2010-03-14, 02:12 | Link #102 | ||
is this so?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gradius Home World
|
Quote:
If there's a built in "make sig" button in photoshop, I think there would be a lot less people requesting for sigs. Ok, seriously now... making a forum signature requires time and effort to accomplish. There's someone in the fan creations section who made an avatar + sig pair for me last Christmas, and he fully deserved the +rep. Would have given that person more than one cookie if I could. Quote:
I do wonder if you're familiar with the Japanese Saimoe 2007 or the Korean Best Moe 2007 thread? If not, then I'll tell you that those used to be the places where sometimes the mere act of voting someone could get you -repped. Espescially in the final rounds, when people's emotions run high. Believe it or not, I even got a - for congratulating Hinagiku on her victory over Shana at the Korean tournament. As for my opinion on the rep system, it's fine as it is. The + can overcome the - in time, just try to avoid the more volatile topics on the forum.
__________________
Last edited by Liddo-kun; 2010-03-14 at 05:38. |
||
2010-03-14, 03:10 | Link #103 | |
AniMexican!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
|
No need really, fansubbers and scanlators are also worthy of praise for what they do.
Quote:
Or as they say around here, we can agree to disagree.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-14, 05:33 | Link #104 | ||
uwu
Fansubber
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
More "endurance to reply or not" tbh. |
||
2010-03-14, 05:51 | Link #105 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 38
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-03-14, 05:58 | Link #106 | |
uwu
Fansubber
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-03-14, 06:12 | Link #107 | |||
AniMexican!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A small suggestion of my own would be to increase the number of people you need to give rep to before giving it to the same person again; Something like 30 people instead of 10, perhaps? A really minor thing, but something to consider, regardless. EDIT: Oh, and I also agree (which I also mentioned earlier here) about neg and positive rep being different sides of a same coin. What applies to one, could certainly apply to the other.
__________________
|
|||
2010-03-14, 08:31 | Link #110 |
Kira_Naruto, the ecchi
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: http://www.exciting-tits.com/
|
Peoples takes things way too seriously on the internet =_=
The rep system has done good at balancing itself over the years, take the good AND the bad side.. there is no such thing as purely white.. What you see white now, would not be so white in the long run.. aka, leave the system intact, negative and positive will cancel each other out and if you really participate the forum in a good way, the positive will always win out anyway. Wanting only the good side of the coin are just .. if you excuse me.. a coward gesture. And if you really hate it so much, you can turn on and off at will if you so desire.. Nobody forcing you to participate in it.
__________________
|
2010-03-14, 09:42 | Link #111 | |||
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
Quote:
Anyway, I don't think its wrong to +rep someone because they made you a signature or avatar, but the reason is really time not the work since you probably pressed more keys trying to find what you wanted and where and posting time and such or images then they did. In special cases where the signature is some vector of the source or was something like blinking animation on a static (text moving right to left etc is not hard, so doesn't count) or drawned, I would agree with you, but I don't recall seeing anyone waste that much time over it for someone else on a request, ever. Anyway all this is besides the point. Schneizel's initial argument was: why should negative reputation have these super requirements when positive reputation doesn't. Negative reputation doesn't even add nearly as much as positive does. The only reason we're talking more about negative and not positive or reputation in general is because as KiNA and TheFluff pointed out you all are so greedy and childish you can't live if its not all positive. You all recognised how the system is so biased towards positive reputation the only people with actual negative dots are the ones who practically asked people to get them and even self proclaimed trolls like SaintessHeart have not just positive but large positive reputation. Also, +1 to positive reputation require 50 to 100 characters. Quote:
You earlier in this post just go "I think" as if that's the "proof" or "reason" to convince everyone else. Well its not, sorry but I don't recognize you or anyone as having any standing here to just come in and say "I think" ["the sky will fall on us"] and I should accept it as such because they have a bigger ego then everyone else there. That is just noise and yes de-rep in that situation is IMO a good thing since obviously one cause for such inflated egos is positive reputation over the same thing. Because bad behavior gets positive reputation too, last I heard. If you disagree then consider this, my opinion for both of you is "You are stupid" and thus following what you preach on how "we should respect other people's opinions" you must "accept you are stupid"; good luck. Also as SaintessHeart you seem to have a warped understanding of what respect means. By "I respect your opinion" you should understand I will read it and consider it not that "I will accept it" since all of you use "respect" and "accept" as if they are interchangeable. You do realise in all your posts you are simply finding side effects that would benefit you, not benefit the community since you mostly favor everything that: a) gives you more positive reputation b) minimizes negative reputation, with no regard to archiving any balance in the system. Your suggestion earlier merely favors trolls for example and works with the reasoning that everyone on the forum gets 90% of the time negative reputation (which is ridiculous).
__________________
|
|||
2010-03-14, 10:02 | Link #112 |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Meh. Obviously both sides of the rep issue lends themselves to a lot of potential abuse and idiocy. I've actually gotten positive rep for posting like a dumbass which is funny when you think about it.
Right now it would be good if we got some posts from people who actually have sky-high rep and rock-bottom rep.
