Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Don't put too much weight on the rep system, Jway.
If I remember correctly, it was bumpy for you at first because of some religious posts that skirted with the site rules. I also remember offering to help you out with understanding the system and rules here. That offer still stands if you would like to send me a PM.
|
My preference is to discuss it out here because it seems like community issue, more than say issue with just an isolated few. But if it means my rep is at stake, then PM might be better route. Since you are saying not to put too much weight in the rep system, then I just assume have discussion out here.
Having posts that skirt with site rules, and how that leads to -4000 points seems lopsided. I've reviewed by 110+ posts to date, and I think I found 5 to 10 that were in vein of "religious." I use your word, because I see that is how I am perceived, but IMO, it is not religious speak that is (overtly) affiliated with any particular religion. Let's go with 10 posts on the liberal side, and let's say then that 9% of my first posts here were ones that skirted with site rules. Not understanding how points are assessed, the -4000 seems lopsided. My infractions got me -2 points. So, comparing that to the larger number and it seems like you can never make it up, no matter how "good" you are.
But then today, I made up over 5000 points with one post that doesn't really feel that much different from the 91% of the other posts I had on this site in the early going.
To cap it off, and perhaps to my detriment, I don't regret my "religious" posts. If I could have rational person, who is open minded, go through and review those posts, perhaps context would matter on this "skirting the rules" claim you make, as it seems to me, honestly, that I was not skirting the rules in a way that is "out of the ordinary" and within context of philosophy and theology forums. But I do recognize that if I "push" this argument that I'm making in this paragraph, I stand to lose here on this site. For sure lose rep points, and possibly get infractions by people with itchy trigger fingers, that I see as coming from bias through the neg rep system.
Quote:
Out of sincere curiousity, What makes you feel unwelcome here? Is it just the negative rep and the comments? Or is it something else?
We want everyone to feel welcome here, even if they are not popular with other members. Again, if there is anything I can do, let us know. 
|
It's the neg rep system and the comments from those, plus the perceived weight (that I gave them) that had me feeling unwelcome. Perceived weight coming from -4000 points, and not understanding how that was arrived at. But as I review my neg rep comments, they are me having to deal with bias, rather than say accuracy or forum rules. And even if they were on forum rules, the weight accorded to the negative seemed grossly lopsided. Again, I had 5 green squares, 4 red squares, and I was far more in the negative than positive.
As I traced my early history here, I saw me after say 30 posts venturing into areas of the site where I thought I might be more comfortable (philosophy and theology). And to this moment, I truly believe I followed both site rules and guidelines for those areas. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on my take on this, but it is how I feel. That my infractions are expired and I have very few, makes me realize this wasn't a big deal as far as me moving forward on this site. But until today, the -4000 points seemed like reason why I might be hesitant on moving forward, and for possibly a long time to come.
With nature of philosophy and theology discussions, I'm thinking the rules could be more lax. IMO, this would help things. To have a place on site, where the rigid rule of "back up what you're saying" isn't so rigid. I'm not saying abandon the rule, I'm saying make it less rigid. I pride myself on backing up what I say, being honest about it, covering the bases, etc. But having to deal with the brute bias of an atheist in Theology forum, who seems to have "preaching" agenda in that area, and who can bust into ad hom and off topic rhetoric at just about any post, it can become confusing for people not familiar with culture here.
My sound bite response to all this (that I don't really favor) is if discussions of theology and philosophy aren't warmly welcomed, I would suggest shutting those areas off. It invites an "element" to the site, and that can spill over to areas that are less lax with site rules, i.e. Psychology.
Anyway, I'm still a bit hesitant about posting (which isn't a bad thing), I do feel more welcomed after making up 5000 points (magically) in one post today, but I'm still in place where other areas of the world wide web hold more appeal for me. I like coming here. I learn stuff each time. People seem respectful and considerate. So, it's perhaps now more a matter of preference than confusion of protocols here on this site (as it was earlier for me today), but what I've said in this post hopefully helps you all understand perspective of this 'newbie.'
Cheers,
J
Re: Fake repuation system
we've written reams on the memes, modified the modes, recalibrated the calibars, ratcheted the ratchets, and in ways yet poorly understood, fiddled with the chaotic reputation of the cosmos.
semantics is not always just pedantic quibbling. ~ douglas r. hofstadter
let's just say it's debated. 
anyway, i liked your post today as well as several recent & i didn't like those red boxes next to them because they struck me as dissonant & since i could do something about it i did. didn't hurt to hurry me either to work my spell that i saw you were posting to this thread and figured i knew jolly well why. 
one thing's for sure here, a little sense of humor goes a long way. now if you pardon me i'm late for my saturday megalomaniac therapy group . 
