Reputation points......

You don't wanna get a red square under your post count. Most guys that get a red one usually end up "walking the plank"
 
There is a difference, I think, between someone who comes here to cause trouble and someone who comes here with a view that might be unpopular. A troll exposes himself as just that. Sometimes our definitions of what a troll is can vary. But as long as one is reasonably polite, have a genuine love of knives -- the common interest of all-- and respect the boundries of the forum, it is still possible to get a red square but not be a troll. I think Akjon and Kahuna both have red squares. Yet, I don't believe either of them is a troll. Reputation points are probably counterproductive overall since they lump trolling and unpopular posts together. But, I think most people have the good sense to know the difference.

Kref
 
No, a red square would mean a lot of people don't like (some of) your posts. It's like an election -- of course you're going to find some people voting against you, but it's not going to turn red unless the majority of the votes you get are negative. One person can't have much effect.
 
But the general point is that just having a red square doesn't mean that you are either a troll or here to cause trouble It just means you may have some unpopular views. But you are right. A red square obviously means more than one opinion.
 
I hate to keep making more and more sticky threads; I feel they clutter up the forum -- but people keep asking about reputation points, and I think this is the thread with the most information in it....
 
Cougar Allen said:
I can't see that making the specific details public about how the system has been set up to prevent abuse would be very helpful to anyone but people trying to abuse the system. (How many other members do I have to rate before I can give that member I hate so much another bad rating?) I think that's why the vBulletin people made those specific details configurable, so they aren't the same on all vBulletin websites and aren't so easy for abusers to figure out.

For the rest of us, do the details of the system really matter?
Click to expand...
So, the reputation system has been set-up to "prevent abuse?" I've never given nor taken away anyone's reputation points, and, as far as I can tell, I haven't been "abusing" BladeForums. However, my reputation points have gone from +10 to -10 over a period of three days. Does one's reputation points go into consideration when the Moderators are deciding who should be banned and who should be allowed to stay?

In my opinion, reputation points can also be used to punish people for their opinions. No "abuse" has occured, per se, but, oh no, someone's sensibilities have been trampled on...so they jump on someone's reputation points, and lower that person's ranking. Does someone with fewer reputation points have less valid points to make than someone with more reputation points? Ah well, it's "the system." I guess that if it is allowable to attack someone's reputation points for spurious reasons, then I guess that I will eventually be banned.

Would any of the Mods care to scan all of my posts to see if I've been "abusing" BladeForums? I don't want to abuse BladeForums, and I don't think that I have, so, it'd be great if I could get that feedback so that I can change my behavior...if that is indeed what is required. That's where reputation points can have an effect: stiffling someone from being honest and truthful, if they're worried that they could be banned for "too low" reputation points. If reputation points are only a popularity contest, then don't expect people to express anything that could offend anyone.

Just my 2-cents' worth,
GeoThorn
 
There's some confusion here.... The reputation system is set up to make it difficult to abuse the reputation system.

No, we're not banning people based on their reputation points. Or letting people get away with breaking the rules based on their reputation points either.

If people are expressing their honest opinions of the posts they're rating that's not abusing the system. You might disagree with their opinions, and no doubt some of them are pretty retarded, but the idea is the retarded votes will be overwhelmed by votes from people with a little sense. It's like an election -- you don't need every vote in the dadburn county to get yourself elected dogcatcher. All you need is more people to vote for you than against you.

You can see which of your posts got the ratings and draw your own conclusions. If you've only gotten ten or fifteen ratings so far that's not statistically significant; you have to expect large fluctuations at first. It'll settle down to a more constant level after a while. Whether it'll be a positive or negative level for you, I can't say -- I don't have time to read all your posts right now and frankly I'll be lucky if I find time to skim a few of them later.
 
Thanks for your prompt reply. I think that I'll stick to discussing knives, since there are generally less hard feelings involved with knives than in any political discussion and there are far fewer ways to hurt someone's feelings.

GeoThorn
 
geothorn said:
Thanks for your prompt reply. I think that I'll stick to discussing knives, since there are generally less hard feelings involved with knives than in any political discussion and there are far fewer ways to hurt someone's feelings.

GeoThorn
Click to expand...
Geothorn, that is usually the truth, but ask Sal Glesser about trying to explain why Spyderco has its "SpyderHole" trademark protected, especially to fans of a certain knife. :) :)
 
geothorn said:
I think that I'll stick to discussing knives, since there are generally less hard feelings involved with knives than in any political discussion and there are far fewer ways to hurt someone's feelings.
Click to expand...

I would direct you to the current Strider Knives and/or Dark Ops knives threads in the general knife discussion forum. Or perhaps one of the many threads concerning whether or not Sebenzas are worth the price, or if not being able to "flick" them open without voiding the warranty makes them inferior. The list goes on...
 
