bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
You talk about it like it means something.
On the other hand, encouraging an obvious troll to mess up the forum would probably earn you negative rep. MwuhahahahahaHAH.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Reputation
- Thread starter vfx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Site Feedback
You talk about it like it means something.
On the other hand, encouraging an obvious troll to mess up the forum would probably earn you negative rep. MwuhahahahahaHAH.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
There will not be consensus, no matter how long of a period of time. People have spoken up plenty about what they think the reputation system should and shouldn't be. If you'd like to have your say, now is the time to do it. Consider yourself forewarned and consider this the thread in which to post your opinion.
Go!
bareyb
Active Member
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
doug has said it a few times - to remove anonymity, he needs to reset everyone (otherwise, those who thought they were giving anonymous reputation points in the past would be identified). No big deal, just becoming more transparent.
Since we had people abusing the ability to give negative reputation, that will probably not be returned.
Agree that consensus is impossible to achieve and inappropriate to seek.
Regarding reputation, my opinion is that the word is not fitting, there are better fitting words to describe the system. There is strong correlation between post counts and the ability to earn 'reputation'. That implies that people with low post count have low reputation, which might not always be the case if we consider the true meaning of the word. There are some new TMC members who come to TMC with pretty strong reputation on some TMC topics. Maybe this is just a semantic issue, but it is easy to change the word reputation to a better fitting one, so I am mentioning it.
Credit might be one of the better fitting words and is commonly used for something that is accrued with correct behavior, relevant to the area where it accrues.
Maybe TMC members can accrue Amps, or watts, or Volts. Perhaps watts are given for the strong energetic reasoning, Volts for powerful argument, Amps for clarity and Ohms for poor arguing. If members accrue enough Volts, perhaps they can zap other members. That would be some fun.:wink:
It might be an idea to allow all registered members to award positive points. The member's awarding power can be scaled according to his/her accrued points. This change might mean different scaling to current system. Larger scaling, that includes members with zero accrued 'reputation', might work better, just my opinion.
The current positive reward system is strongly correlated with seniority reward system, which has it value and place but also has some risks. Perhaps with TMC seniority reward system is well placed as the early supporters do deserve a lot of credit.
I see a lot of value in appropriately given negative feedback. I would like to think that negative feedback has educational rather than punitive purpose. Taking points away seems punitive to me, as the poster earned those points on merit.
Inappropriately given negative feedback can cause a lot of damage. The anonymity and ease of giving negative feedback increase the risk of that happening. If members are not prepared to justify their reasoning when giving negative feedback to someone then maybe it is safer not to enable them.
IMO, it would add value if adequate explanatory comment and member's name are mandatory for awarding negative points. Perhaps that can only happen if moderators screen negative points before they are awarded. I would also scale down a lot 'negative awarding power' as many of us need to be protected from ourselves by inbuilt safeguards.
Appropriate negative feedback is already frequently given via direct response to a targeted post, making the whole system much simpler, as it eliminates the need for moderators screening, and it is transparent. That is already happening on many threads. Perhaps that may be sufficient. Points reduction may not serve enough purpose to justify building a system to support such capability.
I wouldn't mind being able to zap some people. Not so sure about being on the receiving end.:-D
Last edited:
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
I really like turning off anonymity. I have always signed my reputation comments, positive as well as negative (as far as I remember - I'd hate some über-moderator to go through the logs and show me the one time I forgot).
But I'd have to say I do see some value in negative reputation points. Yes, they can get abused - so take them away from abusers. Or ration them. You can give negative points once a week. But I think it's good to be able to tell people who are obnoxious or abusive or disruptive "dude, not cool".
In a "positive points only"-world your reputation to a large degree is a function for how long you've be around. We don't need green flags for that, your join date is right there.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Can we keep points and just remove the old comments? I dint know if I can re earn my points, there are only a few ways to hook up electrical wires
Ha ha. There are going to be thousands of new forum members that you can help out over the years with the fantastic advice about electrical equipment, Flasher; you'll earn those precious green ingots back in no time. And, oh, I'll give you some good rep for more beekeeping tips too!
I'm sensing the balancing act between "don't fix what's not broken" and "improvements would be nice". (kinda like those cupholders and coathangers and passive avoidance systems on an otherwise heckuva fine car - right?).
One feature of the current system I've not noticed mentioned in this thread, and one that runs to the heart of Auzie's complaint, is one I like...once you learn how to use it. That is, I can look at how many points someone has, and ration that against how many posts. As in: "Oh look. Bonnie's got only 8 points even though she's posted 7,000 times. What a slacker."
