View Full Version : How Does Rep Work?
Yiren
04-28-2010, 10:17 AM
Really sorry for my following meta-questions on forum Rep. I tried figuring out and doing a search, but nothing useful came up...
How does Rep work?
What does Rep actually do?
How do I give someone Rep?
How much Rep do I have at the start (assume 0)?
...etc.
If someone can just point me to a page where it is all explained, I'll be very grateful too.
Again, sorry for these silly questions. :p
Yiren.
wamjratl1
04-28-2010, 10:21 AM
Really sorry for my following meta-questions on forum Rep. I tried figuring out and doing a search, but nothing useful came up...
How does Rep work?
What does Rep actually do? Nothing.
How do I give someone Rep? Click the Sclaes icon at the top right of their post and choose "I approve"
How much Rep do I have at the start (assume 0)?
...etc. Go to your user Control Panel.
If someone can just point me to a page where it is all explained, I'll be very grateful too.
Again, sorry for these silly questions. :p
Yiren.
Red.
Girlbrush
04-28-2010, 10:25 AM
Do note that if you're F2P, you can't give rep to others.
Memnir
04-28-2010, 10:25 AM
No worries for the silly questions - Rep is kinda a silly thing. :)
How does Rep work?
Rep is an indicator of how the forum reacts to your posts. If you have a lot of Positive Rep, then the forum-populace finds you informative, funny, or just an okay person to have around. If you Rep is Red, it means the opposite - or you annoyed the wrong person and they gave you Neg Rep out of spite.
What does Rep actually do?
Not a thing. It only means as much as you yourself ascribe to it.
How do I give someone Rep?
In each post, below a person's name, there is an icon that looks like a set of scales. Click on it, and you will have an option to Approve or Disprove their post. You can only give a person one tick of Rep, good or bad, and then you need to give Rep to other people before you can give it to that same person again.
How much Rep do I have at the start (assume 0)?
I think 0, but am not sure.
It's really an arbitrary thing that the Devs put in for no apparent reason...
Drakos
04-28-2010, 10:30 AM
Really sorry for my following meta-questions on forum Rep. I tried figuring out and doing a search, but nothing useful came up...
How does Rep work?
What does Rep actually do?
How do I give someone Rep?
How much Rep do I have at the start (assume 0)?
...etc.
If someone can just point me to a page where it is all explained, I'll be very grateful too.
Again, sorry for these silly questions. :p
Yiren.
In theory or in parctice?
Many people abuse the Rep system here so...
In theory or in parctice?
Many people abuse the Rep system here so...
Like certain individuals that have full rep bars that didn't earn it, for example.
How does Rep work?For the purposes for which it was added and intended to work...
It just doesn't.
Rep is kind of a silly mechanic. How it works is that anyone who pays for the game (believe F2P can not rep) can give positive rep based upon a percentage of their own rep. They can do this once a week (I think) for the same poster and can do it a few times in a day. If you have lots of rep (1750 I believe) you can also hand out negative rep, also as a percentage of your total rep. This means that both positive rep and negative rep while anonymous can generally be guessed at who is giving it to you. For example, very few have such massive rep bars to hit you for 50+ negative/positive rep. If one of those few people posts in the thread either supportive or in the contrary to your position it's fairly obvious who gave the rep out.
Rep actually does very little. If someone gets a very high negative rep total I have heard that their posts are approved before they are posted, much like someone who accumulates infractions. Incredibly stubborn or angry poster generally are the only ones to get this much negative reputation.
Some little hints about rep.
*You can turn off your reputation from displaying. Posters with net negative rep often do this, but they are certainly not the only ones. This however does not prevent people from still giving you positive or negative reputation.
*Meaningful and intelligent posting often does not result in a positive reputation. In fact, if the subject matter ruffles anyones feathers it could very result in negative reputation.
*The best ways to gain positive reputation are posting funny pictures and one liners.
*The reputation system is all about promoting group think. Go with the crowd and you get positive reinforcement go against it and you get negative reinforcement.
*You can see how much reputation you have under the user CP tab.
rep Is Kind Of A Silly Mechanic. How It Works Is That Anyone Who Pays For The Game (believe F2p Can Not Rep) Can Give Positive Rep Based Upon A Percentage Of Their Own Rep. They Can Do This Once A Week (i Think) For The Same Poster And Can Do It A Few Times In A Day. If You Have Lots Of Rep (1750 I Believe) You Can Also Hand Out Negative Rep, Also As A Percentage Of Your Total Rep. This Means That Both Positive Rep And Negative Rep While Anonymous Can Generally Be Guessed At Who Is Giving It To You. For Example, Very Few Have Such Massive Rep Bars To Hit You For 50+ Negative/positive Rep. If One Of Those Few People Posts In The Thread Either Supportive Or In The Contrary To Your Position It's Fairly Obvious Who Gave The Rep Out.
Rep Actually Does Very Little. If Someone Gets A Very High Negative Rep Total I Have Heard That Their Posts Are Approved Before They Are Posted, Much Like Someone Who Accumulates Infractions. Incredibly Stubborn Or Angry Poster Generally Are The Only Ones To Get This Much Negative Reputation.
Some Little Hints About Rep.
*you Can Turn Off Your Reputation From Displaying. Posters With Net Negative Rep Often Do This, But They Are Certainly Not The Only Ones. This However Does Not Prevent People From Still Giving You Positive Or Negative Reputation.
*meaningful And Intelligent Posting Often Does Not Result In A Positive Reputation. In Fact, If The Subject Matter Ruffles Anyones Feathers It Could Very Result In Negative Reputation.
*the Best Ways To Gain Positive Reputation Are Posting Funny Pictures And One Liners.
*the Reputation System Is All About Promoting Group Think. Go With The Crowd And You Get Positive Reinforcement Go Against It And You Get Negative Reinforcement.
*you Can See How Much Reputation You Have Under The User Cp Tab.
Qfmft
Unreliable
04-28-2010, 10:51 AM
Rep is kind of a silly mechanic. How it works is that anyone who pays for the game (believe F2P can not rep) can give positive rep based upon a percentage of their own rep. They can do this once a week (I think) for the same poster and can do it a few times in a day. If you have lots of rep (1750 I believe) you can also hand out negative rep, also as a percentage of your total rep. This means that both positive rep and negative rep while anonymous can generally be guessed at who is giving it to you. For example, very few have such massive rep bars to hit you for 50+ negative/positive rep. If one of those few people posts in the thread either supportive or in the contrary to your position it's fairly obvious who gave the rep out.
Rep actually does very little. If someone gets a very high negative rep total I have heard that their posts are approved before they are posted, much like someone who accumulates infractions. Incredibly stubborn or angry poster generally are the only ones to get this much negative reputation.
Some little hints about rep.
*You can turn off your reputation from displaying. Posters with net negative rep often do this, but they are certainly not the only ones. This however does not prevent people from still giving you positive or negative reputation.
*Meaningful and intelligent posting often does not result in a positive reputation. In fact, if the subject matter ruffles anyones feathers it could very result in negative reputation.
*The best ways to gain positive reputation are posting funny pictures and one liners.
*The reputation system is all about promoting group think. Go with the crowd and you get positive reinforcement go against it and you get negative reinforcement.
*You can see how much reputation you have under the user CP tab.
would have given you +1 but no funny pics or clever puns, sorry.
would have given you +1 but no funny pics or clever puns, sorry.
No worries your tiny rep bar would hardly move mine anyways;)
Edit: I guess that qualifies as a clever pun :(
Tarrant
04-28-2010, 10:57 AM
Hi Yiren,
Aside from what everyone here has said (and thanks, +1 to all of you :p), when you reach a certain threshold of negative reputation, your posts become automatically moderated until Tolero or myself approve them. This is to allow the community to exercise a degree of self-moderation, and to let you all catch anyone constantly posting inappropriate things (it has happened before) if we can't get there soon enough.
Memnir
04-28-2010, 11:03 AM
when you reach a certain threshold of negative reputation, your posts become automatically moderated until Tolero or myself approve them. Just for clarification, what is that threshold, exactly? In terms of red-boxes, what is the magic-number for insta-moderation.
I ask only because I've seen some people keep posting at will with a lot of red boxes by their name - at least four.
As a form of Citizen's Arrest, it does not seem to work very well. Or rather, as well as it does in any other fashion...
Tarrant
04-28-2010, 11:07 AM
Just for clarification, what is that threshold, exactly? In terms of red-boxes, what is the magic-number for insta-moderation.
I ask only because I've seen some people keep posting at will with a lot of red boxes by their name - at least four.
As a form of Citizen's Arrest, it does not seem to work very well. Or rather, as well as it does in any other fashion...
We don't give out the magic-number, but there was a time in the past when the insta-moderation was a fickle mistress and didn't succumb to our commands. It behaves much better now.
We don't give out the magic-number, but there was a time in the past when the insta-moderation was a fickle mistress and didn't succumb to our commands. It behaves much better now.
What purpose does keeping this information secret serve?
flynnjsw
04-28-2010, 11:12 AM
What purpose does keeping this information secret serve?
Keeps things "Dark and Mysterious"????lol
Oh Big Brother Where art Thou...
Tarrant
04-28-2010, 11:14 AM
What purpose does keeping this information secret serve?
Several purposes. One is that it allows us the opportunity to adjust the threshold based on what we feel is appropriate. For example, it was easier to land in insta-moderation when only a few people could give out negative reputation as opposed to currently.
Memnir
04-28-2010, 11:15 AM
We don't give out the magic-number, but there was a time in the past when the insta-moderation was a fickle mistress and didn't succumb to our commands. It behaves much better now.Fair enough - but I hope it was a recent adjustment, because some of the instances I'm talking about were not too long ago.
And while I have your ear, Evil One - the responses in this thread should illustrate that the public perception of the Rep System is pretty bad, and needs some repair. Neg Rep griefing is still an issue, and is perhaps the biggest problem with the way the system currently functions.
If Turbine cannot/will not give us the name of the person who gave us the Neg Rep, can it at least be looked into if each time Neg Rep is given, it has to be looked into by a Mod? Because I'd lay odds that 75% or more of the Neg Rep given is for spiteful or petty reasons - and not ones by which the system intends.
Faith needs to be put back into the system - because right now there is precious little to be had.
Drakos
04-28-2010, 11:19 AM
Hi Yiren,
Aside from what everyone here has said (and thanks, +1 to all of you :p), when you reach a certain threshold of negative reputation, your posts become automatically moderated until Tolero or myself approve them. This is to allow the community to exercise a degree of self-moderation, and to let you all catch anyone constantly posting inappropriate things (it has happened before) if we can't get there soon enough.
Thank you for your post to try and explain the system but it is not working as you claim.
The biggest problem is their is little to no feedback avaliable as to how you earned the rep. You can't even tell which posts you made that generated said rep without going to every post you have made and checking. Then all you get is Very Positive or Very Negative, so you can't use the system to police yourself.
Also there is no mechanism to refute or grieve the rep. Many use it as a means to try and punish, not police, those who disagree. It does not serve the "self moderation" goal you stated. It serves to let the bullies on the forums try and squelch and opposition to their devine opinions.
Now add to that that after being bullied enough, now you are being punished by the system because you have been beaten down to a set level. It would only work if those giving the rep had reprecusions for abusing the system. As it stands there is NO accounting for your actions.
Unless the goal it to only have a select group of people here that force everyone else into compliance the system does not serve the stated purpose, and should be either better policed or elliminated. It definatly does not support any kind of free thinking or differing opinions, it infacts punishes you for such. Just because an opinion in non-conformist does not make it any less a valid opinion, but the system here supports making it such.
Edit: Oh, my +1 you mentioned must have been lost in the mail because I never got it.
Drakos
04-28-2010, 11:23 AM
What purpose does keeping this information secret serve?
Personally I'd say it serves to try and prevent people from trying to abuse it in reverse. Purposly being abarsive to get the neg rep but then backing off when they are getting close to insta-moderated status.
. You can't even tell which posts you made that generated said rep without going to every post you have made and checking.
In your User CP in your rep section, the "latest reputation received" filed, it gives you a link to the post you made. It is shown as the thread title of the thread you posted in.
Tarrant
04-28-2010, 11:30 AM
Fair enough - but I hope it was a recent adjustment, because some of the instances I'm talking about were not too long ago.
And while I have your ear, Evil One - the responses in this thread should illustrate that the public perception of the Rep System is pretty bad, and needs some repair. Neg Rep griefing is still an issue, and is perhaps the biggest problem with the way the system currently functions.
If Turbine cannot/will not give us the name of the person who gave us the Neg Rep, can it at least be looked into if each time Neg Rep is given, it has to be looked into by a Mod? Because I'd lay odds that 75% or more of the Neg Rep given is for spiteful or petty reasons - and not ones by which the system intends.
Faith needs to be put back into the system - because right now there is precious little to be had.
We do random audits of the reputation system, and as some of your friends could tell you (if discussing disciplinary action was ok, which it's not, so don't tell anyone) we have taken action on people that abuse the system.
We also understand that this system is not perfect, and that there are those that use it for purposes which it is not intended for. Unfortunately this is something that occurs with almost everything in society. 99 times out of 100, the random unwarranted negative reputation you receive will not affect your ability to post in the least. You can ignore it, or report it so that we can investigate specifically. We do have the ability to remove negative reputation hits if we feel it wasn't deserved.
Again, we understand the system isn't flawless, but from our back-end perspective we see it on the whole working the way we intend it to.
Several purposes. One is that it allows us the opportunity to adjust the threshold based on what we feel is appropriate. For example, it was easier to land in insta-moderation when only a few people could give out negative reputation as opposed to currently.
