# Reputation System Discussion



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

ehMax said:


> I long so much for ehMac to be a forum again where it's just about good quality information being shared among friends..


Me too.  Remember how ehMac was before you made the "Canadian Kitchen" circa fall 2002? Unreal Tournament Game nights... friendly, helpful _*Mac*_ discussions... those were the days. :love2:


ehMax said:


> Holy Pandora's box batman. What have I created when I opened this kitchen forum?


Damn you, Apple! Why did you have to become popular. :lmao:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Bjornbro said:


> Me too.  Remember how ehMac was before you made the "Canadian Kitchen" circa fall 2002? Unreal Tournament Game nights... friendly, helpful _*Mac*_ discussions... those were the days. :love2:
> Damn you, Apple! Why did you have to become popular. :lmao:


Ha ha... 

I FONDLY remember Unreal Tournaments, and the old days of the forums. 

Nothing says we can't get back there. 

I'm convinced the constant political threads in the manner they are conducted intertwined with the regular Everything Else forum (And regular threads) drives people away and is overall a negative of the site. I want to fix it. 

I've tried a couple times, but it just doesn't work.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

ehMax said:


> Ha ha...
> 
> I FONDLY remember Unreal Tournaments, and the old days of the forums.
> 
> ...


A few locks and a few bans - your good to go!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ehMax said:


> I'm convinced the constant political threads in the manner they are conducted intertwined with the regular Everything Else forum (And regular threads) drives people away and is overall a negative of the site. I want to fix it.
> 
> I've tried a couple times, but it just doesn't work.


The same complaint comes up quite a bit on another forum I post on... basically, people have been saying the same thing about the politics overrunning the place since 9/11. It's a very loosely moderated forum, but no amount of protesting or asking for self-moderation seems to work.

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that they only way is to simply overrun the forum with fun, non-political topics. It's difficult to do, since people don't typically have to same passion for, say, Roll Up the Rim To Win as they do for politics... but ultimately it seems to be the only way to include *some* political discussion without having it overrun the forum.

If I take a glance at the Everything Else forum now, I see, what, roughly 1/3 of the threads are arguing politics or religion? That's pretty high.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My recollection was that when Politics was given its own forum, the activity dropped severely in both the Everything Else and Politics forums--and the Everything Else forum required constant policing for political digs.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> My recollection was that when Politics was given its own forum, the activity dropped severely in both the Everything Else and Politics forums--and the Everything Else forum required constant policing for political digs.


And even when politics was asked to be confined to its own thread, it bleeds out all over the place.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I was a member of a forum where they had a public 'Karma' system. If you did good things, you'd get good Karma (up to +15), and if you displeased the moderators they could strip you of Karma - down to a negative 15. If you got down to -15 you got a couple of weeks 'time out' to think about your posting style, and then if you didn't post things that got you negative karma, eventually over time the negative karma would be forgiven and you'd work back up to zero. (Karma above zero only came from moderators, not from just posting a lot.) So banishment was more of a cumulative thing.

Everyone could see each other's Karma, so it was fairly easy to see who to 'ignore', or that the moderators were aware of their activity, because their karma would be dropping. 

It worked well. 

(On that same forum now they just have 'warning levels', but the warning levels are only visible to moderators and the person affected, so there isn't the positive or public reinforcement.)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MLeh said:


> I was a member of a forum where they had a public 'Karma' system. If you did good things, you'd get good Karma (up to +15), and if you displeased the moderators they could strip you of Karma - down to a negative 15. If you got down to -15 you got a couple of weeks 'time out' to think about your posting style, and then if you didn't post things that got you negative karma, eventually over time the negative karma would be forgiven and you'd work back up to zero. (Karma above zero only came from moderators, not from just posting a lot.) So banishment was more of a cumulative thing.
> 
> Everyone could see each other's Karma, so it was fairly easy to see who to 'ignore', or that the moderators were aware of their activity, because their karma would be dropping.
> 
> ...


I think this is something worth trying out. 

I was almost going to mention enabling "Reputations" feature in a previous post. I thought that feature was enabled by other users voting on other's reputations (Or Karma, whatever we want to call it), but my concern was some members might use it to just vote down other member's who's opinion they didn't agree with. 

If it was just done by moderators, (Which I checked we have the capability) that might work better.

Would start everyone at a level, positive reputation. Negative reputation would *not* be given out for points of views, or as any way to censor topics, but solely in the manner in which they are presented. Negative rep given out for insulting other members, or using disparaging rhetoric meant to insult another member. 

Think we're going to implement this, and move political threads out of general topics. 

Feel very strongly about this, and I know many other members do too. Know for a fact we lost a lot of good members lately who grew tired of the type of posting we're trying to curb, even this week a very good member from many years ago said he was leaving. 

Even if it meant the quantity of posts diminished, that's a risk we're willing to take. Don't think it will. We're not after quantity of posts anyways.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Negative reputation would *not* be given out for points of views, or as any way to censor topics, but solely in the manner in which they are presented. Negative rep given out for insulting other members, or using disparaging rhetoric meant to insult another member.


Think carefully about the large amount of work this will entail to do fairly. 

Also, how does negative reputation reverse itself--through moderator opinion of positive behaviour, or through time with no black marks?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> I think this is something worth trying out.
> 
> I was almost going to mention enabling "Reputations" feature in a previous post. I thought that feature was enabled by other users voting on other's reputations (Or Karma, whatever we want to call it), but my concern was some members might use it to just vote down other member's who's opinion they didn't agree with.
> 
> ...


