PDA

View Full Version : Would You Support Creating a 'Thumbs Down' Option on Skadi?



Gefjon
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 01:57 PM
I got many positive reactions for my stupid button post (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=23213#post23213) and someone even suggested this:

What a great idea! Why not post that as a suggestion?

So here it is, my suggestion to add a stupid button we can push when we read retarded posts. ;)

Deary
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:05 PM
A post without any thanks speaks for itself.

Ămeric
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:06 PM
Or maybe we could just award negative reputation.:evil0000:

IlluSionSxxx
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:12 PM
The problem with a "stupid button" or with negative reputation, is that it is often used not to punish bad posts but to punish controversial opinions. Since this is a forum where viewpoints differ from very mainstream to very controversial, I don't think that would be a good idea as it could increase tension between people of oposing ideologies.

Gefjon
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:19 PM
A post without any thanks speaks for itself.
Don't think so. Are you saying posts without thanks are stupid? :rolleyes:


Or maybe we could just award negative reputation.:evil0000:
How about both a stupid button AND negative reputation? :D:D:D

Deary
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:29 PM
Don't think so. Are you saying posts without thanks are stupid? :rolleyes:

No, but it is likely that a post without thanks is generally not regarded well enough, for whatever reason, to receive at least thanks.

IlluSionSxxx
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:31 PM
How about both a stupid button AND negative reputation? :D:D:D

Too many people use such an option irresponsibly on posts they strongly disagree with because they're too narrowminded to even consider the idea. It has been tried on many other forums and it is usually avoided because of the friction it causes.

In fact, many forums have also abolished the "reputation" concept altogether, because it tends to turn forums into popularity contests.

Gefjon
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:34 PM
No, but it is likely that a post without thanks is generally not regarded well enough, for whatever reason, to receive at least thanks.
Well I still think we need a stupid button to express our feelings negatively too. Why should we only be positive or indifferent? :p:D


Too many people use such an option irresponsibly on posts they strongly disagree with because they're too narrowminded to even consider the idea. It has been tried on many other forums and it is usually avoided because of the friction it causes.

In fact, many forums have also abolished the "reputation" concept altogether, because it tends to turn forums into popularity contests.
Cmon, criticism is welcome. If people dislike something they should have the right to disagree through reputation and buttons. You can do the same to them. I'm sure no one here would like it if the positive reputation was disabled. ;)

Kurtz
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:38 PM
Well I still think we need a stupid button to express our feelings negatively too. Why should we only be positive or indifferent? :p:D

Because what you disagree with may not be, as opposed to what one might think at the first sight, stupid.

I would be very "liberal" (original sense, that is generous) with a stupid button, though I disagree with the idea. No post with an idea or opinion correctly stated should be slayed, but trashy low-brow topics or very uninteresting posts ("I want pizza" kind of shout) sometimes deserve it.

Deary
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:42 PM
Well I still think we need a stupid button to express our feelings negatively too. Why should we only be positive or indifferent? :p:D

The best place to show disapproval of an opinion is to refute it in the thread for everyone to discuss. The amount of reputation and thanks a person receives is/should be a reflection of how respected their opinions are. It's not a sign indifference so much as a silent understanding. Any negative reputation and "stupid button" is unnecessary for the reasons IlluSionSxxx has already stated.

Leof
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:44 PM
How bout a button that we push every time a post makes us think of rice crispy squares?:D

Gefjon
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 02:50 PM
The best place to show disapproval of an opinion is to refute it in the thread for everyone to discuss. The amount of reputation and thanks a person receives is/should be a reflection of how respected their opinions are. It's not a sign indifference so much as a silent understanding. Any negative reputation and "stupid button" is unnecessary for the reasons IlluSionSxxx has already stated.
Umm, not really. Some posts are too stupid to be worth arguing about. :D As for the amount of thanks/rep, I think you're a bit too optimistic about it. Some folks are just popular even if they're not the brightest star in the sky to say so and have friends who abuse the rep points and thanks button to shoot them up on the list. ;)

Deary
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Umm, not really. Some posts are too stupid to be worth arguing about. :D As for the amount of thanks/rep, I think you're a bit too optimistic about it. Some folks are just popular even if they're not the brightest star in the sky to say so and have friends who abuse the rep points and thanks button to shoot them up on the list. ;)

It is perfectly clear the reputation system is abused, which is why I said "should be", and any negative reputation/"stupid button" option will only fuel that abuse. If an argument is not worth your time and consideration, don't reply.

IlluSionSxxx
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:04 PM
Umm, not really. Some posts are too stupid to be worth arguing about. :D

In such cases, sarcasm usually does the job.