Got it you guys shift around that mark so there is no magic number. Fair enough and interesting to know.
Tarrant
04-28-2010, 11:34 AM
The biggest problem is their is little to no feedback avaliable as to how you earned the rep. You can't even tell which posts you made that generated said rep without going to every post you have made and checking.
Answered above, thanks.
Also there is no mechanism to refute or grieve the rep.Many use it as a means to try and punish, not police, those who disagree. It does not serve the "self moderation" goal you stated. It serves to let the bullies on the forums try and squelch and opposition to their devine opinions.
You can refute the rep by contacting us. And if in general you are posting constructively, a few negative hits by bullies isn't going to squelch you.
It would only work if those giving the rep had reprecusions for abusing the system. As it stands there is NO accounting for your actions.
There are repercussions, you just don't see them. :)
My +1 got lost in the mail too :p
Drakos
04-28-2010, 11:36 AM
In your User CP in your rep section, the "latest reputation received" filed, it gives you a link to the post you made. It is shown as the thread title of the thread you posted in.
Hey, thanks. It wans't showing my Rep section in the User CP because I had the 'Display Rep' turned off, so I didn't know that.
Thanks again.
Drakos
04-28-2010, 11:38 AM
Answered above, thanks.
You can refute the rep by contacting us. And if in general you are posting constructively, a few negative hits by bullies isn't going to squelch you.
There are repercussions, you just don't see them. :)
Ok, fair enough, I'll be contacting you.
KingOfCheese
04-28-2010, 11:41 AM
A proposed (partial) solution to improper neg rep: require at least two neg reps on an individual post before neg rep is applied. This will largely prevent individual abusers from spite neg repping. It will also largely prevent the neg rep that results from a rare individual misreading a post and neg rep wars based on disagreements between two individuals.
All of the posts I've seen that most deserve neg rep appear to get tagged multiple times. Those would still get their neg rep.
Memnir
04-28-2010, 11:43 AM
Again, we understand the system isn't flawless, but from our back-end perspective we see it on the whole working the way we intend it to.Okay. And thank you again for talking about it.
My last word on the matter would be this:
Your perspective and the forum-populace's perspective are very disjointed, and pretty far apart. Were I to be asked, I would say that if y'all are happy with the system then there should be some sort of post in each forum detailing it's proper uses and infraction-worthy abuses. Because right now, even with the new text in the Approve/Disprove box, the system is fraught with questions and concerns. People have no faith in the system - and most only see it as a Dev-Approved mechanism for grief and abuse. To counter this viewpoint, you - the Devs and Mods - need to make a public statement on the matter.
Please go back and look over most of these posts about Rep - and really digest what people are saying. Most people say it's worthless, useless, or just plain bad. There is a reason for that massive amount of ill-will towards it, and a solution to that ill-will will not come from us.
I'll say nothing more on the system itself. You guys are happy with it, and so my post will likely come for naught. But, had to try one last time.
Drakos
04-28-2010, 11:49 AM
Okay. And thank you again for talking about it.
My last word on the matter would be this:
Your perspective and the forum-populace's perspective are very disjointed, and pretty far apart. Were I to be asked, I would say that if y'all are happy with the system then there should be some sort of post in each forum detailing it's proper uses and infraction-worthy abuses. Because right now, even with the new text in the Approve/Disprove box, the system is fraught with questions and concerns. People have no faith in the system - and most only see it as a Dev-Approved mechanism for grief and abuse. To counter this viewpoint, you - the Devs and Mods - need to make a public statement on the matter.
Please go back and look over most of these posts about Rep - and really digest what people are saying. Most people say it's worthless, useless, or just plain bad. There is a reason for that massive amount of ill-will towards it, and a solution to that ill-will will not come from us.
I'll say nothing more on the system itself. You guys are happy with it, and so my post will likely come for naught. But, had to try one last time.
I agree with the above. I personally think that the negatives to the current reputation system far outweigh any benefit it may provide.
If this was meant to have the forumites help police the forums then it is redundant. We have the ability to report any post we feel is in violation of the forum guidlines. The added benefit here is that a compleatly impartial third party gets to make the determination, not some arbitrary abusable system.
A proposed (partial) solution to improper neg rep: require at least two neg reps on an individual post before neg rep is applied. This will largely prevent individual abusers from spite neg repping. It will also largely prevent the neg rep that results from a rare individual misreading a post and neg rep wars based on disagreements between two individuals.
All of the posts I've seen that most deserve neg rep appear to get tagged multiple times. Those would still get their neg rep.
This is fair and logical approach. It has some strong merits to it.
*Multiple negative reps on a post are rare.
*Keeps the moderators out of it. This is a good thing in many ways.
**The moderators have an incentive as Turbine employees to squelch negative reputation versus Turbine supporters and let any negative rep through versus Turbine critics. Vested interests are important things to consider. This temptation is even easier to fall prey to when a system is operated in secret as the reputation system is and moderation activity is.
**Less work for the moderators.
**The community itself decides what is worthy of negative reputation and not the moderators. Therefore, the moderators can not be blamed for unequal treatment of people through the reputation system.
*Accidental negative reps will go away. Yeah, I know how easy does a UI have to be to prevent user stupidity...apparently super easy for me.
*Misunderstanding another user and giving neg rep will not stick.
Tarrant
04-28-2010, 11:50 AM
Okay. And thank you again for talking about it.
My last word on the matter would be this:
Your perspective and the forum-populace's perspective are very disjointed, and pretty far apart. Were I to be asked, I would say that if y'all are happy with the system then there should be some sort of post in each forum detailing it's proper uses and infraction-worthy abuses. Because right now, even with the new text in the Approve/Disprove box, the system is fraught with questions and concerns. People have no faith in the system - and most only see it as a Dev-Approved mechanism for grief and abuse. To counter this viewpoint, you - the Devs and Mods - need to make a public statement on the matter.
Please go back and look over most of these posts about Rep - and really digest what people are saying. Most people say it's worthless, useless, or just plain bad. There is a reason for that massive amount of ill-will towards it, and a solution to that ill-will will not come from us.
I'll say nothing more on the system itself. You guys are happy with it, and so my post will likely come for naught. But, had to try one last time.
We have seen the posts about rep, and discussed them at length along with our own observations. One thing that you would be surprised about is how many people say they've received negative reputation on a specific post but actually haven't, and are in fact positive rep farming due to the outpouring of positive reputation that usually comes when someone makes a post like that. In fact, we've noticed a lot of the people claiming the reputation system is broken have never received negative reputation since the system's inception.
We know that the above points aren't always the case, but the only people that can truly see how the system is functioning are those of us working at Turbine. And we think it's functioning pretty well.
Thrudh
04-28-2010, 11:51 AM
We do random audits of the reputation system, and as some of your friends could tell you (if discussing disciplinary action was ok, which it's not, so don't tell anyone) we have taken action on people that abuse the system.
Rats.. So much for my plan to neg-rep that comrade guy every chance I get (why is that so annoying to me??) :)
I don't see the rep system being abused... In my opinion, most people who have low rep deserve low rep, and most people who have high rep are solid contributors to these forums...
One thing that you would be surprised about is how many people say they've received negative reputation on a specific post but actually haven't, and are in fact positive rep farming due to the outpouring of positive reputation that usually comes when someone makes a post like that. In fact, we've noticed a lot of the people claiming the reputation system is broken have never received negative reputation since the system's inception.
I now give you my written permission to confirm that yes indeed I have recieved negative rep on more then a few occasions.
Memnir
04-28-2010, 11:54 AM
In fact, we've noticed a lot of the people claiming the reputation system is broken have never received negative reputation since the system's inception.Okay, that is pretty darn interesting to know.
But, I still say a stickied post in each forum (or at least the main ones, like Gen Chat, Gameplay, F2P, and Off Topic) with some firm guidelines and regulations about Rep would be nothing but a good thing. If it's a good system - support it, and help us change our opinions on it. Again, a change in public perception and any kind of restoration of public trust in the Rep system will not come from us. Only you guys can help turn it around.
Please think about it.
Thrudh
04-28-2010, 11:56 AM
Please go back and look over most of these posts about Rep - and really digest what people are saying. Most people say it's worthless, useless, or just plain bad. There is a reason for that massive amount of ill-will towards it, and a solution to that ill-will will not come from us.
Really?? The people who have the big positive bars are almost all people I respected before the rep system... Most of the people who have small bars (or red bars, or rep turned off), are all people who I thought were semi-trolls before the rep system...
I'll agree that that forum rep is pretty pointless... but I don't understand why people hate it so much... who cares??
It's actually helped me... I've gotten neg rep quite a few times, and I usually deserved it... because I went a little too far in my personal attacks... so I've been more careful about what I post (well, mostly) :)
Now, I have gotten a few neg reps that made zero sense... just people who don't like me... but those are far out-weighed by all the positive rep I get.
We have seen the posts about rep, and discussed them at length along with our own observations. One thing that you would be surprised about is how many people say they've received negative reputation on a specific post but actually haven't, and are in fact positive rep farming due to the outpouring of positive reputation that usually comes when someone makes a post like that.
That's a very interesting and informative point.
In fact, we've noticed a lot of the people claiming the reputation system is broken have never received negative reputation since the system's inception.
That, on the other hand, is not a good point. The fact that people who do not personally suffer from a system still think the system is unreasonable or unfair does not make their opinions less valid - if anything, in many circumstances it can make their opinions more valid.
Hey, thanks. It wans't showing my Rep section in the User CP because I had the 'Display Rep' turned off, so I didn't know that.
Thanks again.
No worries :)
Thrudh
04-28-2010, 12:06 PM
One thing I like about the rep system...
I'm often the lone voice of reason in many threads (ha ha, okay I'm the only dissenter at least)...
Someone will post about how this or that mechanic totally sucks, and will completely exaggerate or lie to make their point...
I call them on it, and usually I get pounced upon for being a fanboi... Someone else MIGHT post agreeing with my side of the issue, but a lot of time, it's ten angry people who seem to really really hate Turbine/devs/their life and me posting in a thread...
However, my posts in those threads receive TONS of positve rep... which lets me know that there are people out there who agree with me, but don't want to get in the middle of a flame war...
dunklezhan
04-28-2010, 12:18 PM
A proposed (partial) solution to improper neg rep: require at least two neg reps on an individual post before neg rep is applied. This will largely prevent individual abusers from spite neg repping. It will also largely prevent the neg rep that results from a rare individual misreading a post and neg rep wars based on disagreements between two individuals.
All of the posts I've seen that most deserve neg rep appear to get tagged multiple times. Those would still get their neg rep.
/signed. and +1 ;P
I agree that the rep system needs some tweaking and the above is probably the best suggestion I've heard - though I'd up it to three neg reps just to be sure.
And for the record: I have not yet received neg rep, I think. You can't view your whole rep history so I can't check and be sure. I've had some of those grey ones which I think is someone trying to neg rep me but who doesn't necessarily have enough positive rep to be allowed to (and if so then I've given out a few of those myself when I've found someone being just horrid and rude), but as far as I know no neg rep at all. Does this make my opinion complete invalid to Turbine? I certainly hope not, otherwise you're pretty much incentivising me to become a troll for a few days to build up a neg rep bar, just to validate my opinion on rep.
Of course, I won't do that, because... just, well because. But you can see how some might take it that way.
wamjratl1
04-28-2010, 12:19 PM
One thing that you would be surprised about is how many people say they've received negative reputation on a specific post but actually haven't....[/I].
Outrageous! That's almost like saying "+1 to you" but not actually giving the +1! :rolleyes:
Thrudh
04-28-2010, 12:21 PM
Are there really spite rep wars between people??
Seems like it's a pretty long period between giving the same person rep... What is it? 3 days? More?
Memnir
04-28-2010, 12:22 PM
Are there really spite rep wars between people??Yes.
Thrudh
04-28-2010, 12:24 PM
Yes.
But is it enough to make a difference?
I like the two negs before it counts idea...
I also like the idea of neg rep being linked to a name
magnus1
04-28-2010, 12:25 PM
Really sorry for my following meta-questions on forum Rep. I tried figuring out and doing a search, but nothing useful came up...
How does Rep work?
Yiren.
not very well so turn it off and get back to reading the forums
Memnir
04-28-2010, 12:27 PM
But is it enough to make a difference?No, but it shows how the system can be/has been abused.
I am a (proud?) recipient of neg rep. But I don't cry about it. Even when I'm pretty sure it comes from staff members ;)
wamjratl1
04-28-2010, 12:41 PM
I am a (proud?) recipient of neg rep. But I don't cry about it. Even when I'm pretty sure it comes from staff members ;)
Ya I got some once too and I'm pretty curious about where it came from... :cool:
Memnir
04-28-2010, 12:42 PM
IMHO, if you don't get some Neg Rep every now and again - then your not doing something right. :D
Ithrani
04-28-2010, 12:43 PM
Last thing anyone should care about is what strangers on a video game forums thinks of them. The rep system is yet another failed fluff the DDO dev team tried to implement.
Epic fail as usual.
Last thing anyone should care about is what strangers on a video game forums thinks of them. The rep system is yet another failed fluff the DDO dev team tried to implement.
Epic fail as usual.
Hey get out of here! You abandoned us for LOTRO!! You're not allowed to post here anymore!!!
No, but it shows how the system can be/has been abused.
See this is silly Mem. Why is that an abuse if two people want to tag each other every week is it? Big deal. Their bars will probably not move much. They aren't gaining some big advantage over other forumites by doing this.