__________________
|
2010-03-14, 11:08 | Link #113 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
But never mind those anon negreps. They aren't exactly worth my blood pressure sky rocketing, just that it isn't fair to the more sensitive posters who oversaid something and got a negrep with dumb commentary. Quote:
My suggestion earlier doesn't work with a reason like that, but rather what I perceive to be a flaw in the system. Which is why I said the system is pretty good minus the anonymity. I find the word trolling rather subjective because it can be used to discredit people who had trouble getting ideas across clearly (lack of language strength, or the reader's lack of knowledge), resulting in some form of gobbledygook judged as a Random Useless Comment. It is either you ignore or correct him, not a difficult choice to make.
__________________
|
||
2010-03-14, 11:10 | Link #114 |
ISML Technical Staff
Graphic Designer
|
Why would the side effect benefit me? I sarcastically stated a side effect of turning off anonymity, but of course everyone is so serious to get the sarcasm.
And of course everything I post here would benefit the community. I already stated that negative reputation no longer affects me, but it will hinder other members from expressing their opinions. I find it funny how eventually this turned out to be "KholdStare needs more rep," because if I really wanted to I wouldn't be posted in this thread in the first place and make some avatars/signatures. I also said in my previous post that the current reputation system is balanced. But balance is not the problem. We cannot look at this problem as whether or not positive reputation balances out negative reputation. The only problem here is negative reputation discourage discussion. That is all. And for reference, I almost always write essays when posting positive reputation. I would say they average out to about 40-60 characters.
__________________
|
2010-03-14, 11:34 | Link #115 | |||
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
Quote:
I am going to guess this was also "sarcasm" we didn't understand. Of course another explanation would be as I pointed out earlier you are just throwing excuses and finger-pointing in place of actual solid arguments.The community doesn't benefit from having every piece of nonsense being posted. But you know that (supposedly), since you tell us that every time you praise the moderation here. I would think negative reputation acting as a sort of pruning in the process is only beneficial, to the community. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2010-03-14, 11:44 | Link #116 | |
ISML Technical Staff
Graphic Designer
|
I...praise the moderation here? And yes, the sarcasm was indeed off-topic.
Quote:
The limit for reputation is 250 characters. EDIT: Although I'm very glad you're no longer basing your arguments on how everything benefits me and stuck to the "discussion" side.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-14, 12:26 | Link #117 | |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
Oh and this applies only to posts right, if its a reputation message its suddenly bad. How one-sided can you be.
Quote:
Were there reports? Yes most likely, and the moderators came in and deleted some of the posts who tried to reason with the idiots then also physically deleted (ie. the type where the the posts don't leave a deleted message behind) a hole damn page of posts leaving the so called troll fest to carry on for another 3-4 pages. Yes its wonderful isn't it how "the report button and moderators can only do good" and how "moderators always know everything and won't delete the wrong posts" or "moderators are perfect and honest and would never try to hide how they deleted posts". Hm, weird. My bad.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-14, 12:26 | Link #118 | |
Senior Member
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Age: 31
|
Quote:
What are the side-effects of disabling reputation al-together anyways? A lot of forums other than this one do it, so I don't see a lot of things wrong with it.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-14, 12:59 | Link #120 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 41
|
Okay, well, I'd like to thank everyone for their input. I think we've heard ample thoughts from all sides of the issue, so would like to give this issue a break for now. The moderators and admins have received the feedback, and are considering what further steps are required, if any. We do have a few proposals/ideas on the table; we'll see what comes of it.
In the meantime, my general advice would be that people should not take negative rep personally. I know this is hard because you have to see that Red Dot every time you look at your User CP (until it gets replaced with new points), but really... shocking though this may be, all rep points are absolutely meaningless. As they used to say on Whose Line, "everything is made up and the points don't count". It means whatever the heck the person giving it wants it to mean. I think everyone critiquing the system is trying to be well-meaning and thinks they'd be doing new users and the board on a whole a favour by advocating removing this perceived avenue of hurtful criticism. I can see the logic, but I'm not so convinced. You could also wonder if people who lash out anonymously via neg rep would find other more hurtful ways to lash out if not given that outlet. At least reputation is meaningless and can be safely ignored. It's no skin off of anyone's back unless the receiver personally makes it into an issue. People who lash out immaturely in this manner are not going to all of a sudden wise up just because they no longer have this tool. Fundamentally, it's a behavioural issue. I should point out that positive rep is often used as a tool to encourage negative behaviour on these boards. Just as some have accused negative rep of being a "de-motivator", positive rep can be a motivator for questionable posting practices. For example, certain posters engaged in a flame war will get lots of positive rep when they put forward a strong argument for their side of the argument, thus encouraging them to drag the flame war out even longer and keep "getting support". The infamous Shuffle Holy War was a veritable rep farm for those actively engaged in it, as I suspect are the various Moe Tournament threads even today. Remember: you gain more through positive rep than negative rep takes away. Because rep points are not vetted, the staff exercises no further control over this sort of "bad use of rep" than any other. While removing negative rep points may eliminate one cause of strife and concern, it will do little to bring objectivity and fairness to the system, or to prevent the system from being used improperly to influence poster behaviour in a negative way. But anyway, all that's neither here nor there. I believe the various sides of the issue have expressed their opinions clearly, and there is enough information on the table that it can be discussed amongst the staff. If there's a compelling reason to re-open this thread, please feel free to PM myself or any of the other moderators or staff. As a closing thought, I would like to remind everyone of Rule 4.4: Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
reputation |
|
|