you state something as fact. Many do not t differentiate what is opinion and what is based on direct observation. I doubt anyone would expect a screenshot, but when someone says it happens to them and a person checks it out, it's reasonable to discuss the perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
Seems like you are trolling for a fight on this issue and I'm not sure why.
What would end this debate?
What if only one person got to give rep to a post? First come, first served.
We would not have a guy that had one really good post get 50 upvotes. Nor would we have a guy who said something that wasn't toxic get down voted to Oblivion because people disagreed with his position.
Of coarse this would mean the mods would only get one rep per update thread, not 200.
This would also make the "I don't agree with that down vote I will give you an upvote "harder to do. And maybe won't get 5 sympathy upvotes as well.
There has to be a better way for the community to get involved then this rep system.
People love to say you're trolling because they feel it discredits what you're saying, it is what it is. But if you think people wasn't getting bogus down/up votes you're either in denial or just playing blind to the fact that it went on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan
Nobody is saying it didn't happen. 2222 said outright that it DOES happen. What we're saying is that it isn't a widespread problem like some make it out to be. There's no epidemic of spam voting, and no one is getting downvoted into oblivion over a disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
We're not asking for proof of a bogus downvote. We're asking for proof that someone...ANYone... has been downvoted en masse for posting something unpopular. It hasn't happened, so claiming it's a problem, or that the people here will use it as a tool to silence those with an unpopular opinion is just flat out unfounded.
Thats your opinion just like my opinion is mine. But usually there's smoke before there's a fire. Just like attack strategies, only a few ppl use them at first but once word get out it becomes widespread. If they leave the system in it'll just be a never ending popularity contest & a tool for ppl to abuse others with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
Not saying "bogus" votes didn't happen, or will not happen...saying this:Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
Interesting... first come, first served. similar to stealing war-stars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martvol
Its ceretainly brings to mind changes to how several community members will adjust their use of the forum.
I didn't ask for screen shots. I never said there was never an instance of abuse of the system, only that I didn't see it myself. I do ask those who claim everything is horrible to at least give us some examples or evidence to support the claim. I don't think that is unreasonable. I'm open to having my mind change but not if the argument is "because I say so." I would need to see some actual examples of the downvote causing more problems than benefits to consider changing my own impression, which is that it is better to have it than not have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
Edit: and, yes, I have specifically said incorrect downvotes happen. I received two myself. However, the incorrect upvotes usually outnumbered them, resulting in the only people having a bad reputation were people who regularly and consistently posted rude or false comments. If someone gives you a downvote simply because they disagree with your opinion, that is wrong, but so is the upvote from the person for nothing other than agreeing with your opinion.
I don't have all the right answers, I just have in my opinion seen more terrible threads and toxic posts after the downvote was removed. I will take the chance of getting a few unreasonable downvotes in order to reduce that.
There can't be an opinion regarding undeserved mass downvotes. It either happened or it didn't. You can't choose to believe it the way it didn't happen and back it up by saying it's an opinion. That's not how logic and debate workQuote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
It isn't at all like attack strategies. Good attack strategies help people. Abusing the rep system doesn't get you anything long term except an infraction from the mods, or worse. One undeserved downvote may go unnoticed, but five or ten won't. It violates the rules to abuse the system, and the violators will be punished according to rule #20. Further, the lost reputation can be fixed by the mods. So what would be accomplished?Quote:
But usually there's smoke before there's a fire. Just like attack strategies, only a few ppl use them at first but once word get out it becomes widespread.
This is unfounded speculation at best. Though we've pretty much run that into the ground at this pointQuote:
If they leave the system in it'll just be a never ending popularity contest & a tool for ppl to abuse others with.
If you want to actually have a discussion about this, you need to provide evidence of your claim. Some sort of tangible observation. As it stands, your entire argument boils down to not wanting the rep system because of some possible negative outcome that you think might happen down the line, despite not having a substantial reason for believing it.
Now, you are totally entitled to the opinion about not wanting the rep system. I respect that, as I've respected the dozens of people that agree with you. But you can't state something purely hypothetical as fact. That's fear mongering in this case, that's what that is. It's a shady way to get people on your side
No point in discussing something with ppl who are in denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
Regardless of some popularity contest or forum bullies I'll always post what I want & hope others do the same. If ppl have a problem with what you post direct them to the report button. You don't need a pat on the back and a at a boy to get your point across. Doesn't matter if its coming from a fresh spawn or someone with a high post count. If a post has merit ppl will notice.
I seen one. I don't remember his name. I am not going back two months to check every thead. I know it happened once.
he's just asking for some evidence to back up your points, its not unreasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
You're absolutely right. And there's no point in discussing something when only one side acknowledges and refutes the other's pointsQuote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
Now this is a reasonable answer to why you don't like the rep system. This is an argument I can respect, whether I agree with all of it or notQuote:
Originally Posted by MrAnonymous1113
regardless of the poll, I feel we still need to keep the forums positive and less toxic. Its fine to have a downvote, if it is used appropriately. My concern as I said before is someone who does not like your view will give you a down-vote. Or you get revenge down-votes. Down-votes are destructive and should not be part of the system. Keep it positive folks. Moderators have enough to deal with and deciding whether a downvote was kosher should not be one of them.
So it's fine to have an appropriately used downvote but that downvote is destructive and should not be part of the system?Quote:
Originally Posted by prosper12
Downvotes are necessary for upvotes to have meaning. A system without both would be pointless.
Could a mod possibly answer this question? Is it possible to program negative rep sp that a mod has to approve it before it shows up on someone's profile?
The bit I've bolded is why many of the people voting to keep downvotes did so. The forum did seem less toxic with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by prosper12
Downvoting is good but can be misused by those who donot understand it properly and use it to get personal satisfaction out of it whrn they donot like a post regardless the post deserves downvote or not...
I voted for the downvote option - however I think it might be good to tweak it so that the post count restriction for giving/taking rep is higher - last thing we need is a bunch of burner accounts just pushing up to 50 and then abusing it.