In other words, how the heck can a circular firing squad be called an abuse of the system?
See this is silly Mem. Why is that an abuse if two people want to tag each other every week is it? Big deal. Their bars will probably not move much. They aren't gaining some big advantage over other forumites by doing this.
In other words, how the heck can a circular firing squad be called an abuse of the system?
A neg for a neg leaves the whole forum red. :(
Or was it an eye for an eye....?
Even when I'm pretty sure it comes from staff members ;)
And therein lies IMO the most inherent problem with the system.
And therein lies IMO the most inherent problem with the system.
And mine also. Any further involvement by the moderators in the deciding which individual user repped correctly only amplifies the problem.
Drakos
04-28-2010, 01:02 PM
If the stated goal is to allow the community to help police the boards, then I think the Mods need to be involved. Bad help (i.e; Rep greifing) is no help at all. It just leads to slap fights otherwise. An impartial reviewer is a step in the right direction.
I posted my objections tot he Rep system, and some of those have turned out to be unfounded, not all but some. I really don't see the need for it considering the ability to report a post, but if they intend on keeping it I do hope the "look" at it some more.
As I said some of my objections have proven to be only due to my lack of knowledge about the rep system. A stikied post or some form of tutorial that illistrates the proper use of the Rep system may help. Knowledge is never a bad thing to have. It might be nice if we had take a tutorial teaching the systems proper use before you were allowed to use it.
Ithrani
04-28-2010, 01:08 PM
Hey get out of here! You abandoned us for LOTRO!! You're not allowed to post here anymore!!!
I am just remaining loyal to the DDO team, the real DDO team by supporting the game they are working on. I will be around often enough though in DDO. Maybe my forums name will be banned since I am laying into the Dev team in every thread I can :D
dunklezhan
04-28-2010, 01:18 PM
Knowledge is never a bad thing to have.
As I do not want to derail the thread (which would no doubt result in well deserved neg rep given the topic at hand), I have refrained from outlining the several occasions off the top of my head where this statement could be considered wrong.
I would say this though - the rep system as it stands, notwithstanding unsavoury activity it may appear to cause, is useful as a rough guide as to whether the person replying is generally respected in the community. It can be easily manipulated, particularly if for some reason you actually want neg rep, and its only a rough guide. Taken with a hefty enough shovel full of salt, it is useful on that basis.
I would not, for example, take any advice I give you about how to build your character at all seriously, I haven't been around long enough to be reliable on that score. I seem to get rep from caveating my posts, ensuring I don't state things as indisputable fact, and trying to be friendly. Doesn't mean I'm knowledgable though.
I would really like to see some changes in the rep system (changes I already quoted earlier, and a few other things I've just found out in this thread e.g. if someone with lots of rep gives you positive rep you get more than if someone with little gives you some? What? No. +1 should mean +1 and so should -1, surely?), but as long as you don't treat advice from someone with lots of rep as indisputable Gospel, nor ignore-on-principle someone with a few red bars, you'll not go far wrong.
And for heaven's sake, don't worry about your own rep bar. it'll grow, or shrink, or whatever. If you suddenly get a load of neg rep, you maybe want to think about why you're getting it and consider whether its possibly time to change the tone of your posts since that seems to be what upsets people the most, but generally - just get on with your life, post what you want to post and see what happens.
Memnir
04-28-2010, 07:34 PM
In other words, how the heck can a circular firing squad be called an abuse of the system?Because it's often not cyclic - in that a person with high rep keeps sniping at somebody with lower Rep when they can. The other person does not have the ability to retailiate. And that is why there is little faith in the system (in part), and why many people are untrusting and unhappy with the system as it currently stands.
And, in my view, anytime neg rep is given due to the person posting and not what they said - then it is an abuse of the system. Insular and circular as it may be... it's still abuse if they are making it a personal issue instead of a post-by-post issue.
Mr_Ed7
04-28-2010, 07:49 PM
OP: Not very well.
Greydeath
04-28-2010, 07:53 PM
Just like DA, Forum Rep does not work.
Disable it or ignore it are your best options.
Girlbrush
04-28-2010, 07:59 PM
We do random audits of the reputation system, and as some of your friends could tell you (if discussing disciplinary action was ok, which it's not, so don't tell anyone) we have taken action on people that abuse the system.
We also understand that this system is not perfect, and that there are those that use it for purposes which it is not intended for. Unfortunately this is something that occurs with almost everything in society. 99 times out of 100, the random unwarranted negative reputation you receive will not affect your ability to post in the least. You can ignore it, or report it so that we can investigate specifically. We do have the ability to remove negative reputation hits if we feel it wasn't deserved.
Again, we understand the system isn't flawless, but from our back-end perspective we see it on the whole working the way we intend it to.
Thanks for explaining the Rep system in-depth, Tarrant.
Because it's often not cyclic - in that a person with high rep keeps sniping at somebody with lower Rep when they can. The other person does not have the ability to retailiate. And that is why there is little faith in the system (in part), and why many people are untrusting and unhappy with the system as it currently stands.
And, in my view, anytime neg rep is given due to the person posting and not what they said - then it is an abuse of the system. Insular and circular as it may be... it's still abuse if they are making it a personal issue instead of a post-by-post issue.
Which is why there should be 100% transparancy on giving positive or negative rep.
Yiren
04-29-2010, 02:22 AM
Thanks, everyone, for all your posts. I was really surprised when I logged back on and found 4 pages of answers to my little question. (I thought it would be a 1 or 2 replies thing, since everyone seems to be quite familiar with the Rep system...)
Hi Yiren,
Aside from what everyone here has said (and thanks, +1 to all of you :p), when you reach a certain threshold of negative reputation, your posts become automatically moderated until Tolero or myself approve them. This is to allow the community to exercise a degree of self-moderation, and to let you all catch anyone constantly posting inappropriate things (it has happened before) if we can't get there soon enough.
Thanks also to Tarrant for personally answering this. Err... any Rep (see bold in quote) for the OP for sparking off this healthy debate by accident...? :p My Rep bar is still technically a Rep dot...
Yiren.
Girlbrush
04-29-2010, 02:36 AM
Thanks, everyone, for all your posts. I was really surprised when I logged back on and found 4 pages of answers to my little question. (I thought it would be a 1 or 2 replies thing, since everyone seems to be quite familiar with the Rep system...)
Thanks also to Tarrant for personally answering this. Err... any Rep (see bold in quote) for the OP for sparking off this healthy debate by accident...? :p My Rep bar is still technically a Rep dot...
Yiren.
As Rest wrote, go to your User CP and look under "Latest Reputation Received". If you've received any rep, it'll be displayed there. Also, you need a certain amount of points to gain the next box, and so on, so the change may not be noticeable.
Yiren
04-29-2010, 03:24 AM
As Rest wrote, go to your User CP and look under "Latest Reputation Received". If you've received any rep, it'll be displayed there. Also, you need a certain amount of points to gain the next box, and so on, so the change may not be noticeable.
Thanks, Girlbrush. Yep, I checked earlier. Nothing yet from this thread... :) It's OK. I'm not trying to farm for some. All out of Tarrant's goodwill anyway...
Lorien_the_First_One
04-29-2010, 08:59 AM
We have seen the posts about rep, and discussed them at length along with our own observations. One thing that you would be surprised about is how many people say they've received negative reputation on a specific post but actually haven't, and are in fact positive rep farming due to the outpouring of positive reputation that usually comes when someone makes a post like that. In fact, we've noticed a lot of the people claiming the reputation system is broken have never received negative reputation since the system's inception..
Since rep farming is not allowed, do you take action against such users who fake being neg repped?
Borror0
04-29-2010, 09:15 AM
You can ignore it, or report it so that we can investigate specifically.
What is the preferred manner for us to report neg rep we feel is undeserved? Should we report our own post, and then invite you to investigate the neg rep received or should we send you a PM? I can see arguments for either, so I'm curious of what you prefer to us to use.
Okay, that is pretty darn interesting to know.
It's not surprising at all. I get a lot of people accusing me of giving them neg rep, when I didn't do anything (and sometimes even gave them positive rep).
I also like the idea of neg rep being linked to a name
I like the idea of positive rep being linked to a name, but I think showing who gave negative rep is creating unnecessary drama.
Tarrant
04-29-2010, 09:24 AM
What is the preferred manner for us to report neg rep we feel is undeserved? Should we report our own post, and then invite you to investigate the neg rep received or should we send you a PM? I can see arguments for either, so I'm curious of what you prefer to us to use.
We'd prefer if you PM these to us. Please remember though that we get a lot of PMs and so it may be some time before we're able to investigate it. We also may not respond to your message even if we remove the rep. But PM is the way to go!
We'd prefer if you PM these to us. Please remember though that we get a lot of PMs and so it may be some time before we're able to investigate it. We also may not respond to your message even if we remove the rep. But PM is the way to go!
Tarrant I would like you to comment upon this further as it calls into question the entire purpose of the reputation system.
A) What is your bar for removing a rep hit or positive rep? We have 'guidelines' for these things and the reputation system supposedly is supposed to represent the communities views on these things. As such is your bar along the lines of "No reasonable/non drunk user could consider this to fall under these guidelines" or is it more like "I don't think it falls under these guidelines". The two are drastically different. One supplants another's viewpoint for your own while the first merely protects very benign posts from random negative snipping.
B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently. This is a much harsher step then just removing rep given/hit. Is the bar for this significantly higher then your bar for removing rep? As in repeatedly hitting benign posts with negative rep or posting multiple times about you getting negative rep when you have not? Or does it again just come down to you disagreeing with someone's views? This is immensely important for the forum users to know as if it is the latter then the reputation system would not only just be a reflection of moderator views, but it would be a means for the moderators to punish those who do not share their views or dissent.
C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?
D) In furtherance of (c), we know the moderators did not earn their reputation bars as confirmed by Patience. Do the moderators manipulate other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they remove negative reputation from their own or other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they add reputation to Turbine employee's reputation bars?
You will note that not a single question posed asks for specific information about an individual case of moderation and instead focuses upon the guidelines used and general practices. All these questions lie at the heart of the main question of "Is the reputation system a true reflection of the forum community as a whole and not of the moderators?"
Thank you for your time.
Visty
04-30-2010, 10:31 AM
Have moderators ever given negative reputation?
jep, and im sure more then once
stainer
04-30-2010, 10:42 AM
Tarrant I would like you to comment upon this further as it calls into question the entire purpose of the reputation system.
A) What is your bar for removing a rep hit or positive rep? We have 'guidelines' for these things and the reputation system supposedly is supposed to represent the communities views on these things. As such is your bar along the lines of "No reasonable/non drunk user could consider this to fall under these guidelines" or is it more like "I don't think it falls under these guidelines". The two are drastically different. One supplants another's viewpoint for your own while the first merely protects very benign posts from random negative snipping.
B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently. This is a much harsher step then just removing rep given/hit. Is the bar for this significantly higher then your bar for removing rep? As in repeatedly hitting benign posts with negative rep or posting multiple times about you getting negative rep when you have not? Or does it again just come down to you disagreeing with someone's views? This is immensely important for the forum users to know as if it is the latter then the reputation system would not only just be a reflection of moderator views, but it would be a means for the moderators to punish those who do not share their views or dissent.
C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?
D) In furtherance of (c), we know the moderators did not earn their reputation bars as confirmed by Patience. Do the moderators manipulate other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they remove negative reputation from their own or other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they add reputation to Turbine employee's reputation bars?
You will note that not a single question posed asks for specific information about an individual case of moderation and instead focuses upon the guidelines used and general practices. All these questions lie at the heart of the main question of "Is the reputation system a true reflection of the forum community as a whole and not of the moderators?"
Thank you for your time.
My views -
A - I don't think they remove a + rep. I suppose they would if say a few people were repping themselves to game the system. Removing a negative rep would be subjective, but until I have proof otherwise, I would assume that this is done justly.
B - I can see giving an infraction for abusing the rep system. If I dinged you every chance I got (I wouldn't) that would be unfair, and in my mind, worth an infraction.
C - I would bet that mods have given neg rep. I would bet that they have given out far more positive rep than neg.
D - It is safe to assume that this is a yes. I did see a mod/employee post yesterday that only had 2 green boxes though.
I think that these folks have a job to do. We can hope that they do it to the best of their ability. People will get upset for whatever reasons. Blaming a moderators for a system that they have little control over, is not the best way to address this. When I was a police officer, I would sometimes have people give me suggestions, or question my intent while performing my duties. My favorite was when I was writing a ticket they would ask "Does this help you meet you quota?" and would reply "Nope, but two more tickets and I get a toaster oven.".
In any event please feel free to look around this site:
http://www.turbine.com/careers.html
Kalari
04-30-2010, 10:43 AM
Really sorry for my following meta-questions on forum Rep. I tried figuring out and doing a search, but nothing useful came up...
How does Rep work?
What does Rep actually do?
How do I give someone Rep?
How much Rep do I have at the start (assume 0)?
...etc.
If someone can just point me to a page where it is all explained, I'll be very grateful too.
Again, sorry for these silly questions. :p
Yiren.
Question one how does rep work?
Well like everything in this forums its a matter of opinion, some say farming for it works, some say lol catz pics work, others like me who are opinionated and just seem to get agreers would say its a real mixed bag. You will get your fair share of pos and neg no matter how you post, its how you let the rep game affect you that seems to be prevelant.
What does rep do?
Currently only gets people fired up about rep, long green bars are questioned and scorned, neg rep barely goes past 3 bars before mysteriously disappearing. You cant even really say that the bars represent quality or troll posting because the system does not take in human emotions and the errors that come with it. Long story short not a damned thing..