As for the amount of thanks/rep, I think you're a bit too optimistic about it. Some folks are just popular even if they're not the brightest star in the sky to say so and have friends who abuse the rep points and thanks button to shoot them up on the list. ;)

... and you will it even worse by adding a "negative reputation" or a "stupid button" option.

I would personally prefer completely abolishing reputation and "thanks button" altogether than actually adding the option to give "negative reputation" or a "stupid button".


The best place to show disapproval of an opinion is to refute it in the thread for everyone to discuss. The amount of reputation and thanks a person receives is/should be a reflection of how respected their opinions are. It's not a sign indifference so much as a silent understanding. Any negative reputation and "stupid button" is unnecessary for the reasons IlluSionSxxx has already stated.

We seem to be at the same wavelength with regards to this issue !

Thusnelda
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:06 PM
I´m clearly against a "stupid button" and negative reputation because it would surely harm the positive atmosphere of this board. And it would possibly poisoning the harmony between the individual members. People would tend to give someone a "stupid thanks" or "bad reputation" not because of the posting he or she wrote, but because of general antipathy. We are humans, not totally objective robots. :)

Please dont include such features, I experienced how it ends in an other quite big board. There were even "board wars" between the "outsiders" with negative reputation and the "good ones" with positive reputation. And then there was a "Reputation-mafia" who has voted down members they disliked. The outcome was that one member had around 3 green reputation-points at one day for example, and two days later he had 6 red/negative reputation points - because others voted his reputation down as a whole organisized group. That was totally disgusting and unfair...and ended later in the total closure of that board.

For the sake of harmony, please dont include such settings. Thats my point of view.

Sigurd
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:23 PM
Is this suggestion serious? Tell me that it isn't! If it is - that's the first line of posts that'll generously get a "Stupid Post" indication from me. :confused:


So here it is, my suggestion to add a stupid button we can push when we read retarded posts. ;)

Now how do you know that if members are frequently retarded enough to post pointless posts, that they'll be able to reward your back for your most generous bequest of a "Thanks I f-ing hate your idiocy"-Button-pressage? :D


A post without any thanks speaks for itself.

Well, I know that if a post of mine lacks thanks that it means "Oh for Thunor's sake Sigurd, you're not an attorney YET, say things in three words not goddamn three biblical volumes!"


No, but it is likely that a post without thanks is generally not regarded well enough, for whatever reason, to receive at least thanks.

What if it receives no Thanks but heaps of rep? ;)


Or maybe we could just award negative reputation.

I can technically give negative rep, MWAHAHAHA. :D

Well, either way, I think that any board where the negative rep function is used on a frequent basis is a bit lowly. If you have to resort to the stage where you cannot rationally slam that immature adolescent monkey you're opposing in the debate down by your arguments but have to give them a red dot, then you might just as well get psychiatric help yourself. :p

I think the only time I handed out negative rep EVER was on here because I wanted to give a person a reminder higher than a PM-reminder and lesser than a warning/infraction. That was precisely once.


People would tend to give someone a "stupid thanks" or "bad reputation" not because of the posting he or she wrote, but because of general antipathy.

Oh, the days of the reputation Mafia...:D


For the sake of harmony, please dont include such settings. Thats my point of view.

Indeed, I tend to agree. It will just resort to childish reputation wars and the likes and ruin the harmony we tend to enjoy here. Valkyrie has pretty much laid out the scenario that would most likely happen - hence ... I'll leave others (Staff or Members) to their opinion but I most certainly won't support the motion from my side.

Leof
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:23 PM
OK serious post time.:D I agree with Valk' and the rest of the gang who are against negative rep and awards. Forums like these are so difficult to keep from turning into a flame fest that we should do whatever it takes to keep the bad blood away.

So far it has already become my favorite forum and I would hate to see it go down hill like so many others have.

mischak
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:29 PM
I think it's a funny idea, but realistically, I don't think it would contribute anything positive to the board

Deary
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:38 PM
What if it receives no Thanks but heaps of rep? ;)


True. I was going to be more specific and say "if not reputation", but I thought my implications would be understood. Usually, if I give rep, I don't give thanks and vice versa.

Deary

Loftor
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 03:53 PM
If you don't like a thread or post why not just read a different one

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 05:16 PM
I initially thought of the "stupid button" as a hilarious idea, but reading some comments here, I tend to agree that it is certainly going to be abused and create a lot of fuss, especially considering Americ's obsession with such matters... ;)

skyhawk
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 06:11 PM
It is far better , imo, to reply to a post you may consider wrong ( not stupid ) in your own view of the world than simply to press a stupid button( which to me is the cowards way out )

The thanks function seems to take on the mindset of the eurovision song contest from time to time too ( Ukraine voting top marks for the Russian entry etc etc )

Freydis
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 06:31 PM
No, but it is likely that a post without thanks is generally not regarded well enough, for whatever reason, to receive at least thanks.

