Fake repuation system

[Turtle]

By a factor of 2 or more I am the most active user of the rep system and I can't resist commenting; hell, it may even be required.

Krim, stop acting like a kvetch all over the place and follow the 11th commandment;
Thow shalt not whine.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by GAHD

Do you have a detailed outline of a different structure you think is better? It's one thing to cry about something, it's quite another to provide a better alternative.

Of course I do, but no one on a forum like this is going to seriously consider it because it is a large change from the typical way of doing things. Most people are not capable of having confidence in doing something that deviates from convention because most people are not rational enough to be certain of any idea. They just do what others do and figure they can't go wrong that way.

A system where precise rules are created for the types of arguments to be allowed etc negates any need for moderators to make decisions. Instead of an incredibly vague rule like "respect others" or "act civily" that basically allows mods to derep/ban someone who disagrees with them, have rules that enforce the implied rules of debate. Like in person you can't yell over someone, or purposely misinterpret what someone is saying. Any recognition of someone using tactics like this would cause them to loose credibility. Then everyone would do it less knowing that anyone resorting to such tactics would be punished. No need for someone's naive interpretation of what is going on - just look at who can be convincing without "cheating".

But to be honest it doesn't take much to design something smarter than a system that attributes weight to the opinion of someone who posts a lot. When I asked why this entails a good judge of character, I hoped you realized the question was being asked facetiously. It's pretty typical - instincts of normal people drive them to adhere to social convention, but when they try to quantify this system in any way they just end up with something silly that is clearly invalid.

Originally Posted by GAHD

Only Administrators (who DO have the power to do 'whatever we want' anyways) are not subject to that rule.

Can do whatever they want in what sense? This kind of thinking can change the board from being an interesting place to discuss ideas to just being a random club for internet cranks who are afraid of opposing arguments. Thats the thing that makes this board so confusing. You know enough not to just outright ban people who disagree with you, but you use all these silly little methods to provide fake devaluation of opposing arguments.

I think you just realize that by outright banning someone your making your behavior too obvious, and you will have a label as a fundamentalist group. But you really have no intention of considering opposing arguments so you look for silly methods to discredit dissenters. The problem with this type of reasoning is that all it takes to undermine this tactic is for someone to call it out for what it is.

The world is governed by rules not people. Sure, you can make your own bored named "ONLY CHRISTIANS DESERVE TO LIVE" and ban anyone who questions christian ideas, but who cares? The ideas discussed in such a place are irrelevant to everything. People on such a board can come to a conclusion about life, and outside a leaf falls from a tree - another random expression of nature. Only a discussion environment based on the implied rules of debate can provide a description of nature instead of being a random expression of it.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by GAHD

I reiterate:Moderators are subject to the same rules of spreading-around as every other user. This counter is directly implemented already, for everyone.
.

This doesn't address what I said at all. They can be subject to the same rules all day long - it doesn't matter. Their opinion is not representative of the normal population. If reputation is supposed to be some statistical representation of the value of someone's statements, then you have violated the fundamental assumptions of probability theory by having not sampled from the population randomly and assigning equal weight to everyone's opinion.

If the rep system is not supposed to be that, then what purpose do you think the rep system is supposed to serve? You might as well have a chimp assign numbers to people and call it a rep system. This is what I mean by fake rep system.

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Of course I do, but no one on a forum like this is going to seriously consider it because...instincts of normal people drive them to adhere to social convention, but when they try to quantify this system in any way they just end up with something silly that is clearly invalid.

Originally Posted by me

It's one thing to cry about something, it's quite another to provide a better alternative.

If it's so easy, do it.
If you don't like rep turn it off.
It's an opt-in opt-out system.

The way it looks to me: You were fine with it when it made you look good, but the second it seems to critique you you get all flustered and scream bloody murder. Either LEARN from it, or ignore it and remain ignorant of whatever little jewel was hidden in that rough.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Can do whatever they want in what sense? This kind of thinking can change the board from being an interesting place to discuss ideas to just being a random club for internet cranks who are afraid of opposing arguments.

Lessee, Well *IF* I wanted to (and don't take this the wrong way) I could delete the entire forum, send spam to every user, change every post to contain the words "Cheese is glorious" or any number of other sill things, reset any user's password/postcount/karma/blog entries, Change the banners, change the forum style, change the default sorting options, (un)install custom options... "whatever we want" means we have acess to all the "tools" any VBulliten developper/administrator would. If you want a complete list you'd have to go bone up on vbulliten's wiki, cause to be quite frank even after years of use I haven't quite dented the possibilities that my level of access really allows. (And I'm glad I haven't needed to!)

