26 Sep 06
3 edits
Ok here's an idea! There is a lot of controversy concerning abusive talk in the forums. Admin hand out the odd ban here and there, but the issue of what is acceptable or not is very contentious. I think i have an idea that might solve the problem!
Each forum user is assigned a 'respect' rating. This would comprise a value which would be anywhere between 0 to 100. Each person would start off with a flat rating of 50. Whenever they post in the forum, users can give them a 🙂 or a 🙁
If someone receives a 🙂, then their post has either been positive, perhaps helpful or whatever. The poster then receives a respect rating of +1, so our new user now has a respect rating of 51%
The inverse is true for a 🙁. A poster would receive one of these for being abusive or generally unhelpful. It would be a way for users to show their feelings regarding certain language and ill treatment of an individual or the group. This poster would then receive -1 respect.
I would suggest that a base level of 20% is set which any poster cannot go below through forum voting. When a user reaches 20, they are flagged as red (ie, their respect rating appears in red)as a kind of name and shame sort of exercise.
Now, the final 20% can only be eaten into by receiving a forum ban from the forum moderators. Bans will be issued in the same manner that they always have been. When a user is banned, their base level will drop to 15% If a user received 4 bans and their respect rating reaches 0%, then they are permanently removed from the forums.
On the upside, any user who has dropped to a low respect grade has always got the option to redeem themselves by being helpful for a change!!
I think the rec system would probably remain as it is, but would become a system to find good posts, rather then the mark of respect that it is currently (supposed) to be used for. 🙂
EDIT: Oh, and users would need to be limited to 10 ratings a month, to avoid abuse of the system. I think 10 positive ratings and 10 negative is ample.
28 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombWe have this now. It's called the rec system. The only difference I see is that you can give what is essentially a negative rec with your system.
Whenever they post in the forum, users can give them a 🙂 or a 🙁
If someone receives a 🙂, then their post has either been positive, perhaps helpful or whatever. The poster then receives a respect rating of +1, so our new user now has a respect rating of 51%
The inverse is true for a 🙁. A poster would receive one of these for being abusive or gen ...[text shortened]... ge and ill treatment of an individual or the group. This poster would then receive -1 respect.
The problem with this system is the same as the problem with the current rec system. It assumes people will rec (or 🙂 ) positive, helpful posts, instead of the abusive, unhelpful posts. This is clearly not the case. It has *never* been the case.
I appreciate the people who are trying to make this idea work. But like Communism, it is human nature ruining the good intentions. Given that, I suspect what would happen is that your system would result in a low respect rating for everyone, since any who do manage to rise above the pack will be brought down by others.
28 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombThere is a pack of wolfs in here.
Ok here's an idea! There is a lot of controversy concerning abusive talk in the forums. Admin hand out the odd ban here and there, but the issue of what is acceptable or not is very contentious. I think i have an idea that might solve the problem!
Each forum user is assigned a 'respect' rating. This would comprise a value which would be anywhere betwe ...[text shortened]... a month, to avoid abuse of the system. I think 10 positive ratings and 10 negative is ample.
They totally lack the gift of social skills, behaves like wolf puppets, always back each other and never permits any one to criticize the others in the pack. They call others bad names but cannot stand others who tell them to behave, they whine a lot but can't stand others whining. Some of them does not even exist, but just people with multiple accounts with aliases. And they have there own alpha male, their leader.
They rec each other to that extend that the rec system can't work as intended. To give them the power to 🙂 each others and to 🙁 their enemies can be a disaster for the forum discussions.
Now, this posting of mine is so very threatening for them so they would 🙁 me out of business in no time at all. Perhaps some will try anyway by write their own postings after mine.
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasPaging Red Night to thread 53046.
There is a pack of wolfs in her.
They totally lack the gift of social skills, behaves like wolf puppets, always back each other and never permits any one to criticize the others in the pack. They call others bad names but cannot stand others who tell them to behave, they whine a lot but can't stand others whining. Some of them does not even exist, but ...[text shortened]... siness in no time at all. Perhaps some will try anyway by write their own postings after mine.
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasThose were my immediate thoughts as well Fabian.
There is a pack of wolfs in here.
They totally lack the gift of social skills, behaves like wolf puppets, always back each other and never permits any one to criticize the others in the pack. They call others bad names but cannot stand others who tell them to behave, they whine a lot but can't stand others whining. Some of them does not even exist, bu ...[text shortened]... siness in no time at all. Perhaps some will try anyway by write their own postings after mine.
If we're going to keep the rec system. The best thing to do would be to zero the recs every week or every month and leave the number of recs limited.
That way it ceases to be a score card.