One feature of the current system I've not noticed mentioned in this thread, and one that runs to the heart of Auzie's complaint, is one I like...once you learn how to use it. That is, I can look at how many points someone has, and ration that against how many posts. As in: "Oh look. Bonnie's got only 8 points even though she's posted 7,000 times. What a slacker."
djp
Model 3 Performance
I'm not sure how well that would work because some topics just don't attract reputations points. Also there are several broad categories of posts:
Technical
Social
Investor
Travel
Commercial (sell / buy)
RFE / Complaint
For example, someone who makes a lot of social posts isn't likely to get a lot of points even if the technical posts they make are very good. So to get good S/N values, each category would need its own set of counters and posts would have to be categorized--a non-trivial task.
Assuming that it was considered to be a good idea--like rabbit stew: first you catch a rabbit--the easiest way to implement would be a popup with radio buttons and a text field.
Section 1: Category. Select the category (tech, social, etc.) you think this post belongs in.
Section 2: Evaluation: Rate the post from 1-5 (5: Nobel prize post, 1: Needs improvement)
Section 3: Comment field
Section 4: Signature (No not that kind--your personal signature autofilled)
bareyb
Active Member
Oh. If they remove the negative reputation it renders the whole system to nothing more than a circle jerk. The negative Rep was the part that really had true value. I couldn't care less how many gold bars I have next to my name. Most of my points are just my buddies on the forum agreeing with me. Doesn't really mean a whole lot.
Having said all that, my recommendation is to put the system back the way it was and stop trying to control it. It was designed that way for a reason and I think it's very effective. If you want to make it non anonymous, I'd be okay with that.
Last edited:
RESET?!?! I JUST got my second green dot. Do you know how hard that is for someone who never posts anything of actual value to anyone???
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
I have almost the same number of posts as you do and THREE green dots. I must be better than you at begging for approval
My concern with anonymity is that it facilitates easy abuse. It is easy and sometimes tempting to hurl anonymous abuse. It's consequences stay invisible, so even non abusive individuals might slip and hurl abuse just because it is so easy. When that is done, the receiver's state of mind is unknown. What if such abuse is just the tip that tips someone in undesired direction or who knows what. Aaron Swartz comes to mind. Not everyone is tough and abuse resistant. Even for toughies on TMC threads, abuse is hurtful.
So removing anonymity is perhaps not about control, it might be about safety.
Some sort of post down voting without verbal comments might be abuse proof but I am not sure what is achieved by down voting the posts.
If someone gets negative votes, it just might be kinder to give them some explanation and a chance to understand. When people are sentenced in courts, they are given lengthy explanations on the judgement with the intent to educate. Judges spend many hours composing their judgments, they put a lot of thought and energy into their work. If someone wishes to hand out judgments to others, they may need to be prepared to do judge's work and put some time and thought before passing their judgement.
I agree with you that the site is very effective in attracting people who share love for ev cars. Any changes to how site works is unlikely to deter old or new members from frequenting the site.
I like green dots system, that is fun. Although I would prefer to see a simulation car dashboard inbuilt under my screen name on TMC forums. The level of member's charge could replace the green bars system. We are all on the forum because of the car and it would be cool to reflect that in the positive credit system.
So removing anonymity is perhaps not about control, it might be about safety.
Some sort of post down voting without verbal comments might be abuse proof but I am not sure what is achieved by down voting the posts.
If someone gets negative votes, it just might be kinder to give them some explanation and a chance to understand. When people are sentenced in courts, they are given lengthy explanations on the judgement with the intent to educate. Judges spend many hours composing their judgments, they put a lot of thought and energy into their work. If someone wishes to hand out judgments to others, they may need to be prepared to do judge's work and put some time and thought before passing their judgement.
I agree with you that the site is very effective in attracting people who share love for ev cars. Any changes to how site works is unlikely to deter old or new members from frequenting the site.
I like green dots system, that is fun. Although I would prefer to see a simulation car dashboard inbuilt under my screen name on TMC forums. The level of member's charge could replace the green bars system. We are all on the forum because of the car and it would be cool to reflect that in the positive credit system.
Last edited:
Bah, my rep has mostly come from scouting Supercharger sites in my area. I won't get any more reputation once they are complete!
Not to completely derail this thread, but I didn't know there were other beekeepers about!?!
Not to completely derail this thread, but I didn't know there were other beekeepers about!?!
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
The way I read Dougs lastest post on this is not that he would reset the reputation. Just the log of who left what reputation. I may have read it wrong but I think the idea was you keep your reputation you have but the log of who gave it to you would be erased and going forward you would see who gave you what reputation.