Thank you for correcting me, FullerH and Ritt. I'm learning that I should check out all of the forums before making such wild generalizations. I haven't been to either the Spyderco forum or the Strider/Dark Ops/Sebenza areas. I usually buy all of my knives in the old-fashioned "brick and mortar" stores, and the one's I usually haunt don't carry Spyderco knives or Sebenzas, so I haven't stumbled into those areas of Blade Forums yet, because my knowledge about Spyderco knives and Sebenzas is close to nil.

But I stand corrected,
GeoThorn
 
Not a big deal, hardly a deal at all.

But, back to your original point about the reputation system, I agree with your that there are problems with it. My main concern, as stated earlier in this thread, is the lack of tranparency. My impression is that it's not likely to change. You shouldn't get negative points because someone diagrees with your opinion. I disagree with a lot of what's written in these and other forums, but I don't ding someone's rep because they don't like a knife I do, or vice-versa. If people had to sign their comments when they assigned rep points, that would take care of most of the cheap shots, I think. Anyway, enough rambling. Here's to making your square green again.
 
Ritt said:
..... If people had to sign their comments when they assigned rep points, that would take care of most of the cheap shots, I think. Anyway, enough rambling. Here's to making your square green again.
Click to expand...


I always sign my name, I got nothin' to hide, what I think of a persons opinion doesn't change when I'm with them or with some one else.
 
Thanks for your support, Ritt.

I've been thinking alot about the reputation points, and why they are being used. The only reason I think that reputation points are used is so that the less articulate members can at least ding you in your reputation points if the only thing that they can do in reply to your posts is call names, make insults, and imply questionable sexuality. I already get the idea that they aren't liking my opinion when they call me "Sally," "Sissy Bitch," and "K-Mart Warrior," only to name a few, so why do these posters also have to ding my reputation points? Inarticulate rage is my opinion of that.

I'm usually all for self-expression, but to get stabbed in the back, anonymously, at will, without any way to defend oneself against unmerited attacks, through reputation points...that's the terrorist's way to do things, isn't it?

To me, my reputation points don't matter all that much as they are a way to gauge how well my opinions are being accepted, or not. However, when a forumite sees my red reputation mark, they might say to themselves that I'm a idiot, don't know what I'm talking about, lie, or whatever, but they aren't told that reputation points can also be dinged for revenge, as well.

GeoThorn
 
Once again, the reason you can't see who gave you the rating is if you could some people (far too many people) would return ratings in kind, seeking out the post by the people who've given them negative ratings and retaliating, and giving positives to the people who've given them positives. The idea is you're s'posed to be rating the post.

People can write comments and sign them; I don't see any way to prevent that unless we turn off the comments feature. We can only hope returning ratings in kind will be overwhelmed by people who are giving their honest opinion of the post they're rating.

I'm certainly not giving negative ratings every time someone expresses an opinion I disagree with. I think very few people will do that.

Some stoopid people cast their votes for dogcatcher, some people vote for reasons other than their honest opinion of who would be the best dogcatcher, some (far too many) people don't bother to vote at all.... Democracy works pretty well despite all that. It doesn't matter that stoopid votes are cast as long as they're not the majority.
 
m1marty said:
Might as well say it here.....Lone Wolf aka Robert(with holding last name for now) is lurking here on the forums as "WATCHER" one post only so far in prac. tac. feel free to ding this nerds rep. sheesh.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem that m1marty needs any reason to ding anyone's reputation points except a vague suspicion of someone. :) Not only does he ding peoples' reputation points on a flimsy suspicion, but he exhorts others to do so, as well.

Voila, reputation points used for the purpose of attacking...
GeoThorn
 
A gray square (might look bluish depending on your monitor) means somebody tried to give you a rating on that post but failed -- the system refused it. That could be because he rated another post of yours too recently, or because he's been clicking his mouse as fast as he can and rating everything in sight and the system thinks he should give it a rest for a while, or because his own rating is so negative the system figures nobody cares what he thinks of their posts.
 
I wish we would do away with the rating system. None of us in our everyday real life (off-line) walk around with a red or green badge. Our friends, business associates, aquaintances, get to know us and that is how we get reputaions as stand up guys or complete jerks.

Or at least give those of us who want to opt out a way to do so. This rep point system is the one single thing I dislike about this site.

Phil
 
I think the reputation system can be easily abused. Just check my reputation as an example. I am perfectly sure the 3 red points are from NIFRAND. I gave him one too for the b.i.t.c.h. comment (after I learned he gave me 2 for criticizing his manners) and got another one in return - so he must have seen who gave the points to him - I was not the only one who did not agree with him (unless he gave negative points to all who posted in that thread)... Shall I post one red in return too? Or does that never end? He was/is rude yet he can ruin reputation of others (and you cannot even put him on ignore :().

David

reputation.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top