Some people don't like giving thanks very often (myself included). I prefer to give reps. And the thanks button is prone to misclicking anyways (I've done it several times when trying to "quickreply" or "quote" a post.

But I think a "stupid" button is a stupid idea. ;)

Gefjon
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 06:47 PM
Alrighty, by this suggestion I didn't mean that there should be thanks and rep wars around here. My apologies if that's how it came across. However I'd like to ask folks here to try to see things from a different perspective. I know folks like me would be getting a lot of stupid button pushes and have the lowest reputation if neg reps were allowed since we have unpopular and controversial opinions, but I wouldn't have a problem with that. If folks honestly believe the majority of my posts are stupid, so be it. ;) I'd prefer that to hypocrisy, dishonesty and political correctness. I'd only push the stupid button if I really thought the post was stupid. Aren't most folks here adults? :P
No offense intended, just my opinion. ;)

Ămeric
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 06:53 PM
I was being sarcastic when I suggested we be allowed to award negative reputation. There is one person here that I know would abuse it. No, not me ;). Btw, I had no idea the mods could award negative rep.

Instead of crerating a stupid button, maybe more people should take the opportunity to rate the threads. I'm giving this thread one star.:P

Allenson
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 06:58 PM
http://gallery.widgetgallery.com/shots/40218-shot.jpg

Sigurd
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 07:13 PM
http://gallery.widgetgallery.com/shots/40218-shot.jpg

AAAAARGH I clicked it and nothing happened! Non-clickable buttons are anti-Germanic! I will ban you, Allenson! :mad: :D


. I know folks like me would be getting a lot of stupid button pushes and have the lowest reputation if neg reps were allowed since we have unpopular and controversial opinions, but I wouldn't have a problem with that. If folks honestly believe the majority of my posts are stupid, so be it.

Well, if we went by that, I'd probably end up being the only one with positive rep. After all, who dares to negative-rep the Forum Nazi? ;):D

On a more serious note, and to back up an image I'd have to lose - anything else someone importantly wants to say in this topic? If no one does by the time I return from my night to the pub, I'll lock it for having outserved its point. ;)

Next World
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 07:41 PM
My two dollars on the subject (like I ever only give two cents, I'm not that cheap):

The fun thing about reputation is that it can be disabled by usergroup. There have been times when I did it that way and disabled peoples' reputations because they were being rather childish about it. With negative rep, though, I've found that people are more stupid about receiving it than giving it. I've given very few negative reputation in my life, and when I have, it has usually been from the Admin panel to negate the reputations of former members who turncoated us. We let them stay on the board and speak their bit, but we made sure that everybody saw that they were big fans of Russia (so many red squares, so little posts).

However, the last time I gave out negative reputation, it was on a forum where people in general don't give it out. I was having a debate with someone and it progressed (digressed?) into personal attacks. One of the admins gave the warning to discontinue the argument in that thread. She had gotten the last word on the subject, I didn't feel like writing a PM to her, so I left a negative rep with a comment about taking personal responsibility rather than trying to lie about things. She freaked out and literally tried to get me banned, not because of what I had said to her or the argument as a whole, but because I negative repped her.

Several people I know have been on forums where they were involved in plots to "send someone to Moscow" for free, especially new people who they didn't get a good impression of. It's obvious that there are certain "cliques" on this forum, based off of many different things, but most people have a couple other posters who would more than likely be willing to "gang up" on somebody who is causing them grief. Very few people here outside of the staff hold maturity and objectivity as their strong points.


Personally, if the system is going to be changed in any way, I think that nothing should be added, but thanks should be done away with. It takes a little bit longer to give rep, a bit more consideration. Plus, I know I have gotten a lot of rep comments on posts that nobody thanked me on (although I had seen them all thank posts before), I'm sure it has happened to other people. People will leave me rep in agreement, but for some reason, they don't feel like it is smart to publicly agree with me. When you look at how different people thank, it gives the impression that some people thank ideas they agree with, some people thank things they find amusig, some people thank any reply they get to a thread they start, so on. I think it would be better if people could only be judged upon their own words, at least you know what they mean when they actually say it. If someone really agrees with or likes something they should quote it and say so if it's a controversial issue, or just rep or PM the person who made the post to thank them if it's something that really hit home with them on a more private basis.