How do you give rep?
There is a litte scales icon by every posters post that you can click on and give postive or neutral depending on how much rep you have and negative if you have over 1500 reputation. You also get a title under your rep bar depending on how much rep you have.
And to your last question I believe everyone starts out with 1 making them neutral then they can build as they post and others weigh in on their posts. I dont think your questions are silly either in fact compared to other rep threads this one was a breath of fresh air IMO.
Kromize
04-30-2010, 10:47 AM
You say what somebody likes: +1. You say what they don't like: -1(If they can neg rep). You get on somebodies bad side...-1 every time they get a chance. (:
Emili
04-30-2010, 10:49 AM
I think that these folks have a job to do. We can hope that they do it to the best of their ability. People will get upset for whatever reasons. Blaming a moderators for a system that they have little control over, is not the best way to address this. When I was a police officer, I would sometimes have people give me suggestions, or question my intent while performing my duties. My favorite was when I was writing a ticket they would ask "Does this help you meet you quota?" and would reply "Nope, but two more tickets and I get a toaster oven.".
In any event please feel free to look around this site:
http://www.turbine.com/careers.html
Oh? is that why I hear all your friends and family mention they're getting a new toaster oven every holiday season?
Borror0
04-30-2010, 10:51 AM
B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently.
This is not new. Obviously, I cannot talk about it but I know of at least one user that has had his reputation reset to zero as a result of abusing the system. That was several months ago, though, and is therefore not recent. Notice also that abusing the reputation system has been considered an infraction by the guidelines since the system was added. Again, it's not recent by any standards.
C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?
I think you misunderstand both Community Managers' job and the intent of the reputation system.
Tarrant's job is not to be a moderator. While moderation is part of his job, his title is "Community Manager." His job is to shape the community into a good community. Sometimes, it means tap dancing to keep us entertained like during the Module 9 wait. At others, it means moderating the forums so that they don't devolve into constant negativity. Giving positive rep for posts he view as good contribution to the community works toward that goal, so logically he will do that.
As for the reputation system, it's not a system used to show how well liked we are by the community. It's a system to encourage good behaviors. It's just that Turbine outsource the task to make the system work to the community rather than themselves. Believe me, if its job was to do anything else it would look much different.
stainer
04-30-2010, 10:51 AM
Oh? is that why I hear all your friends and family mention they're getting a new toaster oven every holiday season?
It is my gift of choice for weddings.
Tarrant
04-30-2010, 10:52 AM
A) What is your bar for removing a rep hit or positive rep? We have 'guidelines' for these things and the reputation system supposedly is supposed to represent the communities views on these things. As such is your bar along the lines of "No reasonable/non drunk user could consider this to fall under these guidelines" or is it more like "I don't think it falls under these guidelines". The two are drastically different. One supplants another's viewpoint for your own while the first merely protects very benign posts from random negative snipping.
If I feel a specific reputation (+ or -) is not in line with the intended use of the reputation system, I remove it. Yes, that means that it is at my (or Tolero's) discretion. That's something you agree to by posting on a company's official forums. We are objective when we review reputation, just like we are with reported posts.
B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently. This is a much harsher step then just removing rep given/hit. Is the bar for this significantly higher then your bar for removing rep? As in repeatedly hitting benign posts with negative rep or posting multiple times about you getting negative rep when you have not? Or does it again just come down to you disagreeing with someone's views? This is immensely important for the forum users to know as if it is the latter then the reputation system would not only just be a reflection of moderator views, but it would be a means for the moderators to punish those who do not share their views or dissent.
Yes, the bar for this is significantly higher than for just removing rep. As always, it comes down to our judgment on the situation. If you don't go out of your way to abuse the reputation system, you won't have to worry about it.
C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?
We have a vested interest in the community, and the tone of the forums. This probably doesn't come as a surprise to you. In the past, we've only had a tool for telling users "this kind of post is not acceptable," and now with positive reputation we can commend someone for the kind of post we like and want to see more of. Yes, we do at times give out negative reputation. I have given out 9 negative reputation hits since July - so clearly it's not something I do often. Frankly, we have much more powerful tools at our disposal than reputation if we wanted to silence someone. :p
D) In furtherance of (c), we know the moderators did not earn their reputation bars as confirmed by Patience. Do the moderators manipulate other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they remove negative reputation from their own or other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they add reputation to Turbine employee's reputation bars?
I wouldn't be concerned with Turbine employee reputation bars. The amount of people that positive rep us for anything we say vastly outweighs the people that negative rep us, and we wouldn't exactly leave ourselves in the moderated status even if somehow that wasn't the case.
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 10:53 AM
My views -
A - I don't think they remove a + rep. I suppose they would if say a few people were repping themselves to game the system.
I believe early on in this system they said their would remove rep for circle-jerk threads (ie - everyone in this thread rep each other)
My views -
A - I don't think they remove a + rep. I suppose they would if say a few people were repping themselves to game the system. Removing a negative rep would be subjective, but until I have proof otherwise, I would assume that this is done justly.
B - I can see giving an infraction for abusing the rep system. If I dinged you every chance I got (I wouldn't) that would be unfair, and in my mind, worth an infraction.
C - I would bet that mods have given neg rep. I would bet that they have given out far more positive rep than neg.
D - It is safe to assume that this is a yes. I did see a mod/employee post yesterday that only had 2 green boxes though.
I think that these folks have a job to do. We can hope that they do it to the best of their ability. People will get upset for whatever reasons. Blaming a moderators for a system that they have little control over, is not the best way to address this. When I was a police officer, I would sometimes have people give me suggestions, or question my intent while performing my duties. My favorite was when I was writing a ticket they would ask "Does this help you meet you quota?" and would reply "Nope, but two more tickets and I get a toaster oven.".
In any event please feel free to look around this site:
http://www.turbine.com/careers.html
Stainer, the moderators do have control over how the system works. They can take a line that their views are the most important thing or they can take a line that assumption must be that a user was acting on good faith when handing out neg/pos rep unless there is a huge reason not to believe otherwise. Negative rep is the perfect example of this.
Borror0
04-30-2010, 10:56 AM
Should the moderators say, nope we disagree it's not inflammatory and strike the rep or should they instead moderate and say yeah that user clearly thought it was inflammatory even though I personally don't think it is? It comes down to does the users views actually matter?
That is the reason I think comments should be enabled (for neg rep only). If it's not for the other user, at least for moderation.
It's not like if they can't punish an user for using the comment feature improperly.
stainer
04-30-2010, 10:58 AM
Stainer, the moderators do have control over how the system works. They can take a line that their views are the most important thing or they can take a line that assumption must be that a user was acting on good faith when handing out neg/pos rep unless there is a huge reason not to believe otherwise. Negative rep is the perfect example of this.
I think it has been pointed out that that one is off limits, but I will attempt to respond with out getting pwned by a mod.
I agree, while not offensive, it could be annoying. What really annoyed me was the over the top hissy fits that kept the thread at the top of my new post list.
edit to add - I see you changed your post after I quoted. Would you like for me to change this post?
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 10:59 AM
Stainer, the moderators do have control over how the system works. They can take a line that their views are the most important thing or they can take a line that assumption must be that a user was acting on good faith when handing out neg/pos rep unless there is a huge reason not to believe otherwise. Negative rep is the perfect example of this.
That's a great example. I'd argue that if a reasonable person might agree the neg (or pos) rep could be deserved it should be allowed to stay and if it CLEARLY doesn't apply then it should be removed.
So, if I neg rep someone because they just did an extensive post showing THF is better DPS than TWF but I like TWF better, that's not valid neg rep.
But if someone said something that might or might not be offensive... then that's rep that should stay because its opinion that actually responds to the guidelines for rep.
Personally I'm finding since this change I neg rep less, and push the report button a lot more as that is the only opinion that seems to matter. Whatever purpose there was to rep seems to be diminishing.
We are objective when we review reputation, just like we are with reported posts.
This made me laugh.
If I feel a specific reputation (+ or -) is not in line with the intended use of the reputation system, I remove it. Yes, that means that it is at my (or Tolero's) discretion. That's something you agree to by posting on a company's official forums. We are objective when we review reputation, just like we are with reported posts.
Yes, the bar for this is significantly higher than for just removing rep. As always, it comes down to our judgment on the situation. If you don't go out of your way to abuse the reputation system, you won't have to worry about it.
We have a vested interest in the community, and the tone of the forums. This probably doesn't come as a surprise to you. In the past, we've only had a tool for telling users "this kind of post is not acceptable," and now with positive reputation we can commend someone for the kind of post we like and want to see more of. Yes, we do at times give out negative reputation. I have given out 9 negative reputation hits since July - so clearly it's not something I do often. Frankly, we have much more powerful tools at our disposal than reputation if we wanted to silence someone. :p
I wouldn't be concerned with Turbine employee reputation bars. The amount of people that positive rep us for anything we say vastly outweighs the people that negative rep us, and we wouldn't exactly leave ourselves in the moderated status even if somehow that wasn't the case.
Thank you for your responses. I must say that they do not confirm all of my worst fears, but they certainly do confirm that it comes down to what you think is right and not a 'can a reasonable user think this is infammatory....'. I strongly believe this just means that the reputation system is a stick that you have less restraint in using then the infraction system and is completely pointless for the users. I have no faith in secretive systems run by a few individuals that have inset incentives to not enforce rules in an even manner to all.
As such I guess I'm another user who is turning off their rep for good and calling it useless.
stainer
04-30-2010, 11:04 AM
As such I guess I'm another user who is turning off their rep for good and calling it useless.
The only way to win is not to play.
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 11:04 AM
This made me laugh.
He said objective, not even handedly. They review all posts with their objectives in mind :D
/runs before the cube attacks
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 11:05 AM
The only way to win is not to play.
Would you like to play global thermonuclear war?
I think it has been pointed out that that one is off limits, but I will attempt to respond with out getting pwned by a mod.
I agree, while not offensive, it could be annoying. What really annoyed me was the over the top hissy fits that kept the thread at the top of my new post list.
edit to add - I see you changed your post after I quoted. Would you like for me to change this post?
No worries, I 'm not even sure what I edited :)
Edit: It's because I didnt' edit it despite the fact that it did not show an edited by label.
stainer
04-30-2010, 11:12 AM
Lorien - after reading some of your posts, I am surprised at your positions on this. Especially, since it does so little to enhance actual game experience. That is not usually a stance you take.
Cyr - While I can actually see your frustration, this is the system we have to work with. There is some subjectivity to it, but in the end I don't think it will change.
Tarrant - If you over moderate, the posters yell at you. If you under moderate, Tolero yells at you. I think thats funny as all get out. You are so screwed. Do you drink yourself to sleep at night?
Borror0
04-30-2010, 11:15 AM
Lorien - after reading some of your posts, I am surprised at your positions on this. Especially, since it does so little to enhance actual game experience. That is not usually a stance you take.
Do you mean that the rep system does not actually improve the forums? Really?
Tarrant
04-30-2010, 11:16 AM
Tarrant - If you over moderate, the posters yell at you. If you under moderate, Tolero yells at you. I think thats funny as all get out. You are so screwed. Do you drink yourself to sleep at night?
I relieve my stress by logging into DDO and griefing players.
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 11:18 AM
Lorien - after reading some of your posts, I am surprised at your positions on this. Especially, since it does so little to enhance actual game experience. That is not usually a stance you take.
If you go back to the beginning, I said they shouldn't impliment it (actually I think I got a lot of rep for saying that :p).
Later I came to understand, for me at least, that sometimes when someone pushed my /rage button I could disarm that flamewar and not play the game by just -repping instead of responding and joining a flamewar. It was a pressure relief valve of sorts, and that let me see some value in it for promoting a calmer community.
The abilty to neg rep for HORRIBLY bad advice so newbies didn't take advice from people giving out harmful advice also seemed to be good for the community. (And I'm not talking "I disagree with you" type stuff, I'm talking about over the top wrong to the point where it would harm players who followed it type advice)
Given the recent changes to what rep is or isn't... I can't really see any value left in it, so I guess I'm coming back around to the position that it doesn't promote community or seem to serve any positive purpose, and thus maybe it should be turned off.
And my comments about the mods above should be taken with a grain of salt... the smiley was there for a reason. Of course the mods are going to moderate with bias - they are there to achieve an objective for Turbine, not to create a free and open public forum. That's not bad, its what they need to do. (Even if I don't always like where they land, that's another issue entirely :) )
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 11:19 AM
I relieve my stress by logging into DDO and griefing players.
lol, I may have a new sig there
Thanks oh evil overlord!
lol, I may have a new sig there
Thanks oh evil overlord!
Samsies!
stainer
04-30-2010, 11:22 AM
If you go back to the beginning, I said they shouldn't impliment it (actually I think I got a lot of rep for saying that :p).
Later I came to understand, for me at least, that sometimes when someone pushed my /rage button I could disarm that flamewar and not play the game by just -repping instead of responding and joining a flamewar. It was a pressure relief valve of sorts, and that let me see some value in it for promoting a calmer community.
The abilty to neg rep for HORRIBLY bad advice so newbies didn't take advice from people giving out harmful advice also seemed to be good for the community. (And I'm not talking "I disagree with you" type stuff, I'm talking about over the top wrong to the point where it would harm players who followed it type advice)
Given the recent changes to what rep is or isn't... I can't really see any value left in it, so I guess I'm coming back around to the position that it doesn't promote community or seem to serve any positive purpose, and thus maybe it should be turned off.
