Reputation System

[someone_like_u]

Ok, so not to continue to derail a member's thread and the clear up what the Positive Rep and Negative Reps are for, here we are.

Nam, I know you're a new Mod and trust me, I'm not singling you out or trying to pick on you, but this unknown has troubled many members in the past.

Moderators punish serious violations of these rules and members can punish (negative rep) casual violators of the rules.

(Then further down you stated)

Negative reps are inappropriately used when they are used against someone who is annoying, or fails to answer the question, or provides a poorly constructed answer. They are appropriate for more serious offenses, not annoyances.

So, from what you stated, neg reps are for serious violations/offenses, and moderators punish those, so.....should we members stop using neg reps all together?

---

My understanding(even while I was a Mod) was the following:

---

• Positive reps for posts you agree with, like

• Negative reps for posts you disagree with, dislike

A quote from an administrator, in which, from my take on his words, goes hand in hand with my above take on the Rep System.

As I understand it, the rep/neg rep system started out as a way of giving feedback to posters for good advice and helpful posting/not so good advice or unhelpful posting. It was certainly well established when I came aboard three years ago and helped me distinguish between credible advice from experienced members and credible sounding advice from guys with lots of posts but little else. We would still like for it to be for that purpose.

The infraction system is still very new and it has a different purpose: to enforce the rules. Prior to the infraction system, the Mods had no other tools beyond warnings and bannings to help enforce the rules. The infraction system gives the mods something more tangible, yet temporary, to get a member's attention and correct a problem before it gets out of hand. Trying to use the rep/neg rep system for that purpose was discussed but rejected.

---

I know, before I left my position as Moderator, it was on the table to trash the infraction system. Has it been? Are we members supposed to moderate and just neg rep asshole posts or do you moderators still step in and handle those unruly post/ers?

My personal opinion is that neg reps are our(every day members) to show our fellow members that we didn't like their posts, etc. More serious offenses, such as belittling & name calling, umm, that's when a moderator steps in and deals with the issue at hand.


And on just an off topic add in, Pirate, your cool, collected thoughts and posts and gentleman nature are severely missed by me on this forum. Wish you were able to be around more

 

[Danster579]

Personally, I believe negative reputation should only be given if someone has done something wrong.

Whether or not you disagree with them, they are probably only stating their point of view and theres nothing wrong with that.

 

[DaddyDick]

Personally, I believe negative reputation should only be given if someone has done something wrong.

Whether or not you disagree with them, they are probably only stating their point of view and theres nothing wrong with that.

+1

 

[namsokiek]

SLU,

Thanks for pointing out the area of confusion. Your question whether I was asserting that members should stop using negative reps all together is not an accurate summary of my position. Perhaps if we change the sentence:

"Moderators punish serious violations of these rules and members can punish (negative rep) casual violators of the rules"

to read:

"Moderators punish chronic or severe violations of these rules and members can punish (negative rep) casual violators of the rules"

my intent would become more clear.

Members have the right to evaluate the quality or helpfulness of the posts. They have at least six ways to communicate their feelings regarding the quality of the post; Positive reps, likes, positive comments, negative comments, negative reps, or reporting the comment.

Everyone knows this. So the user is left to determine the appropriate method to communicate their feelings. Many folks reserve negative reps for serious lapses in judgement or a violation of the rules. However, not all posts warrant an action this severe, so members will often express their displeasure in an unhelpful post by giving feedback to the responder. Members with high rep power are generally more circumspect when they wield their negative rep hammer or wave their positive rep wand, because the effect is not trivial.

So to return to the point which generated this; second lensman replied to a post. I read the reply and didn't think it was too helpful (insert the phrase "completely useless") but that happens. My response to the post was to leave it alone, it didn't warrant my time or attention.

I considered MovingUp's follow-on post a completely appropriate response until I read the "neg repped" part. I felt that was overkill, or an inappropriate use of the negative rep. The reply post was the appropriate response. Others had the same reaction.

I don't feel that negative reps are warranted for posts that individuals don't "like" or I would have neg repp'ed the post with which I disagreed. I think they are warranted for posts which are in opposition to the climate and intent of this forum. To express my displeasure with MovingUp's post I wrote a comment explaining why I felt the use of the neg rep was inappropriate.

I believe the generally accepted practice is:

If you don't like it but don't care, don't comment. If you don't like it and care, comment. If the post is not in keeping with the rules or climate of this forum, neg rep (and report serious violations).

 

[Toadstool]

I don't think MovingUp's response was all that inappropriate. Immature, sure. Slightly antagonistic, okay. Did you read the comment he left in the negative rep? I do believe he gave a compliment to lensman.

I was under the impression the rep system was to be used at the discretion of the membership, unless some form of abuse took place. That's when a mod would step in.
I took CUSP's role in that thread more as a fatherly figure trying to talk to a younger man, rather than the admin scolding the member.

Namso, are you an IT guy or something like that by any chance?

 

[namsokiek]

I don't think MovingUp's response was all that inappropriate. Immature, sure. Slightly antagonistic, okay. Did you read the comment he left in the negative rep? I do believe he gave a compliment to lensman.

I agree with you regarding his posts. I disagree with giving the negative rep. I don't know how to read rep comments members have left for other members. Compliments on a negative rep is a bit like a back-handed compliment. Sort of a "you're not as stupid as you look" kind of compliment, isn't it?:biggrin1:

I was under the impression the rep system was to be used at the discretion of the membership, unless some form of abuse took place. That's when a mod would step in.

I also agree with this statement. But does is that applied to all members? What about members who disliked the fact that MovingUp handed out a negative rep for a trivial post. I believe their justification for neg repping MovingUp is just as valid as his reason. However, I think that in both cases a neg rep is inappropriate.

My inclusion into this discussion is because member-Namso wanted to share his perspective. Had Mod-Namso stepped in, the tone of the posts would have been much different.

I took CUSP's role in that thread more as a fatherly figure trying to talk to a younger man, rather than the admin scolding the member.

I'm not sure if you're asserting that I was scolding the member. I've re-read my posts and I believe they communicated my true intentions #15 - you often get what you give (including slight derision for the quality of the first post), #24 my opinion on the appropriate use of reps and that others are entitled to criticize the OP's use of neg reps. My intention was no to scold.

Namso, are you an IT guy or something like that by any chance?

I'm an a naval officer. Engineer. Avatar courtesy of L4M.

 

[BigO]

What the hell started all this?

 

[Frog]

I second that!:agree:

 

[BigO]

OK, I found it, this was hashed out in the original thread, the rep system is fine and will not be changing any time soon. We see all Neg reps, I actually review them periodically, now that that is all cleared up


***************************THREAD CLOSED******************************