Gefjon
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Personally, if the system is going to be changed in any way, I think that nothing should be added, but thanks should be done away with. It takes a little bit longer to give rep, a bit more consideration. Plus, I know I have gotten a lot of rep comments on posts that nobody thanked me on (although I had seen them all thank posts before), I'm sure it has happened to other people. People will leave me rep in agreement, but for some reason, they don't feel like it is smart to publicly agree with me. When you look at how different people thank, it gives the impression that some people thank ideas they agree with, some people thank things they find amusig, some people thank any reply they get to a thread they start, so on. I think it would be better if people could only be judged upon their own words, at least you know what they mean when they actually say it. If someone really agrees with or likes something they should quote it and say so if it's a controversial issue, or just rep or PM the person who made the post to thank them if it's something that really hit home with them on a more private basis.
I can see why there's a thanks button though. I prefer to see a list of users who thanked posts than to see 100 "I agree", "You are so brilliant" spam posts. :D

mischak
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Personally, if the system is going to be changed in any way, I think that nothing should be added, but thanks should be done away with. It takes a little bit longer to give rep, a bit more consideration.


You can give a rep without writing anything in the box :p

Boche
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 08:21 PM
Basically it's not needed as Deary said. Posts who don't get any reputation are either seen bad, or people were to lazy to read it. ;)

Here an example of what to do without "thanks" - every comment can get + points and minus points, but basically it's the same.

(Click to enlarge)

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4681/31328552fk5.jpg




Gruß,
Boche

Next World
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 10:27 PM
You can give a rep without writing anything in the box :pStill, that's two clicks, and it's a very small button on the left-hand side. As someone who mouses with the right hand, it's much easier to click a large button on the right. I know I consider it out of my way to give rep., which is probably why I'm inclined to just clicking the thanks button unless I find something phenominal.

As far as a million people saying "I agree", how is that any different than when a large number of people post the same opinion or answer to a question, yet act as though it is somehow special simply because it is their post? Most people have something to contribute beyond what was said, even it's a small addendum. Plus, how do you know specifically what someone agrees with in a post? I often only agree with one point of a five point post, and sometimes I don't agree at all, but the person has given some valid arguments against my position which I haven't considered. It gives a pretty "neat" appearance if all of the "thanks" someone is getting shows up in their personal control panel.

Something else that might be worth consideration: there is a modification available so that one may decide how many points of their reputation power go with each rep comment. To most of us with piddley singular rep power, this doesn't mean much, but I know on other forums I have appreciated being able to in a way "rate" a post. For example, sometimes I want to rep someone simply because I really like their new avatar and it brightened by day. I wouldn't want to give them as many rep points as someone who wrote out a very thought provoking and well-crafted post, though.

Another thing there is, I don't know if it's a modification or just an option for the thanks-mod, but there is a way to make it so that each thank adds a rep point to a user's reputation. I know when they started doing that on another forum I became a lot more careful about which posts I thanked (I limited to the ones I'd only thank if someone had said such a thing to me IRL.).


My opinion stands as it was stated.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 06:27 AM
Why not give it a try in the Lounge?

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 01:13 PM
I just received my first negative reputation point for starting a reply with the word "bullshit" (even though I gave a proper reasonable explanation of why I labeled my oponent's opinion as such). Is this really where you want to go with this?

Besides that, I do not seem to be able to hand out any negative reputation points. The person handing my this negative reputation point was one of the moderators and it seems like now only moderators are able to give negative rep. Or am I missing something?

I really don't like where this is going. Most VBulletin forums have dismissed the idea of negative rep a long time ago for a very good reason (abuse) and now they're starting to use it here.

* sigh *

Gefjon
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 01:35 PM
No offense IlluSionSxxx but you seem to be the only person around here who complains about such little things on a regular basis. Didn't you say we shouldn't take forum life so seriously? :D
I got a negative rep too but the mod gave me a positive one afterwards to balance it. I didn't mind cause I was out of line. ;) You're a grownup, aren't you? Not a crybaby. So stop whining and move on. The mods can't blame you if you don't use bad words. ;)

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 01:41 PM
No offense IlluSionSxxx but you seem to be the only person around here who complains about such little things on a regular basis. Didn't you say we shouldn't take forum life so seriously? :D

For me, spending time on forums like these is entertainment. It is my favorite entertainment in between jobs at work. I don't consider being censored, offended or wrongfully accused very entertaining.


I got a negative rep too but the mod gave me a positive one afterwards to balance it. I didn't mind cause I was out of line. ;)

I do mind, because I don't see anything wrong with the post in question.


You're a grownup, aren't you? Not a crybaby. So stop whining and move on. The mods can't blame you if you don't use bad words. ;)

Like I said, I come here to entertain myself. If I feel uncomfortable around here, I can't entertain myself and actually get stressed.

I really hate it it when people behave in such an oversensitive fashion. I behave no different here than I behave among my best friends and I really don't feel like I'm being impolite or disrespectful. All these oversensitive reactions make me feel quite uncomfortable, which pretty much removes the point of being here.