And my comments about the mods above should be taken with a grain of salt... the smiley was there for a reason. Of course the mods are going to moderate with bias - they are there to achieve an objective for Turbine, not to create a free and open public forum. That's not bad, its what they need to do. (Even if I don't always like where they land, that's another issue entirely :) )
I didn't drop a neg rep in that thread, but I came close. There were two people that kept going back and forth over what was right and wrong. I almost took that as trolling. Even if it was inadvertent. it did inflame others.
Kalari
04-30-2010, 11:22 AM
I relieve my stress by logging into DDO and griefing players.
oh my if I had room in my signature bar that surely would grace it lol
stainer
04-30-2010, 11:23 AM
lol, I may have a new sig there
Thanks oh evil overlord!
Samsies!
Hahahahahaha. At least something good came out of this.
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 11:24 AM
I didn't drop a neg rep in that thread, but I came close. There were two people that kept going back and forth over what was right and wrong. I almost took that as trolling. Even if it was inadvertent. it did inflame others.
As I said...thread closed and deleted for cause.
I have to say I do think moderating these forums is probably very...trying. Mostly I think they do a fair job. Where they don't, they are probably doing a 'good job' according to the will of their bosses, which is what any good employee should do.
I relieve my stress by logging into DDO and griefing players.
I take this as a statement of fact.
stainer
04-30-2010, 11:28 AM
As I said...thread closed and deleted for cause.
I have to say I do think moderating these forums is probably very...trying. Mostly I think they do a fair job. Where they don't, they are probably doing a 'good job' according to the will of their bosses, which is what any good employee should do.
I agree. We all, or most of us, have jobs. We have guidelines we have to follow and people we have to report to. I would assume that Turbine has the same standards. If they don't WB is sure to set them. :)
Lorien_the_First_One
04-30-2010, 11:28 AM
I take this as a statement of fact.
Uh oh...I just realized that he knows who my in game characters are :eek:
I better not pug for a while /looks around suspicioiusly
Wait... maybe he's not logging into a player account... There did seem to be a few too many epic mobs in that von 1 normal run I did last night....
Uh oh...I just realized that he knows who my in game characters are :eek:
I better not pug for a while /looks around suspicioiusly
Wait... maybe he's not logging into a player account... There did seem to be a few too many epic mobs in that von 1 normal run I did last night....
Nah, I figure he's that guy who always manages to steal the efreet and archer agro and then hides behind the divine in epic dq.
stainer
04-30-2010, 11:43 AM
Nah, I figure he's that guy who always manages to steal the efreet and archer agro and then hides behind the divine in epic dq.
If you get a 100 point neg rep hit on that post, I will tell ya who gave it to you. :p
I relieve my stress by logging into DDO and griefing players.
How is this not inflammatory or trolling?
stainer
04-30-2010, 01:26 PM
How is this not inflammatory or trolling?
Because it was said in jest. You are taking it out of context to boot. That could be construed as trolling.
Okay everyone. We now have it officially.
Turbine mod's do rep people, positive and negative. They remove reputation you give based upon their views and not based upon 'could a reasonable person think this is inflammatory, trolling....'
Remember the moderators are exactly the same people who we as a community depend on to transmit our ideas, criticisms, and concerns to management and development at Turbine.
Do we want them advocating a point of view? Would not this warp the feedback they transmit? Think of Madfloyd and Pale Master for example. It seems pretty hard to believe that if the tenor of the official feedback threads concerning that PrE were transmitted accurately that he could have believed that it was considered a success and had not heard that players thought otherwise.
stainer
04-30-2010, 02:02 PM
Remember the moderators are exactly the same people who we as a community depend on to transmit our ideas, criticisms, and concerns to management and development at Turbine.
No. I expect them to keep the forums free from descending into a giant flame war, nothing more. If I need to have my views presented or expressed, I will do that myself. I can do that verbally, through email, or by taking my money elsewhere.
You have a lot of expectations for a position that you do not have access to the actual job description. We get it. You do not like the rep system. For all you know, the mods may not like it either.
How is this not inflammatory or trolling?
Because all that matters is what Tarrant thinks is inflammatory or trolling :( Welcome to the DDO forums.
I think I Will be able to sleep tonight knowing I have neg rep. Sure it might be nice to have 10 little green bars but who cares?
I have seen so many people post, making the most ridiculous claims, nerf this, give me a free handout. I just laugh.
P.S. I like pos rep, but if you neg rep this, I will sleep tonight.
P.P.S I Love Beagles
If I need to have my views presented or expressed, I will do that myself. I can do that verbally, through email, or by taking my money elsewhere.
You can verbally comunicate your views to the managament or developers at Turbine huh?
Because it was said in jest. You are taking it out of context to boot. That could be construed as trolling.
Am I? Things said in jest are often insulting to someone, are they not?
What is in context and not is a judgement call. One person thinks it's funny, one think's it's insulting.
because All That Matters Is What Tarrant Thinks Is Inflammatory Or Trolling :( Welcome To The Ddo Forums.
+1
Arkat
04-30-2010, 02:10 PM
You can verbally comunicate your views to the managament or developers at Turbine huh?
-1
You know what he meant. Quit baiting.
stainer
04-30-2010, 02:12 PM
You can verbally comunicate your views to the managament or developers at Turbine huh?
I could be wrong, but I thought they had a customer support number. I double checked, I couldn't find one. I can make my feelings known verbally. I just wouldn't have anyone to listen to them. The other methods are still valid.
-1
You know what he meant. Quit baiting.
No I most certainly did not. He was listing how he could present his views about the game to those who actually can do something about it. He said verbally. The other two made sense. That one did not. Thanks for telling me what I know though. It is most certainly not appreciated.
Magusrex777
04-30-2010, 02:14 PM
I do not find the rep system to be a big deal. I even agree with how Turbine manages it. I have received a lot of negative rep, I have not reported any of it even though I m not sure any of it has ever fallen under rep guidelines. I do not feel the need to complain about it either. If I complain about it to Turbine, maybe they will reverse it and make my little green bigger. YEAH!!!! What will I get by complaining about it on the forums themselves? People will just think I am whining about my little green bar. I would not embarrass myself like that.
I have strong opinions, I like to express them, with that comes some negative rep in this system. I often disagree with an established player-base, I usually get hit hard in big chunks and go up in lots of little ones. It means a few people who have been around along time and have lots of rep do not like some of what I say and a lot of people who do not have a lot of rep hit me more often in the positive. I can live with that.
I am pretty certain I have gotten a few good positive hits from Turbine. These are usually posts where I suggest both sides of an argument have room to behave better. Stop insulting one another and find a way to meet in the middle. If I were a forum manager, I would positive rep that kind of post too, so it makes sense to me that they do it. What I dislike most about forums anywhere is when people label each other and belittle each other, I wish Turbine were more heavy handed and quicker than they are at times with forum moderation and reputation.
stainer
04-30-2010, 02:14 PM
Am I? Things said in jest are often insulting to someone, are they not?
What is in context and not is a judgement call. One person thinks it's funny, one think's it's insulting.
When you attempt to make something harmless like this into an issue, you invalidate your argument.
I could be wrong, but I thought they had a customer support number. I double checked, I couldn't find one. I can make my feelings known verbally. I just wouldn't have anyone to listen to them. The other methods are still valid.
You mean you can express you feelings verbally to a CSA person. Okay somehow I'm not terriblly impressed by that option, but fair enough and now I know what you were talking about at least.
Arkat
04-30-2010, 02:16 PM
No I most certainly did not. He was listing how he could present his views about the game to those who actually can do something about it. He said verbally. The other two made sense. That one did not. Thanks for telling me what I know though. It is most certainly not appreciated.
Nobody here could reasonably think Stainer actually meant he could present his views verbally to the Devs or Management. Therefore, you should have ignored that.
It's more likely he meant he could call cust svc and verbally tell THEM.
EDIT: Looks like you figured that out.
When you attempt to make something harmless like this into an issue, you invalidate your argument.
Pm sent
stainer
04-30-2010, 02:19 PM
Pm sent
To me? I haven't got it yet.
Nobody here could reasonably think Stainer actually meant he could present his views verbally to the Devs or Management. Therefore, you should have ignored that.
Why because that would mean he knows someone at Turbine personally, works there, or is on ML? None of those are impossible by any means. People make slips all the time and reveal stuff they are not supposed to.
The other option was that it made no sense, but sounded real good as rhetoric. I called him on it and he responded.
I call people on things that don't make sense even when I agree with the rest of their post. I find it useful to clarify positions.
Memnir
04-30-2010, 02:28 PM
Okay everyone. We now have it officially.
Turbine mod's do rep people, positive and negative. They remove reputation you give based upon their views and not based upon 'could a reasonable person think this is inflammatory, trolling....While I won't speak on any of the other issues this raises - I think I now know pretty definetly why we will never ever have names automatically stamped on Rep when it's given for good or bad.
Think of Madfloyd and Pale Master for example. It seems pretty hard to believe that if the tenor of the official feedback threads concerning that PrE were transmitted accurately that he could have believed that it was considered a success and had not heard that players thought otherwise.To be fair, Floyd was asking for clarification on why we felt Fail Master was such a misstep - and he did not defend it as Eladrin did. I don't think MadFloyd checks the forums as often as some Devs may, and so when I said PM was an unmitigated disaster - he may not have seen all the posts on why we felt it was bad. And, he certainly saw them when we all reiterated our point of view.
I can only hope that it may have had some sort of an effect behind the scenes on how the Devs will view future PrEs... but we'll frankly never know. All that I do know for certain is that Eladrin has me worried as hell about Wild Mage now, after saying what he did in that same post.
...but this is really a discussion for another thread. :)
stainer
04-30-2010, 02:30 PM
Why because that would mean he knows someone at Turbine personally, works there, or is on ML? None of those are impossible by any means. People make slips all the time and reveal stuff they are not supposed to.
The other option was that it made no sense, but sounded real good as rhetoric. I called him on it and he responded.
I call people on things that don't make sense even when I agree with the rest of their post. I find it useful to clarify positions.
I meant via phone, which I now see isn't an option unless I want to talk about billing issues. For some reason I thought there was a phone number we could call. Please forgive my over extension of my abilities.
I meant via phone, which I now see isn't an option unless I want to talk about billing issues. For some reason I thought there was a phone number we could call. Please forgive my over extension of my abilities.
Nothing to forgive at all. Just pointing out something that didn't make sense to me or indicated a huge slip up by you :) You should never take my posting style to mean I am angry at anyone unless I make that very clear. Trust me I'm no wall flower when it comes to that :) I like a good debate where each side picks at the others strengths and has their views shaped by good points on either side. Me and Hen get into it all the time for example, but we have nothing but respect for each other.
BTW, I hope that 'over extension' didn't pull anything :)
Borror0
04-30-2010, 02:42 PM
Do we want them advocating a point of view?
Explain where we got here exactly because I don't follow.
Drakos
04-30-2010, 02:47 PM
No. I expect them to keep the forums free from descending into a giant flame war, nothing more. If I need to have my views presented or expressed, I will do that myself. I can do that verbally, through email, or by taking my money elsewhere.
You have a lot of expectations for a position that you do not have access to the actual job description. We get it. You do not like the rep system. For all you know, the mods may not like it either.
Just to be fair here, Tarrant did say that they 'heard all the complaints and looked into the system and they are happy with it'.
Personally I do NOT Like the quest "Tomb of the Tormented". I doubt the Developers will look at this and say, we better change it to make Flabby happy.
I made my statement and I realize people might neg rep me because they:
1. Like the quest
2. Dont like me
3. Hope that I get Pi$$ed
Or I might get +rep Because
1. People agree
2. Someone out there likes me
Either way I made my statement. If you are bold enough to post, be prepered to get the worst
P.S. I love Beagles
stainer
04-30-2010, 02:54 PM
Nothing to forgive at all. Just pointing out something that didn't make sense to me or indicated a huge slip up by you :) You should never take my posting style to mean I am angry at anyone unless I make that very clear. Trust me I'm no wall flower when it comes to that :) I like a good debate where each side picks at the others strengths and has their views shaped by good points on either side. Me and Hen get into it all the time for example, but we have nothing but respect for each other.
BTW, I hope that 'over extension' didn't pull anything :)
I am not upset with you at all.
I think I can sum up my views on rep, ddo and Tarrant.
Generally, people that complain about rep (not necessarily you Cyr, I can't figure out your deal) are the people that continue to push the boundaries of good taste. (Without going into details, I may have pushed the boundaries twice, and had my obligatory visit). Then when someone finally has to reign them in, they run crying all over the forums (I took the liberty to over dramatize). There was a certain group that kept pushing the envelope until, I think, someone lost some privileges. What kind of point does that make? In other words, the hand was forced. I know that we may not always agree with the judgment used to lay down the law, but believe me, you wouldn't want me to be the person making judgment calls. Heck, half of you wouldn't be able to post, and there wouldn't be a barbarian forum.
DDO is a fun game. I love it, and I am old. I am sure it could be better. Even it was perfect to you, there would still be plenty of people unhappy. Even AH search isn't going to improve the game that much.
I actually feel sorry for Tarrant. He has the truly unwinnable job. He is judged every day, and held to impossible standards, by quite frankly, a bunch of boneheads (I include myself in that). Seriously, think about how you would feel if everyday you had about 30 posts telling you what a crappy job you do. Personally, I would eliminate the ones with misspellings and the ones from Thelanis (those folks are heathens) as unimportant.
ragwa1
04-30-2010, 03:23 PM
My question to everyone:
Why on earth do you care about internet reputation?
