How Does Rep Work?

[Arkat]

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.

[Josh]

When you attempt to make something harmless like this into an issue, you invalidate your argument.

Pm sent

[stainer]

Pm sent

To me? I haven't got it yet.

[Cyr]

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]

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]

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.

[Cyr]

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]

Do we want them advocating a point of view?

Explain where we got here exactly because I don't follow.

[Drakos]

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'.

[Vint]

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]

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]

My question to everyone:

Why on earth do you care about internet reputation?

This is a sad thread.

[Drakos]

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]

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.

[Cyr]

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.

[Josh]

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]

I meant it sincerely.

Then There's no problems over in my department.

[Cyr]

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]

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.

[Cyr]

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.