Gefjon
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 01:45 PM
For me, spending time on forums like these is entertainment. It is my favorite entertainment in between jobs at work. I don't consider being censored, offended or wrongfully accused very entertaining.




I do mind, because I don't see anything wrong with the post in question.



Like I said, I come here to entertain myself. If I feel uncomfortable around here, I can't entertain myself and actually get stressed.

I really hate it it when people behave in such an oversensitive fashion. I behave no different here than I behave among my best friends and I really don't feel like I'm being impolite or disrespectful. All these oversensitive reactions make me feel quite uncomfortable, which pretty much removes the point of being here.
Hmm, I see. In that case, why don't you start your own forum where you can give folks the privileges you want and disable reputation and all that? No mods will censor you there. :D Or perhaps seek some different form of entertainment. Damn that boss of yours for not giving you enough work to do. :D

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 01:47 PM
Hmm, I see. In that case, why don't you start your own forum where you can give folks the privileges you want and disable reputation and all that? No mods will censor you there. :D

A friend and I had the idea to start our own internet think tank about 2 years ago. We were both too busy, though, and I don't have the funds myself. Also, we more or less lost contact. So I pretty much gave up that idea.

Besides that, I've encountered several other forums that disabled the reputation system altogether. There's just too much abuse of the system and too much friction because some people are just too narrowminded and/or immature....


Or perhaps seek some different form of entertainment.

What else can a man do at work from behind his laptop?


Damn that boss of yours for not giving you enough work to do. :D

:D

mischak
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 01:54 PM
What else can a man do at work from behind his laptop?

I dunno, work? ;)

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 01:57 PM
I dunno, work? ;)

Sometimes you just don't have anything to do. Besides that, it's not a good idea to work too hard all the time. ;)

If I need to catch a deadline, I sometimes work 10 hours or more on a day. When I have only very little work, I sometimes barely do anything. That's pretty much the life of a consultant.

Gefjon
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 02:03 PM
What else can a man do at work from behind his laptop?Dunno, play solitaire? :p

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Dunno, play solitaire? :p

I need intellectual stimulation for my entertainment. That's one of the reasons I don't like sports :p

Oswiu
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 04:53 PM
I really hate it it when people behave in such an oversensitive fashion. I behave no different here than I behave among my best friends and I really don't feel like I'm being impolite or disrespectful. All these oversensitive reactions make me feel quite uncomfortable, which pretty much removes the point of being here.

You are not amongst your best friends. You are in an artificial environment that doesn't take its name from the Roman Forum for nothing. There are established ways of acting here. Not only that, but this is not exactly a public space - it was set up and is run by individuals who put a lot of effort into trying to keep it true to their original vision.

Where I come from, we don't use the term "Bullshit", as it sounds like a crass Americanism. However, if you had written "Well, (whoever), I'm afraid that's bullshit," you might have expected a different reaction than simply writing "Bullshit" got you. I'd still not have been delighted to see that sort of talk here, but I hope you can see the difference.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 16th, 2007, 10:23 AM
You are not amongst your best friends. You are in an artificial environment that doesn't take its name from the Roman Forum for nothing. There are established ways of acting here. Not only that, but this is not exactly a public space - it was set up and is run by individuals who put a lot of effort into trying to keep it true to their original vision.

I realise that my method of discussion tends to polarise people, but this both in a positive and a negative fashion. Far from everyone who has given me multiple positive reps is a national-socialist, and this in spite of the conflicts I've been involved into during my short time on this forum. I'd say my methods work better than you might think.

Anyway, I prefer polarising people over not having an impact at all.


Where I come from, we don't use the term "Bullshit", as it sounds like a crass Americanism. However, if you had written "Well, (whoever), I'm afraid that's bullshit," you might have expected a different reaction than simply writing "Bullshit" got you. I'd still not have been delighted to see that sort of talk here, but I hope you can see the difference.

What is a big difference for you is but a tiny nuance for me.

Evolved
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 07:14 AM
So here it is, my suggestion to add a stupid button we can push when we read retarded posts. ;)

I think it's a smart and funny idea. Without the ability to leave negative rep or express displeasure it is a little bit like the voting ballot in a dictatorship (http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6279/iraqballotva3.jpg). If negative rep is too controversial (toughen up, ya sissies!:)), there could at least be an option to leave neutral rep along with any snide comments.