This is a sad thread.
Drakos
04-30-2010, 03:27 PM
My question to everyone:
Why on earth do you care about internet reputation?
This is a sad thread.
Because of the potential for punishment tied to that Rep. If there wern't the potential to become auto-moderated for lots of neg Rep I wouldn't care.
stainer
04-30-2010, 03:33 PM
Because of the potential for punishment tied to that Rep. If there wern't the potential to become auto-moderated for lots of neg Rep I wouldn't care.
I believe ragwa1 has been in, or close to the moderated status.
I doubt very highly there is anyone that has ended up moderated that either didn't see it coming, or, really cared that it was going to be the end result of their actions.
Explain where we got here exactly because I don't follow.
Simple.
The moderators are not moderating. They are enforcing their views through the rep system. Tarrant confirmed they positive and negative rep. Tarrant confirmed that their bar for changing the rep others have given is not based upon the assumption of could the user giving the rep believe they were following the guidelines, but upon what Tarrant thinks. He also confirmed that they will hit you with infractions for essentially using the reputation system as you think the guidelines apply, but not how he thinks they apply (although with a higher bar then just playing with the rep you give out).
These all lead to the moderators not maintaining order on the forums, but upon them pushing their personal views/interests. I could pull out a few people that I know have had reputation hits removed for various posts, but apparently talking about specific examples to illustrate my point is against the rules also. Suffice it to say that some people giving those people negative rep for a particular post felt strongly that the post was inflammatory or trolling. It is Tarrants view which applies though regardless of what they feel. The key here is that it's all subjective if you don't first say "could a reasonable user think this met one of the guidelines even if I don't personally think it did". I can disagree all day with someone for example, but it's very easy to understand that they believe what they are saying even if I think it is wrong.
They are in essense already advocating a point of view once they step outside of the moderators shoes. That point of view has to do with their own vested interests and personal beliefs.
You know me Borro0 I talk about vested interests all the time. They shape how people approach things. In the web team's case there are more then a few of these: if they play the game something that they like falls under this, sphere of influence (think turf wars between the CIA and FBI for how this enters into workplace cultuers), protecting those they like/work with from criticism (protect your own is a powerful instinct), work output (most people like to keep this to a minimium so the vested interest of course is to do so :) ), and professional repuatation. Now these are not all the vested interests of course, but it's a good enough starting list to go with.
Part of applying any code, rule, or law evenly is to distance yourself from these vested interests as best you can and pay attention only to those code, rules, and laws. It is why I asked the important question of what bars are followed for doing certain things. They were intentionally stated to show the difference between being as removed as possible as an even applier of the system or as someone who is actually particpating in the system. Once you start applying your viewpoints over others then you have crossed the line completely into advocating your point of view. It stops being about what others think and becomes about what you think.
The reputation system is now stated as a protective system for Turbine's vested interests by Tarrant. It is operated in secret by the web team though. They have other vested interests besides just what is actually good for Turbine...such as protecting their colleages from criticism. This may very well be counter productive to recieving accurate feedback which could improve game development and actually help the companies bottom line. How about if he's a good friend of let's say knockback (danged if I can remember what he actually does though) it's in Tarrant's interests then to be overly critical of those whom post negative things about knockback's work product and very lax with those who are very positive about knockback's work product. This does not even have to be intentional. It just creeps in when you work in secret and no one can comment upon your active changes to things without the possibility of punishment.
It's all about stepping outside of the role of conduit and moderator. Active participation in the reputation system and judging when people are 'rightly' critical of a post or praising of a post takes them well out of the role of even handed judge and accurate transmitter of feedback. They are already shaping that feedback by this interaction with the reputation system. When they threaten infractions for going against their views of what is the 'right' post to negative rep they cross into the land of bullying people for their opinions. That's advocating a view point. One shaped by their vested interests and their personal views.
Well said Cyr.
As I said before, this is why the police don't make the laws they enforce. It's a clear case of conflict of interest.
In their "official" capacity as Turbine employees, said people should not participate in the reputation system. If they want to jump on personal accounts and do so, more power to them.
ragwa1
04-30-2010, 03:47 PM
I meant it sincerely.
Then There's no problems over in my department.
Let me say a little about the sphere of influence vested interest case, because that one people probably don't get why it matters.
FBI and CIA prior to 9/11 did not share information as they were expected to do reliably. This was clearly not a good thing for the USA. Why did they do this then? Because it threatened their sphere of influence. They wanted to be in charge of as much as possible, it's a human instinct and one that only grows stronger in a work place environment.
So apply that to the web team. What is their sphere of influence, why it's the forums for one! This vested interest in protecting their sphere of influence is at play here. What could it entail? Well they probably have a strong incentive not to want people to question their authority. Key here is they really don't want people who have actual potential power to change their sphere of influence anywhere near it. How could this go? Well the web team could provide feedback to the developers and managment that the forums are very hostile, rude, and it could get them in some hot water posting on the forums. These people are thankful not to be involved in this snakes nest and the vested interest of the web team is met. Their influence is increased also, because now they are the conduits to the people who shape the game. Both inside and outside the company their sphere of influence is enhanced.
Nothing here has to be intentional either. This kind of instinctual response can be very natural. How do you fight this type of turf protection? It's hard, but strong rules and oversight by an independant observer are usually best. It's even harder when much of your work is done in secret (see FBI and CIA).
Borror0
04-30-2010, 04:05 PM
The moderators are not moderating. They are enforcing their views through the rep system.
First of, thety are not moderators. Don't call them that. They are community managers, and these actions are "managing the community." So, yes, they are doing their job in an objective manner. It's their job to punish behaviors harmful to the community and encourage positive ones.
Secondly, how does that not qualify as "moderating" exactly? The way Tarrant peruses negative reputation is not unlike how he peruses the reported posts. In fact, it's the exact same thing. If Tarrant feels a post violates the forum guidelines, he'll take the appropriate actions. Likewise, if Tarrant feels negative reputation has been unfairly awarded or is being abused by an user, he will take the appropriate action. You are right when you say that this process is not completely objective, but neither is moderation. A good moderator will try to be objective but no one can be perfectly objective; like judges interpret a constitution, moderators interpret guidelines.
If you have no problem with community managers giving forum title to users like me or Dragon.Star for our work on the wiki or on the the most used guide on the forums, then you should have no problem with the idea of a community manager handing out positive reputation. It's encouraging behavior that he deems positive to the community. Giving positive reputation to someone for writing an useful guide is extremely similar to giving a title, with the exception that there is a lot less red tape for reputation so it allows to reward actions on a smaller scale like answering a new player's question.
Likewise, if you have no idea with the concept of moderation, then you should have no problem with Tarrant moderating negative reputation which is, essentially, what he does or using negative reputation as a less punishment (over an official warning or an infraction point). Once again, it's the exact same thing.
Tarrant is not enforcing his personal views. He is doing his job, which is managing the community by fostering positive behaviors and punishing bad ones.
Likewise, if you have no idea with the concept of moderation, then you should have no problem with Tarrant moderating negative reputation which is, essentially, what he does or using negative reputation as a less punishment (over an official warning or an infraction point). Once again, it's the exact same thing.
Borro0 I will not get into a back and forth with you over this, but on this one thing I will comment.
Mem pointed out pretty clearly why it's not the same thing in one respect. It's done anonymously.
And you presume that I think the 'community managers' are even handed when moderating. I do not think this. If you read my post you would understand that their strong vested interests combined with the secretive nature of their work (get an infraction, it's an infraction to talk about...) and their direct involvement in 'playing the forum game' makes this almost impossible for them in my opinion.
Why does it matter what they do with rep? Because it is a MUCH LOWER BAR to interfere with. You call it a softer punishment, but I say it is much more open to interpretation and effects a much larger portion of user interactions on the forums then the infraction system ever did.
It may be the same thing for you, but for me it is not.
Borror0
04-30-2010, 04:29 PM
If you read my post you would understand that their strong vested interests combined with the secretive nature of their work (get an infraction, it's an infraction to talk about...) and their direct involvement in 'playing the forum game' makes this almost impossible for them in my opinion.
You're going to have to elaborate that point more, because that point makes literally no sense.
stainer
04-30-2010, 04:58 PM
I will say that negative rep does have an impact on me, at the very least it makes me look at what I post. While my self esteem is not tied to my green bar, it is a nice feeling to know that at some level you are accepted.
Cyr, I see your point about mods being able to rep, and their views conflicting with their ability to moderate. I disagree with you though. I have a hard time seeing how, in the end, it would make a difference one way or another on the end result. At least with the ability to neg rep, they have one more way to get their point across without laying the smackdown on someone. Could it be abused? Yes. I believe that the abuse would not be tolerated by the community. That is the only check we have to rely on. I also believe that people are fallible and mistakes will be made. I don't think a system could be put place that addresses that. All in all, I believe that people are doing their very best with the resources that they have.
In reality, hints of what is and isn't acceptable are all around you. I have seen the lines pushed so many times, I am sometimes surprised by the restraint that is shown. I do not access to 100% of the information, but none of us do. I have to stay with my belief that people are doing their best. When you have "frequent fliers" getting into trouble, I am sure that the response is elevated, not as measured, and heavy handed. I disagree with the thought that it is unfair, given my own experiences. You are trying to take the human element out of the equation, and I think that is impossible. I wish I was a more eloquent speaker. Often things sound better in mah head, than they do after I actually get them out.
You're going to have to elaborate that point more, because that point makes literally no sense.
Perhaps if you quoted the entire paragraph it might make more sense. The sentence pulled was preceded by "And you presume that I think the 'community managers' are even handed when moderating. I do not think this." My post was the mentioned in your quote was the previous post I had posted in response to you.
To put it simply Borro0 I said that I think it is nearly impossible for them to be even handed when moderatering when they are playing with the reputation system, have positions which provide lots of cover for them if they are not even handed (the secret system preventing discussion of infractions, locked threads, deleted threads... prevents any abuse or uneveness in enforcement away from the eyes of the community...something like the old axiom absolute power corrupts absolutely), and finally that they have strong incentives not to be even handed (vested interests such as protecting their own reputations and their colleages among others). All these add upto a situation where it is nearly impossible for them to be even handed. The kiss of death here is the repuatation as it is completely subjective and shows that the culture is not conductive to removing oneself from those you judge (moderate).
Borror0
04-30-2010, 07:05 PM
Perhaps if you quoted the entire paragraph it might make more sense.
I quoted the part of your post I didn't understand, so you knew which to elaborate on.
/snip
You talk about vested interest, but they have nothing to gain out of being biased.
From example, "protecting their colleagues" is either covered by the forum guidelines (guideline #1) or it is part of the community manager to collect the feedback and by not doing his job properly he could potentially get fired. He might want to protect his colleagues from insults but it's not like exposing them to insult would not lead to anything positive. In fact, it might even have a negative effect because the developer develop a negative opinion of the playerbase.
You talk as if they are not accountable to anyone but that is false. They might not have to, to us - thank God - but they have to respond to their superiors. If they do not manage the community properly, it will show in the long term and they will be held accountable. If the feedback is not gathered properly, it will show in the long term and they will be held accountable.
PS: I still have no clue what part the reputation system has to do in this. Try giving me an example.
Yiren
05-01-2010, 04:03 AM
Question one how does rep work?
Well like everything in this forums its a matter of opinion, some say farming for it works, some say lol catz pics work, others like me who are opinionated and just seem to get agreers would say its a real mixed bag. You will get your fair share of pos and neg no matter how you post, its how you let the rep game affect you that seems to be prevelant.
What does rep do?
Currently only gets people fired up about rep, long green bars are questioned and scorned, neg rep barely goes past 3 bars before mysteriously disappearing. You cant even really say that the bars represent quality or troll posting because the system does not take in human emotions and the errors that come with it. Long story short not a damned thing..
How do you give rep?
There is a litte scales icon by every posters post that you can click on and give postive or neutral depending on how much rep you have and negative if you have over 1500 reputation. You also get a title under your rep bar depending on how much rep you have.
And to your last question I believe everyone starts out with 1 making them neutral then they can build as they post and others weigh in on their posts. I dont think your questions are silly either in fact compared to other rep threads this one was a breath of fresh air IMO.
Thanks, Kalari, for the guidance & your kind words. :)
I quoted the part of your post I didn't understand, so you knew which to elaborate on.
You talk about vested interest, but they have nothing to gain out of being biased.
From example, "protecting their colleagues" is either covered by the forum guidelines (guideline #1) or it is part of the community manager to collect the feedback and by not doing his job properly he could potentially get fired. He might want to protect his colleagues from insults but it's not like exposing them to insult would not lead to anything positive. In fact, it might even have a negative effect because the developer develop a negative opinion of the playerbase.
You talk as if they are not accountable to anyone but that is false. They might not have to, to us - thank God - but they have to respond to their superiors. If they do not manage the community properly, it will show in the long term and they will be held accountable. If the feedback is not gathered properly, it will show in the long term and they will be held accountable.
PS: I still have no clue what part the reputation system has to do in this. Try giving me an example.
So it's ok for the police to make the laws they enforce?
stainer
05-03-2010, 01:19 PM
So it's ok for the police to make the laws they enforce?
I think that it is safe to infer that actual policies are set by people above the mods.
You talk about vested interest, but they have nothing to gain out of being biased.
From example, "protecting their colleagues" is either covered by the forum guidelines (guideline #1) or it is part of the community manager to collect the feedback and by not doing his job properly he could potentially get fired. He might want to protect his colleagues from insults but it's not like exposing them to insult would not lead to anything positive. In fact, it might even have a negative effect because the developer develop a negative opinion of the playerbase.