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Thats the thing that makes this board so confusing. You know enough not to just outright ban people who disagree with you, but you use all these silly little methods to provide fake devaluation of opposing arguments.

I find the implication against my character offensive. I like to think I'm a very tolerant individual in comparison to the majority of the unwashed mases. If you can find any instances where I HAVE done this by all means let me know! Neg rep(or a polite PM) teaches me where I've made mistakes; I'm only human ya know.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

I think you just realize that by outright banning someone your making your behavior too obvious, and you will have a label as a fundamentalist group. But you really have no intention of considering opposing arguments so you look for silly methods to discredit dissenters. The problem with this type of reasoning is that all it takes to undermine this tactic is for someone to call it out for what it is.

This is circular logic to me. We quite plainly state "back up your claims". If you can back it up you can post it, how is requiring proof a "silly method to discredit dissenters"? Is banning all the viagra and WoWgold ads so they don't waste the space we pay for lumped in here? I really want to understand how you come to this.

Did you understand what I meant when I posted that picture of the oddly slanted room that messes with your perception of perspective?

FYI, suspending posting privileges is one of those major decisions we make as a group(with the exception of obvious spam).

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The world is governed by rules not people. Sure, you can make your own [message board]...based on the implied rules of debate can provide a description of nature instead of being a random expression of it.

I don't see your point, it seems to me like you're zig zagging around something but not really defining it. Might be an issue with our different dialects of English, so please bear with me and try to break it down a little better.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

This doesn't address what I said at all. They can be subject to the same rules all day long - it doesn't matter. Their opinion is not representative of the normal population...You might as well have a chimp assign numbers to people and call it a rep system. This is what I mean by fake rep system.

that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I refer you back to the first part of this post.
Reputation is whatever the users make of it. Moderators are certainly a part of the general population and drawing a line of "us vs. them" serves no purpose that I can see.

[jab2]

I have been following this discussion with amazement. Not once in my time on Hypography has I felt that one is discriminated against. Be it the rep system, warnings from mods to be on topic, etc.

If I however look at the OP's username and the way he/she debates, I can come to no other conclusion that the OP loves using the spoon, and a big one at that.

[Kriminal99]

In short:

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count, which is fallacious and wrong.

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

If this is your opinion of Hypography, then why are you still posting here?

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

In short:

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count, which is fallacious and wrong.

So you keep saying, but I have yet to to see you present a complete and better alternative.

The more a user posts, the more they have contributed to the site as a whole, thus the more 'they are' the site, ya know?

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

Why? "Because I say so" isn't very convincing.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

I wouldn't say a LOT, although there have been a few I can think of who have left(and a few returned) because of reputation.

Additionally you're making very broad generalizations here; "a lot", "similar reasons". It's far more productive if you can be a little more specific.

Thanks again for taking the time to talk it out rationally.

Edit: "Kriminal99 is infamous around these parts" now I feel all nostalgic, that used to be MY reputation catchphrase too! Seems pretty bad ass, eh?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count

Post count contributes only slightly to rep power, the number of points added to a members rep points when giving positive rep. Rep power = (rep points + post count)/50. For most members, post count contributes less than 3% or their rep power.

Were this not the case, you would have a much higher rep than, say, jab2, who has less than 1/6 your post count.

Recall that when giving negative rep (disapproving), rep power is halved.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

At hypography, and most boards using the vBulletin forum engine with rep enabled, members are not required to give up their membership privileges upon becoming moderators. Were this the case, it would be difficult to recruit enough moderators to maintain a site without paying them, as most people qualified to be moderators want to continue being members. Hypography runs on a modest budget, so cannot afford to hire professional, non-member moderators.

Krim, if you wish to have a higher reputation, you should write posts to which other members – including members who are moderators and administrators – give positive rep. Rep giving is voluntary, and neither you nor any moderator or administrator can compel any member to give it to you. Only you can convince members to show their approval of you and your posts by giving you positive rep.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

Krim, you are of course free to find a forum some or all of these people have joined after voluntarily or involuntarily leaving hypography, or to create your own for them. If you believe what you have said here, you should, I think, seriously consider doing this.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

In short:

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count, which is fallacious and wrong.

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

I think you are very happy playing the part of the misunderstood intellectual. It’s the niche you yourself have carved out. I have received a ton of infractions and been suspended many times,, then I realized I was getting a lot perspective from people on here , it began quite naturally that I would then start contributing to the site so that it might reflect some of my perspective which by then had been broadened. Positive rep could reflect many things curiosity for one.

I am sure you read the right books and have a high IQ but you’re post have mostly been very narrow in scope, and you are usually correct but ‘anti’ all the time gets to be about you being overly offend and not very interesting. When I see the name, I know it will be a view about how narrow and unfair the establishment is.