Gefjon
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:09 AM
I think it's a smart and funny idea. Without the ability to leave negative rep or express displeasure it is a little bit like the voting ballot in a dictatorship (http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6279/iraqballotva3.jpg). If negative rep is too controversial (toughen up, ya sissies!:)), there could at least be an option to leave neutral rep along with any snide comments.
Finally someone who makes some sense. Some folks here are too sissy to deal with negative rep. What are ya afraid of, folks, that someone will tell ya their honest opinion? :D Even with positive rep I get comments like these:

You finally create a decent thread. Most of your others stink.
:D:D:D

You aren't babies anymore to hide behind mommy's skirt when someone makes some criticism. :rolleyes:

IlluSionSxxx
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:21 AM
You aren't babies anymore to hide behind mommy's skirt when someone makes some criticism. :rolleyes:

The problem with negative rep is that it is but rarely used for deserved criticism, which is why so many forums are reluctant to use it.

Blood_Axis
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:25 AM
The problem with negative rep is that it is but rarely used for deserved criticism, which is why so many forums are reluctant to use it.
That's true. It has always been misused for everything else besides its original purpose.

Gefjon
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:29 AM
The positive reps aren't used for their original purpose either, but no oen complains about that do they? ;)

Blood_Axis
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:34 AM
but no oen complains about that do they?

:confused: Freudian slip :D

Gefjon
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Hehe, typo. :D
But seriously, this is so one-sided. I rather reputation was disabled than only be able to give/get positive rep. ;)

Blood_Axis
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:40 AM
Hehe, typo. :D
But seriously, this is so one-sided. I rather reputation was disabled than only be able to give/get positive rep. ;)
I agree. I once proposed that the reputation value is disabled and that it stays only as a messaging system. ;) One always can use the "Thanks" button to express approval, afterall.

Sigurd
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:49 AM
Well in the end, this thread sums up a pretty old notion. "I don't care about reputation levels". Oh really, is that why everyone is talking about it over and over again.

It's like the good old "size doesn't matter" line. A lie that everyone puts forward because they think they'll sound shallow, insulting, condescending if they say the opposite. Hence it'd appear that to people reputation DOES matter.

Apart from me of course, that is, like everyone else I am of the firm belief that I'm the only unshallow person here who doesn't give a damn about his reputation level (I just check them for the messages I get...), ya know. :rolleyes:



What is a big difference for you is but a tiny nuance for me.

'Tis common courtesy to be polite. Old Germanic custom to combine honesty with at least a bit of diplomacy. It's like telling a woman that she were "ugly". Telling her that she is "not your type" is equally truthful and less unpolished....in fact saying that you "don't find her that attractive" would be better than telling her to be ugly. Then you extend that to other things ... just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so are opinions/ideas/ideologies: Everyone has a different concept of thinking when it comes to him. Hence I believe I get where Oswiu is coming from (correct me if I'm wrong, Russian lad. :D) when he says he dislikes your way of referring to someone else's opinion as "bullshit". ;)

Gefjon
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 11:52 AM
I care about reputation levels. :D

Northern Paladin
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 03:49 AM
We are able to "thank" users when they make an interesting contribution, or if we agree with them, but what if we don't agree, or their post is simply ignorant or just plain stupid? What if their contribution is so distasteful that it's not enough to simply ignore them? A thumbs down, or "no thanks" button would come in handy.

Any thoughts?

Wulfram
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 03:59 AM
We are able to "thank" users when they make an interesting contribution, or if we agree with them, but what if we don't agree, or their post is simply ignorant or just plain stupid? What if their contribution is so distasteful that it's not enough to simply ignore them? A thumbs down, or "no thanks" button would come in handy.

Any thoughts?

Oftentimes its bad enough when a post has not a single thumbs up.
In many cases that can sometimes feel like there are ten thumbs down across the bottom instead. :D

wivienne
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:18 AM
Oftentimes its bad enough when a post has not a single thumbs up.
In many cases that can sometimes feel like there are ten thumbs down across the bottom instead. :D

I agree. It would make a communication bad for our mind and self-appraisal :D

Loyalist
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:25 AM
No, it would be a catalyst for unnecessary forum drama and disputes.

Heinrich Harrer
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:47 AM
No, it would be a catalyst for unnecessary forum drama and disputes.

I'm fine with how the system currently works.

But I wouldn't say that a thumbs down option would necessarily be a catalyst for more drama. Instead it might also work as a valve to release some pressure (does that usage of words make sense in english?), and people might leave it at that if they can simply express their disagreement in this way. Otherwise they might be tempted to write a reply which could be a lot more inflammatory.

To prevent some drama the thumbs down could perhaps be anonymous. I liked how the youtube system worked in the past with having anonymous thumbs up and thumbs down. At the moment I think they changed it a little and only the positive 'thumbs up' remain - one can reduce the number of thumbs up, but it seems that there aren't any posts anymore with a lot of accumulated red thumbs down.

Erlk÷nig
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:02 AM
Au contraire, criticism is the catalyst for all intellectual growth and discussion; However the majority of people here have large egos and will disagree with ideas because they have personal conflicts, rather than looking at the idea objectively.