You talk as if they are not accountable to anyone but that is false. They might not have to, to us - thank God - but they have to respond to their superiors. If they do not manage the community properly, it will show in the long term and they will be held accountable. If the feedback is not gathered properly, it will show in the long term and they will be held accountable.
PS: I still have no clue what part the reputation system has to do in this. Try giving me an example.
Sorry for the slow response was not paying attention to the thread recently.
Borro0 you just pointed out how they have nothing to be gained by being biased. I would qualify that further, but even if that was the case it does not mean they would not still be biased. You accuratly summed up the problem with that vested interest of wanting to protect a colleague. It does not have to be good for the company in the long run. See the FBI and CIA with information sharing for a case in point for how vested interests do not have to be logical or to a persons benefit if a long view is taken and often are not.
Now, the accountability point is an interesting one Borro0. Do you think they have accurately conveyed our feedback and are being held accountable for this? Let me list a few major dust ups on the forums that seem to show some developer disconnect... Pale Master (huh, what negative feedback we think it is awesome), Reaver's Refuge Crafting (some of the same issues are inherent in epic), dungeon alert (have we had a more heated game mechanic), and epic difficulty mode. This is just recent history. I know you've been here for a long time. Developer disconnect from the player base is a common complaint on the forums. Does this fault lie entirely on their shoulders?
Borro0 I can not quote specific cases about the reputation system, due to moderator warnings about doing so. The system of secrecy does protect them from critical evaluation of if they are making appropriate choices in this regard.
So here is the best I can do as a general what if example...
Let's say a poster decides to be fairly critical of the developers, but is not crossing the line into infraction zone. His rhetoric is heated, but he is restrained. He gets neg rep mountains. Poster petitions for his neg rep to be removed. Well his post was inflammatory mod says rep stands. Sounds right yeah?
Now, different poster launches a thread highly critical of a power gaming guild. They play on ML and know the moderators and developers. They are considered a colleague of a sort. Their language is equally as heated, but restrained. They get mountains of negative rep. They petition for rep removal. The vested interest case here is reversed and the moderator looks more favorably upon this poster....or maybe the moderator has a dislike of the guild in question already. Negative rep is removed.
The playing field is very different for these two posters and two types of posts. They really are both inflammatory to some, but one is struck down while the other stands.
Now take it to the next threatened step. Poster who hates power gaming guild X posts another highly critical post of them. Tarrant said that reposting a controversial post is not trolling for reputation purposes. So of course people hit this person again with negative rep. Many probably did not read that post and many may not even know that their rep hit from the last post was removed (remember secretive system where they do not always alert you of what is happening and we KNOW that it is not standard practice to send out PM's about your negative rep hits that you gave being removed). Moderator still has the same opinion, really what changed for them? Negative rep removed upon petition and infractions granted.
Now the playing field is drastically different as posters face the risk of infractions based upon a much lower bar then the infraction system provided before the introduction of the reputation system. Opinions are self censored, but only when it comes to certain perspectives and others are allowed a much greater rope when arguing their perspective. All other things equal feedback on the forums would change, but not in a manner truly reflective of what the forum population really thinks.
Zaodan
05-12-2010, 12:04 PM
99 times out of 100, the random unwarranted negative reputation you receive will not affect your ability to post in the least. You can ignore it, or report it so that we can investigate specifically. We do have the ability to remove negative reputation hits if we feel it wasn't deserved.
You can refute the rep by contacting us.
There are repercussions, you just don't see them. :)
I've reported 4 "illegal" neg reps, but it seems only 1 of them was removed, even though a second one was for the exact same post. If neg repping that post was wrong, why was only 1 neg rep removed and not the other? It doesn't seem too consistent to me.
Also, as some more feedback to the system in general, the descriptions for neg rep are definitely not working. People are still neg repping posts simply due to disagreement and not for valid reasons, despite the little warning you added.
I think that it is safe to infer that actual policies are set by people above the mods.
There have been many examples of how the moderators control forum policy.
Borror0
05-12-2010, 02:33 PM
Do you think they have accurately conveyed our feedback and are being held accountable for this? Let me list a few major dust ups on the forums that seem to show some developer disconnect... Pale Master (huh, what negative feedback we think it is awesome), Reaver's Refuge Crafting (some of the same issues are inherent in epic), dungeon alert (have we had a more heated game mechanic), and epic difficulty mode. This is just recent history.
I agree with you that there is a problem, somewhere. I won't pronounce on where the problem is, however. It could be anywhere in the chain, including you and I, and pointing finger at anyone is nothing but pure speculation. In fact, the culprit might be different each time.
Even in the case that the blame falls all on Tarrant or Tolero, accountability should be dealt with internally. It's the only constructive way to do it. When you say stuff like "The system of secrecy does protect them from critical evaluation of if they are making appropriate choices in this regard." suggests that we are somehow better qualified to do that than Patience. The reality is that we are not. Putting the generally lower IQ and lack of relevant experience in the field aside, we would only have anecdotal or cherry picked evidences; we wouldn't have enough data to conclude anything.
Now take it to the next threatened step. Poster who hates power gaming guild X posts another highly critical post of them. Tarrant said that reposting a controversial post is not trolling for reputation purposes. So of course people hit this person again with negative rep. Many probably did not read that post and many may not even know that their rep hit from the last post was removed (remember secretive system where they do not always alert you of what is happening and we KNOW that it is not standard practice to send out PM's about your negative rep hits that you gave being removed). Moderator still has the same opinion, really what changed for them? Negative rep removed upon petition and infractions granted.
If I get this right, the following happen in your hypothetical scenario:
1. Poster X posts a controversial thread.
2. Tarrant closes the thread.
3. Poster X (or someone else) starts a new thread on the same topic.
4. People give neg rep to the OP of the new thread.
5. Tarrant removes neg rep from that user.
6. Tarrant gives infraction points to whoever gave neg rep to the OP of that new thread.
Reposting a closed thread is prohibited by the guidelines so giving neg rep for this is understandable. I would be surprised that Tarrant would remove the neg rep for that type of repost. I think that what Tarrant was referring to (I'm guessing, since I don't know which post you're referring to) is if the topic is legit but the discussion simply got out of hand - like this (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=247674) - then reposting is acceptable (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2952000#post2952000) and no one should get neg rep for starting a new thread.
However, if Tarrant acts like you say he would, which I strongly doubt, then the problem is that Tarrant is justifying his behavior with an obscure post that few will have seen. If he truly thinks his behavior is justified, then he should repost it often so that it begins common knowledge on the forums (or add it to the guidelines). More over, a warning should be issued before handing out any to infraction points. It would be unreasonable to punish someone on a gaming forum for something not perfectly intuitive and not clearly outlined in the guidelines. You can't expect your users to be 100% of the same opinion than you.
If Tarrant fails to do that, it's not a problem of vested interest; it'd be a problem of moderating without much tact.
All other things equal feedback on the forums would change, but not in a manner truly reflective of what the forum population really thinks.
Tarrant and Tolero shape the community. It's their job. If they prevent certain opinions from having a voice, they are doing their job.
DiAGO77
05-12-2010, 02:39 PM
Oh yeah I know how that works its great!
Say you post in a forum saying you are "new" , all the old trolls can give -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 !!!!
How cool is that!!!!
You guys should see the rep abuse in the shoryuken.com forums . Rep is lame .
chester99
05-12-2010, 03:17 PM
I think my favorite portion of the awesome system that is DDO forum rep is the fact that "negative rep" and "positive rep" are indicated by a series of colors that I can not see. red and green. really? take that color blind people. I occasionally get what looks to be blue. I assume that's just turbine laughing at me.
Folks, every time you do this I point it out. I'm color blind. If you create systems that use only color, I can't use those systems. Puzzles, alerts, forum rep... all specifically designed to make me angry so far as I can tell. I don't care that you've gone with red and green... but how about a tool tip? some other hint?
askl;djfl;aksjf
I'm told this is a funny image. If that is true, that's what the rep system is saying to me.
[imaged removed]
Gornin
05-12-2010, 05:53 PM
How does the rep system work?
POORLY is the nicest way I can put it.
Lorien_the_First_One
05-12-2010, 06:13 PM
Oh yeah I know how that works its great!
Say you post in a forum saying you are "new" , all the old trolls can give -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 !!!!
How cool is that!!!!
You guys should see the rep abuse in the shoryuken.com forums . Rep is lame .
No, saying you are new tends to get you positive rep. A trolling post like the one above gets you neg rep.
IronClan
05-12-2010, 07:32 PM
. but how about a tool tip? some other hint?
If you hover the mouse over any rep with more than one bar and it says "the neutral" it's red neg rep bars, blue is probably the clear looking one, and means the person disabled rep (and also says as much in the tool tip) and green also has a mouseover text or tooltip with corresponding terms like trustworthy etc.
If you're not getting mouseover text check your java/security settings or consider a better browser like firefox to name one.
chester99
05-13-2010, 01:08 PM
If you hover the mouse over any rep with more than one bar and it says "the neutral" it's red neg rep bars, blue is probably the clear looking one, and means the person disabled rep (and also says as much in the tool tip) and green also has a mouseover text or tooltip with corresponding terms like trustworthy etc.
If you're not getting mouseover text check your java/security settings or consider a better browser like firefox to name one.
the day I can neg rep posts like this will be a grand day indeed.
I relieve my stress by logging into DDO and griefing players.
LOL
had to +1 this!
IronClan
05-22-2010, 11:03 AM
the day I can neg rep posts like this will be a grand day indeed.
LOL really? Why? Were you being sarcastic and I missed it? I admit I thought you were really color blind, and just being sarcastic about not knowing what the picture was. Was I supposed to go through your posting history looking for clues that you are or aren't really color blind?
Wouldn't Neg reping me for not getting your sarcasm be abuse of the rep system? Stuff happens even the best of us miss it sometimes. Maybe you caught me in a pre coffee moment, or perhaps I shouldn't have assumed that no no one would REALLY make all that up just to facilitate posting a mildly amusing sight gag just because it has the F word in it...
On the other hand maybe the rep system is working pretty good, if you don't have the ability to give neg rep yet, and you've just openly admitted you'd abuse the system then maybe it's working as intended? :)
Warlawk
05-22-2010, 12:57 PM
How does the rep system work?
POORLY is the nicest way I can put it.
This, and my sig. Any and every forum I have ever seen that uses a rep system has constant drama threads about it. Just doesn't seem worth the trouble to me. Send a message and turn off your meter.
Memnir
05-22-2010, 01:43 PM
Send a message and turn off your meter.That sends no message what so ever, I'm afraid. See, Turbine could care less if you turn it off, keep it on, ignore it, or use it all the time. These are the same folks who seem to be intentionally keeping the System murky, and ill-defined. So, they really don't care if you have a lill gray box, a few red ones, or any number of green.
The Rep system has it's flaws, many of them. Bust since all turning it off does is turn off your visible meter - turning it off is a meaningless gesture. If it were a true opt-out, and turning it off rendered you unable to give or receive Rep - that would be sending a message. As it is, turning if off is just like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand.
I see no point in turning it off, unless you have some embarrassment related to it - or don't understand what turning it off really means. But, that's just me...
Nebless
05-22-2010, 05:23 PM
My main problem with the rep system comes from this:
Approve (e.g. Well Said, Informative, Positive Contribution)
Disapprove (e.g. Inflammatory, Derogatory, Disruptive, Trolling, or violates community guidelines)
The choice you get when you call it up. As you can see the 'Approve' is all the touchy feely feel good stuff, yet the 'Disappove' leans more towards the official violation / banning variety. Where the actual truth is more in lines with 'He's not agreeing with what I think, How dare he not follow the herd, the nail that sticks up will be hammered down'.
This even came up in the Free or New player forums just a few weeks back. Someone new made a suggestion that while not really workable, was not any of the offical disapprove items. What it really was was a different way of thinking than the old timers wished to hear and they totally neg rep'd hiim for it until someone stepped in and told them to stop, that a different opinion from the norm wasn't a neg rep item.
As you can see, mine is off. I neither give nor receive.
irivan
05-22-2010, 05:28 PM
unless you enjoy High school gamesmanship, i suggest you turn rep off, it is completely useless.
Slink
05-22-2010, 07:11 PM
Ignore it, and it'll go away, right?
.
.
.
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn12/EnPsyane/head-in-the-sand.jpg
.
.
.
Sure thing. Just keep that head in the sand, my friend. :) Whatever makes you happy, do. But, turning it off does nothing, no matter what you want me to read between...
Looky there im off timer!
Lorien_the_First_One
05-22-2010, 07:17 PM
My main problem with the rep system comes from this:
Approve (e.g. Well Said, Informative, Positive Contribution)
Disapprove (e.g. Inflammatory, Derogatory, Disruptive, Trolling, or violates community guidelines)
The choice you get when you call it up. As you can see the 'Approve' is all the touchy feely feel good stuff, yet the 'Disappove' leans more towards the official violation / banning variety. Where the actual truth is more in lines with 'He's not agreeing with what I think, How dare he not follow the herd, the nail that sticks up will be hammered down'..
Up until about a month ago negative rep had a different definition.
Turbine has made the new one pretty clear. Most people I know who give neg rep do so for people who are being abusive in some way, in keeping with the new rules. I have however noticed that people being jerks often don't seem to know they are being jerks and assume it is because you disagree with them.
When people have mutliple red boxes, its ALWAYS their ignorant attitude that earned the red boxes, not the fact they aren't 'going with the herd' as you put it.