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by MarinkatombBad idea. People would be ganged up on for all sorts of reasons.
Ok here's an idea! There is a lot of controversy concerning abusive talk in the forums. Admin hand out the odd ban here and there, but the issue of what is acceptable or not is very contentious. I think i have an idea that might solve the problem!
Each forum user is assigned a 'respect' rating. This would comprise a value which would be anywhere betwe ...[text shortened]... a month, to avoid abuse of the system. I think 10 positive ratings and 10 negative is ample.
29 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI recently had a string completely ruined by such a person. It's rediculous that people would waste their time and effort on such an immature and unamusing act. I agree that virtually any merit system can (and more than likely will) be ruined by such people no matter how decisively concieved, strong willed, and well meant it may be.
There is a pack of wolfs in here.
They totally lack the gift of social skills, behaves like wolf puppets, always back each other and never permits any one to criticize the others in the pack. They call others bad names but cannot stand others who tell them to behave, they whine a lot but can't stand others whining. Some of them does not even exist, bu siness in no time at all. Perhaps some will try anyway by write their own postings after mine.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlueYour site idea was mathmatically flawed from the beginning.
I recently had a string completely ruined by such a person. It's rediculous that people would waste their time and effort on such an immature and unamusing act. I agree that virtually any merit system can (and more than likely will) be ruined by such people no matter how decisively concieved, strong willed, and well meant it may be.
29 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZI can't believe you followed me into a different string just to berate me. My argument has nothing to do with MATH don't you get that??? My argument simply states that ratings can be decieving as to the specific experience a player has had. Conceivably there could be two players who have the same rating but choose to play different types of opponents. One player chooses to play much stronger opponents, the other chooses to play much weaker. The person who chooses to play stronger players would ultimately become the stronger player despite his rating because he would be introduced to and responsible for much more advanced tactics and positions. As I've stated before it is better to be mildly successful playing much stronger opponents than wildly successful playing much weaker ones. It's not a question of mathematics, it's a question of logic. In this situation the mathematics of the ELO system fail to be descriptive of the players' abilities. However I am not saying ELO is a bad system, as a whole I think it works rather well. I for one would just also like to see that other statistic included. It doesn't negate the ELO rating, it simply gives it a more specific context. Please don't just disagree with me to disagree.
Your site idea was mathmatically flawed from the beginning.
To the rest of you sorry. This comment doesn't belong in here, but it provides a good example of what we're talking about. This guy actually followed me here to continue a pointless argument!!!
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlueGood thing you didn't ask for his help in the help forum.
I can't believe you followed me into a different string just to berate me.
To the rest of you sorry. This comment doesn't belong in here, but it provides a good example of what we're talking about. This guy actually followed me here to continue a pointless argument!!!
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlueYou complained that your "string" was ruined by someone pointing out that your idea was crap. It was crap. Your "string" wasn't any good from the start. I was just pointing that out.
I can't believe you followed me into a different string just to berate me. My argument has nothing to do with MATH don't you get that??? My argument simply states that ratings can be decieving as to the specific experience a player has had. Conceivably there could be two players who have the same rating but choose to play different types of opponents. O ...[text shortened]... talking about. This guy actually followed me here to continue a pointless argument!!!
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZMy string was repeatedly posted short incoherent comments and juvenile insults by a herassing menace who probably had little or no idea what the arguments of the discussion truly entailed. I wasn't talking about you. I am taken aback that you've brought your comments about that string over into here after you noticed I made a comment here. Those comments don't belong here and it exposes your juvenile tendencies as well.
You complained that your "string" was ruined by someone pointing out that your idea was crap. It was crap. Your "string" wasn't any good from the start. I was just pointing that out.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlueIf you're going to play the victim when in fact you deserved every bit of what you got I'll call you on it.
My string was repeatedly posted short incoherent comments and juvenile insults by a herassing menace who probably had little or no idea what the arguments of the discussion truly entailed. I wasn't talking about you. I am taken aback that you've brought your comments about that string over into here after you noticed I made a comment here. Those comments don't belong here and it exposes your juvenile tendencies as well.
You know calling everyone who disagrees with you juvenile seems very similar to what some other posters do when faced with disagreement. It's also especially hilarious when you do so after you had to be moderated for various inappropriate comments.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou're taking this too far. I refuse to continue discussion with someone whose opinions are pre-emptively negative. You really should stop posting and leave people alone.
If you're going to play the victim when in fact you deserved every bit of what you got I'll call you on it.
You know calling everyone who disagrees with you juvenile seems very similar to what some other posters do when faced with disagreement. It's also especially hilarious when you do so after you had to be moderated for various inappropriate comments.