Any sort of anonymous "voting" system just returns to the shortfalls of democracy. Rather there should be a 'this point was already made' button, to discourage repetitive and obsequious posts.

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:19 AM
I would say no.
We don't want to end up like Youtube where someone says one thing (regardless of its relativity and quality) and it's what everyone migrates to because it's received a lot of attention, creating some kind of appeal to authority, not evaluating to any other post that could peak their interest.

Herefugol
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:25 AM
I think there are too many different viewpoints on Skadi for this idea to work. It would just turn the forum into some sort of democracy (where the mainstream will prevail).

Heinrich Harrer
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 07:18 AM
I think there are too many different viewpoints on Skadi for this idea to work. It would just turn the forum into some sort of democracy (where the mainstream will prevail).

I don't think this would happen. In a way there wouldn't be a big difference, as Ronan alread pointed out that a lack of 'thanks' basically indicates the same thing (at least if the person you argue with gets a lot of thanks in contrast). People can already see which posts get a lot of approvement and which don't. And unlike on youtube posts with a lot of thumbs up don't end up on the first page monopolizing the attention.

Then again unity and some form of cohesion can also be an advantage. If everybody pulls in a different direction, it will just be like random brownian motion and not much will be accomplished. And isn't this form of individualism a better description of western democracy? Everyone has his own special opinion, there are countless right-wing parties fighting each other, in essence most of them cancel each other out. To achieve something you need coordinated movement, which only the jews and the liberals with the media seem to be able to create. So should we celebrate our individualism and lack of cohesion which neutralises us? Is something that could increase community cohesion necessarily a bad thing?

But this remark was just a digression, as I don't think that thumbs up/thumbs down would have any influence on this matter (at least adding thumbs down wouldn't change a lot from the current system of having thumbs up).

Ediruc
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 07:20 AM
No. My ego will be hurt :D

Rev. Jupiter
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 07:24 AM
So, Forest King, you're proposing a system of determining truth and validity through the tyranny of the majority? You're proposing a system of shouting down people whose understanding doesn't fit in with the norm?

That's just about the Jewiest thing I've ever heard.

Whenever I decide whether or not something is a good idea online, I ask myself if I'd do it in real life.
Since I don't make a habit of getting in the face of people I disagree with and going SHUT UP YOU'RE STUPID, I can't ever see myself supporting the online equivalent.

Herefugol
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 07:43 AM
I don't think this would happen. In a way there wouldn't be a big difference, as Ronan alread pointed out that a lack of 'thanks' basically indicates the same thing (at least if the person you argue with gets a lot of thanks in contrast). People can already see which posts get a lot of approvement and which don't. And unlike on youtube posts with a lot of thumbs up don't end up on the first page monopolizing the attention.

Then again unity and some form of cohesion can also be an advantage. If everybody pulls in a different direction, it will just be like random brownian motion and not much will be accomplished. And isn't this form of individualism a better description of western democracy? Everyone has his own special opinion, there are countless right-wing parties fighting each other, in essence most of them cancel each other out. To achieve something you need coordinated movement, which only the jews and the liberals with the media seem to be able to create. So should we celebrate our individualism and lack of cohesion which neutralises us? Is something that could increase community cohesion necessarily a bad thing?

But this remark was just a digression, as I don't think that thumbs up/thumbs down would have any influence on this matter (at least adding thumbs down wouldn't change a lot from the current system of having thumbs up).

Well, I believe Skadi isn't a political party with one ideology. There are Heathens, Protestants, Catholics and so forth, as well as countless different political views. Which direction should Skadi be pulling? I don't think some independent thinking is necessarily individualism.

Heinrich Harrer
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 07:59 AM
Well, I believe Skadi isn't a political party with one ideology. There are Heathens, Protestants, Catholics and so forth, as well as countless different political views. Which direction should Skadi be pulling? I don't think some independent thinking is necessarily individualism.

In the opposite direction of everything that threatens the very existence of our germanic societies in the future. I didn't mean to imply that Skadi is like a political party, but still we have some common goals I think. You're the one that compared Skadi to society and having thumbs up/down to modern democracy. I just think that the negative effects of our modern democracy have more to do with our division, and that having something that could increase community cohesion and make people gravitate to a common point of view isn't a bad thing. I don't think adding support for 'thumbs down' would have this effect, but as this point was made, I wanted to comment on it.

Herefugol
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 08:07 AM
In the opposite direction of everything that threatens the very existence of our germanic societies in the future. I didn't mean to imply that Skadi is like a political party, but still we have some common goals I think. You're the one that compared Skadi to society and having thumbs up/down to modern democracy. I just think that the negative effects of our modern democracy have more to do with our division, and that having something that could increase community cohesion and make people gravitate to a common point of view isn't a bad thing. I don't think adding support for 'thumbs down' would have this effect, but as this point was made, I wanted to comment on it.