Nebless
05-22-2010, 07:32 PM
Up until about a month ago negative rep had a different definition.
Turbine has made the new one pretty clear. Most people I know who give neg rep do so for people who are being abusive in some way, in keeping with the new rules. I have however noticed that people being jerks often don't seem to know they are being jerks and assume it is because you disagree with them.
When people have mutliple red boxes, its ALWAYS their ignorant attitude that earned the red boxes, not the fact they aren't 'going with the herd' as you put it.
Well the poor newbie that made 1 innocent suggestion that got so totally flamed an old timer had to step in wasn't being a jerk.
Also the use of the word 'ALWAYS' is hardly ever correct in a situation and if my comment in a now closed thread where I said that as a lvl 5 I welcomed new lvl 5 content, while everyone else was blasting the decision cuz they wanted high level content constituted an ignorant attitude ..... gomen.
Unfortunitly DDO has a problem with the community and it shows up in different areas, but it all pretty much comes down to the old vs new player problem. Those from 2006 feel a very strong sense of ownership towards the game (nothing wrong there) but they also have a strong bias towards anything that goes against the norm. That shows up here in the forums and the rep system.
Xeraphim
05-22-2010, 08:01 PM
1) How does Rep work?
2) What does Rep actually do?
3) How do I give someone Rep?
4) How much Rep do I have at the start (assume 0)?
...etc.
1) It doesn't.
2) Nothing.
3) Click the scales by the post number and click "I agree with this post" or "I disagree with this post".
4) Zero.
IronClan
05-22-2010, 09:38 PM
Also the use of the word 'ALWAYS' is hardly ever correct in a situation and if my comment in a now closed thread where I said that as a lvl 5 I welcomed new lvl 5 content, while everyone else was blasting the decision cuz they wanted high level content constituted an ignorant attitude ..... gomen.
Ah "update 5 garbage"
I got neg rep'ed in that thread too sometimes vets don't want to hear the truth... They don't want to hear that they don't own the game any more than a long time resident of an apartment renting a unit across from a new tenant has "more ownership" than the new tenant... Once either one stops paying rent they are both out on the curb with their stuff. This might not be POPULAR to state but it's certainly not trolling or abusive.
Personally just about every single neg rep I've gotten has been for a post on a "hot topic" like zerging or DA or elitist attitudes towards the new players (as in that thread) and each neg has pretty much violated the current rules.
When people have mutliple red boxes, its ALWAYS their ignorant attitude that earned the red boxes, not the fact they aren't 'going with the herd' as you put it.
Complete speculation on your part and pretty much B.S.
DoctorWhofan
05-22-2010, 09:51 PM
Here is my rep system:
green -- I like this message and agree with it. Or, for Memnir, nice pic, you owe me a keyboard/monitor.
red -- I find your statement to be rude and offensive, whether or not I agree with you. Bisically like it is now.
grey -- disabled/no rep
agree to disagree -- While I disagree with the poster, he wasn't rude or insulting in the mildest way. Posted an intelligent abet wrong opinion. counts for 1/4 of red or green, and lowers both colours to the other side.
Kalari
05-22-2010, 10:06 PM
People are going to have their opinions about rep no matter what
why worry? if you dont want to parcipate in it dont, why bother telling people not to.
its a bloody popularity contest no matter what the mods try to say thats that ive gotten from it and you can play it a few ways..
1. say what everyone wants to hear (yes man lady whatever) and get pop points that way.
2. Pity farm for it
3. Have a likeable personality and good photoshop skills
4. Be no nonsense stick to your guns and speak your mind. Some seem to think that doesnt work but I can show you a few forum posters who never change their style (myself included) who have good rep in this forums. We may argue from time to time but we stand by our posts and try to help the game.
If you cant handle the game dont play it but for petes sake enough whining about rep if you dont care then on/off it shouldnt affect you period.
Lorien_the_First_One
05-22-2010, 10:19 PM
Well the poor newbie that made 1 innocent suggestion that got so totally flamed an old timer had to step in wasn't being a jerk.
Also the use of the word 'ALWAYS' is hardly ever correct in a situation and if my comment in a now closed thread where I said that as a lvl 5 I welcomed new lvl 5 content, while everyone else was blasting the decision cuz they wanted high level content constituted an ignorant attitude ..... gomen.
Unfortunitly DDO has a problem with the community and it shows up in different areas, but it all pretty much comes down to the old vs new player problem. Those from 2006 feel a very strong sense of ownership towards the game (nothing wrong there) but they also have a strong bias towards anything that goes against the norm. That shows up here in the forums and the rep system.
I stand by that ALWAYS. I have seen people with 1 red box that wasn't well earned (it only takes 1 neg rep hit for a new person). But multiple red boxes... never seen that where the guy wasn't being a jerk. Feel free to give me a link to any such case and I'll happily modify my opinion if I'm wrong. (Or are you saying that's you? I can't tell since you turned your rep display off).
People disagree all the time without neg repping each other. For example the "vs WoW" thread today probably earned some neg rep for being trollish, not for suggesting change. I didn't bother to neg rep in that case, but I could see people doing it. However other threads where they just made suggestions for change, people argued the change but I doubt neg rep was handed out.
What does "gomen" mean?
Complete speculation on your part and pretty much B.S.
Not speculation, observation. Prove me wrong. Point at one poster with multiple red boxes who has not been a jerk.
Nebless
05-22-2010, 10:25 PM
(Or are you saying that's you? I can't tell since you turned your rep display off).
What does "gomen" mean?
No I was a single box type myself.
Gomen is the short form of 'Sorry' in Japanese.
Lorien_the_First_One
05-22-2010, 10:41 PM
No I was a single box type myself.
Gomen is the short form of 'Sorry' in Japanese.
Ah... thanks for clarifying Gomen.
See...you just had 1 box. Easy to get for a new person (just takes 1 person) and they quickly disappear.
2 boxes takes work on the poster's part.
I stand by that ALWAYS. I have seen people with 1 red box that wasn't well earned (it only takes 1 neg rep hit for a new person). But multiple red boxes... never seen that where the guy wasn't being a jerk. Feel free to give me a link to any such case and I'll happily modify my opinion if I'm wrong. (Or are you saying that's you? I can't tell since you turned your rep display off).
People disagree all the time without neg repping each other. For example the "vs WoW" thread today probably earned some neg rep for being trollish, not for suggesting change. I didn't bother to neg rep in that case, but I could see people doing it. However other threads where they just made suggestions for change, people argued the change but I doubt neg rep was handed out.
What does "gomen" mean?
Not speculation, observation. Prove me wrong. Point at one poster with multiple red boxes who has not been a jerk.
You're making the claim, how about you prove yourself right?
Do you honestly think that *everyone* uses the rep system as it is intened to be?
EDIT
Let me clarify. I'm not going to argue the fact that multiple red box users are being jerks or trolls. That's true. What is also true is that that people that can award negative rep can, and do give it for reasons other than "intended". The whole rep system is a sham, and has been since it's inception.
Borror0
05-22-2010, 11:38 PM
Do you honestly think that *everyone* uses the rep system as it is intened to be?
He's not saying that. He's only saying that abuses are, when put into perspective, rare and manageable.
Xeraphim
05-22-2010, 11:50 PM
He's not saying that. He's only saying that abuses are, when put into perspective, rare and manageable.
Rep Farming among friends being one example, and not rare at all. Further, it is not managed in any way, and defrauds the system entirely. Therefore, the Rep System is as I stated: Not valuable in any real way to the community.
Example: A comedian has full green rep, whereas an analytic person noting problems and solutions may have red, despite the analytic actually addressing real issues and solutions and the comedian contributing nothing but silly images and jests nonstop. This is essentially how the Rep system works currently.
I didn't check every page to see if this was answered, but new people start out with a small number of positive rep pts. I believe the number is 10.
Borror0
05-23-2010, 12:05 AM
Therefore, the Rep System is as I stated: Not valuable in any real way to the community.
I don't think Lorien thinks it has any value. As for myself, I think it's misleading to call it reputation. It's not what it is, it's not even a marker of identity. It's a crowdsourced moderation tool, which may or may not have a beneficial effect on the community.
Warlawk
05-23-2010, 01:47 AM
That sends no message what so ever, I'm afraid...SNIP
The Rep system has it's flaws, many of them. Bust since all turning it off does is turn off your visible meter - turning it off is a meaningless gesture. ...SNIP
I disagree. Lets say for the sake of argument that 90% of all forum users, including many of the high profile high post count posters all of a sudden all turned their meters off on the same day, and then left them shut off. You really think this would not send a message to Turbine?
You can't see a molecule, but when enough of them get together you can't help but notice. Same thing here. You just need enough people to actually do it, and it will in fact send a message.
Memnir
05-23-2010, 02:57 AM
I You really think this would not send a message to Turbine?After seeing much of the unrest that has occured over things in the game that actually matter over the years, and how Turbine has utterly ignored said unrest.. no, I don't think it'd send a message what so ever. I don't think the Mods and Devs would even bat an eyelash.
Warlawk
05-23-2010, 04:00 AM
After seeing much of the unrest that has occured over things in the game that actually matter over the years, and how Turbine has utterly ignored said unrest.. no, I don't think it'd send a message what so ever. I don't think the Mods and Devs would even bat an eyelash.
Well, it would in fact send the message. You're just saying they would ignore it. Not at all the same thing.
Pyromaniac
05-23-2010, 05:15 AM
Here's some rep system basics. You either play the rep game or not.
If not, turn off your rep meter in the user CP. Nobody can then see your rep. You can get positive/negative rep, but its irrelevant visually. The only impact is Tarrant gets to read all your posts, or as many as he wants.
If you want a good rep bar, get a bunch of friends together and positive rep each other. Fastest way to do it. Or you could post a lot and hope those with positive rep bars agree with your opinion and like your posts.
In short, the rep system is broken, and has no impact to you ingame.
Pyromaniac
05-23-2010, 05:20 AM
Personally just about every single neg rep I've gotten has been for a post on a "hot topic" like zerging or DA or elitist attitudes towards the new players (as in that thread) and each neg has pretty much violated the current rules.
I personally don't agree with your posts on the direction of the game, but I completely agree since you go against the herd you get negative rep. That's the purpose of the rep system, to keep people in line.
(and likely I'll get negative repped for giving my opinion here).
http://trashfilmguru.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/they-live_2-20080813-125142-medium.jpg
Lorien_the_First_One
05-23-2010, 06:26 AM
You're making the claim, how about you prove yourself right?
Well first off if I pointed at one person (or 10) with multiple red boxes and pointed out where they were a jerk you would claim that wasn't everyone and I hadn't proven anything. Secondly that would be a forum violation. You could disprove me by pointing at ONE where I was wrong without breaking any rules. Ball's in your court.
Do you honestly think that *everyone* uses the rep system as it is intened to be?
EDIT
Let me clarify. I'm not going to argue the fact that multiple red box users are being jerks or trolls. That's true. What is also true is that that people that can award negative rep can, and do give it for reasons other than "intended". The whole rep system is a sham, and has been since it's inception.
I never once said every neg rep given was appropriate. All I said was the followup point you made, that multiple red boxes is a sign that people were being jerks or trolls.
Also I think whatever value the rep system had (always somewhat questionable, I argued against it on day 1) largely vanished when they changed to the current definition of neg rep. Having neg rep not meaning the opposite of pos rep really does not make sense.
Example: A comedian has full green rep, whereas an analytic person noting problems and solutions may have red, despite the analytic actually addressing real issues and solutions and the comedian contributing nothing but silly images and jests nonstop. This is essentially how the Rep system works currently.
Well according to the definitions Turbine set out, comic guy should have a green bar.
Your red bar analytic guy doesn't exist. Point me at a specific user who is analytical without being a jerk who has more than 1 red dot and I'll retract that.
I don't think Lorien thinks it has any value. As for myself, I think it's misleading to call it reputation. It's not what it is, it's not even a marker of identity. It's a crowdsourced moderation tool, which may or may not have a beneficial effect on the community.
Yup, that's what its become alright. It's not even a great mod tool since we've seen people with 4 red dots still posting outside of hours mods work. I don't know where they have set the posting block point, but its too high to serve the main purpose this system could allow.
Well it serves one other purpose. When I see a troll I still sometimes give drive-by neg rep. Stops me from engaging the troll sometimes, and that's a good thing.
Lorien_the_First_One
05-23-2010, 06:28 AM
If you want a good rep bar, get a bunch of friends together and positive rep each other. Fastest way to do it. Or you could post a lot and hope those with positive rep bars agree with your opinion and like your posts.
You'd need a lot of friends since you can only give rep to a person once every few days (depending how much rep you give out) and new people can only give a small amount of rep. Bascially, that's not how people got big green bars.
Contribute to the community and your green bar grows quickly.
Borror0
05-23-2010, 09:56 AM
It's not even a great mod tool since we've seen people with 4 red dots still posting outside of hours mods work.
I was not thinking of moderation in terms of stopping trolls but in terms of modifying the average user's behavior to be more positive and less inflammatory. I believe that it is, at the end of the day, the primary goal of the reputation system. I'm not sure if it works, or even if it is beneficial, but I'm pretty sure that was the intent.
Memnir
05-23-2010, 11:52 AM
Well, it would in fact send the message. You're just saying they would ignore it. Not at all the same thing.Which gets back to my initial point that turning it off is pointless. :)
Warlawk
05-23-2010, 01:46 PM
Which gets back to my initial point that turning it off is pointless. :)
I guess you've just had more time to get jaded than I have.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s212/Warlawk/Misc/129161956729992540.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.