Understood, and I agree with your point about cohesion. I still think *not* thumbing up is a less inflammatory way of disapproving a comment. On things that threaten Germanic societies, could it be argued that Christianity does? It has supplanted our indigenous religion with an essentially Middle Eastern one (arguably Jewish). When you say something is a threat to Germanic society, do you mean racially or culturally?

Heinrich Harrer
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 08:19 AM
I mean both culturally and racially. For example I don't think that it's a good development that more and more europeans are converting to Islam or are adopting otherwise foreign cultural identities. But I don't want to derail this thread into a religious debate, so I wont comment on the issue of Christianity/Germanic paganism here - this is something that should be discussed in its own thread.

Nachtengel
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 11:15 AM
It could be fun theoretically, but practically let's be realistic, people on this forum care far too much about their reputation for this to function properly. Even if it were anonymous, people would still want to find out who was the one who rated their posts negatively, maybe even go as far as to demand the administrators to look it up or what have you...

There is the negative reputation alternative however, for sustaining members. ;)

Thusnelda
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 02:37 PM
I often use the "thanks" button for informative and well-written posts, even when I don┤t share the opinion of the writer. :)

Extraordinarily good posts receive a positive reputation point remark.

Those wo want a "thumbs down" function should play with the thought to donate to Skadi: As a Skadi donator you receive the right to give negative red reputation points. But I use negative rep points just for really extremely bad or senseless posts, or for posts who contain rude insults.

I don┤t think a "thumbs down" function is needed. If you really want to show disapproval to some posts, open your purse and donate to Skadi! :P :D

Sigurd
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 02:57 PM
Same here, I oft thank posts I don't agree with but find useful, as that's what I find it's for. As for the Thumbs Down button, it's not needed and Thussy has summed it all up basically, including the Negative Rep function. ;)

Though I'm thinking that the line which could be added when a post is thumb-downed, would sound very funny probably: "The following X users say No Thanks to this useless post". :D

wittwer
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 03:01 PM
And to what purpose would a "Thumbs Down" message option serve, other than creating the ability to "Blackball" certain opinions or individuals based on their World View? In my opinion, that would do nothing more than drive Skadi to a single Party Line and view point.

Are Germanic view points all that consistent and uniform world wide?

From what we have here, there is much I'm in a agreement with, yet there is much I'm in disagreement with, but at least it gives us alternate view points on various issues.

Wulfram
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 03:02 PM
Though I'm thinking that the line which could be added when a post is thumb-downed, would sound very funny probably: "The following X users say No Thanks to this useless post". :D

Or you could respond to the useless post with another that says :

The following X users say No Thanks to this useless post

Then everybody who agrees with you can thank it. ;)

Thorolf
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 03:39 PM
I think a no thanks button would be a bad idea. It might also get overused and become an annoyance. I have seen posts that I disagree with, but are still good posts. The thing is some people might start using the thumbs down on those good posts simply because they disagree. I think it would just make some people look bad and might cause some anger for some. then theres the fact that when I'm in a hurry, I know I gravitate to posts with thanks to get the gist of things. No thanks button would just cause more names and be an annoyance if your skimming a thread to come back to later.

I think red rep being for all members would be a much better idea than a no thanks button. There are some posts that seriously deserve red rep points. As it is right now red rep is only for the contributing members, which is fine, they deserve some extra stuff. Though I think if us non contributors should get anything negative to give out, it should be rep and not some no thanks button.

As for the few posts I saw about wanting rep to just go away altogether. I think thats a terrible idea, rep is important. The better posters tend to be the ones with the most rep so it almost gives a badge of respect to those people. It also shows which newer members are the smarter ones when they start receiving more rep. I know I have gone on peoples profiles that had a bit of rep and found posts and threads I might not not have seen otherwise.

Thusnelda
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 08:00 PM
Or you could respond to the useless post with another that says :

The following X users say No Thanks to this useless post

Well, somehow I┤ve got the feeling that "some" *cough* users would make excessive use of such a feature...:P

Meister
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 09:21 PM
What's wrong with just not responding to posts you don't like? What might be stupid to one may not be to another.

I don't see a point in having thumbs up or down, it would encourage troll behaviour.

And I don't see any difference between thanking someone and adding to their reputation as some sites have.

Hilderinc
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 09:58 PM
And I don't see any difference between thanking someone and adding to their reputation as some sites have.

I like thumbs up because when you are scrolling through a thread with 10+ pages, if there is a post with very many "thanks", then your attention will be brought to that post (which hopefully 'earned' those "thanks")