This new approach deserves its very own thread to be discussed properly by members and the mayor should launch it as a proposed policy change, not tucked away in a thread about a picture.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks ehMax, this is a better way to delve into what may be a very slippery slope. More on that later.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> This new approach deserves its very own thread to be discussed properly by members and the mayor should launch it as a proposed policy change, not tucked away in a thread about a picture.


Good suggestion. I have moved some of these posts to this new thread. 

We're discussing about using vBulletin's Reputation System (Some forums call it Karma points etc...) See posts above, particularly MLeh's post. 

The main idea is, it would be used as a way to curb behaviour in which some ehMac members, instead of discussing ideas and points of view, turn to making jabs or insults directed at other ehMac members, or generic "rhetoric" political comments at each other. "You dumb Fiberals" or "The Con Lap Puppies are at it again" etc.. 

If a member posted such comment, they would get some negative reputation points, issued by moderators. It serves as a warning, and also publicly displays this negative reputation for other members, both regular members and new visiting members. 

Get too many negative reputation points, and a members is given a small vacation from ehMac with some time to mull over their posting style. 

Members can get positive reputation points for exceptional posts. Over time, if members haven't had any negative points, they get automatic positive reputation points. It's customizable with other factors too. 

The other options is having fellow members be able to vote reputation points too. My only concern is, I want criteria to be solely on posting style and quality, not based on what the opinions are, what side of political fence one sits on, or what their religious ideologies ares etc... 

This is an open discussion on the topic. 

This is being discussed for an issue that I have felt about ehMac for quite a while and many other members have mentioned to me as well. Several really good members have left over it as well: On certain topics and issues, and it's infiltrated other topics on ehMac as well, at times there can be a level of hostility. Instead of issues and topics being discussed, topics can turn to comments directed at fellow members. Several other topics, like political ones, become full of rhetoric with repetitive right wing vs left wing stereotypes hurled back and forth. 

Many remember ehMac back in the beginning where things were often a lot friendlier and the idea was sharing information about Macs, and also having interesting discussions on a variety of Canadian topics. The idea is not to avoid "hot-button" issues, but to have a certain level of decorum and civility. Topics and points of views can be debated and disagreed on, but the comments do not turn into attacks directed at the members delivering the point of view. 

Sorry for the grammar errors in typos, long week and I'm a bit tired.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I guess my question would be: is there any evidence that posting one's reputation has any concrete effect on individual members' behaviour? Have conclusive studies been conducted in this regard? My way of thinking about it is that most of us would (at least initially) try to curb our worst impulses, but there's always going to be those individuals who relish being on the outs with the majority of the forum. I've seen it before in other forums and a certain archetype internet poster will always rise (or lower themselves) to the occasion.

As well, though it's a fine wish to have people rate others' reputations without prejudice regarding political or religious persuasions, does anyone really think most people won't still vote with a fair bit of ideological or emotional baggage on board? I rather expect this is the default behaviour for folks.

I have no problem with this board trying on different things in an effort to remain relevant. Hey, whatever works. If I don't happen to like the changes wrought, I am under no compunction to stay; nor is anyone else.

My vote: go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Implement this proposed measure. Let's all see what happens.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm all for it.  Hope that doesn't come back to bite me in the ass.

Or... maybe turn it on, but don't enable the penalties just yet? Perhaps members simply seeing how their fellow ehmacians view them would be sufficient to curb some of the excesses of behaviour?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think this decision requires much more thought that it has currently been given.

As always, I have questions and offer them as points for discussion. And yes, I recognize as the site owner, the mayor is within his rights to impose whatever he wishes as policy here. That noted, here are some reservations I have that might be worth consideration:

If I am understanding your proposal correctly Mr. Mayor, five people, (Chealion, ehMax, Vexel, gmark2000 and speckledmind) will sit in judgement of the nearly 40,000 registered members, handing out ratings based entirely on their own personal opinions, beliefs (or current whims), as to whether or not a member is posting properly or responsibly?

Are all of the mods comfortable with that kind of censorship (or call it whatever you will, but that term certainly creeps into the possibilities) under such a policy?

Who makes such a call in the mods daily lives? Are the mods comfortable with five people around them in their routine daily lives with the final authority to judge them without any recourse?

Since ehMax seems convinced this is a good idea, my question to Chealion, Vexel, gmark2000 and speckledmind is, are you ready, able and willing to impose your personal judgments and values on your fellow members of ehMac?

Are all of you confident in your judgement being impeccable and properly represent an honest and accurate assessment of marking members thoughts and feelings? Are you willing to accept that type of responsibility as moderators here? Can you guarantee to be free of any personal emotions when making such judgements on the spur of the moment when you first react to a post?

No disrespect intended here, just some questions that pop into my mind as to the capability of five people to judge nearly 40,000 and more realistically about 1,000 regular posters?

Those are my initial questions, what do others think?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good points, SINC. This would mean the mods would need to read EVERY post written. Additionally, are the mods ready to receive PMs warning them of posts that appear to have been ignored that may have resulted in no negative karma--or to justify why some posts received negative karma and another didn't?

And while it's fairly evident that you could ding a forum member for using a phrase like "King Harpo" or "Fiberals", what would constitute an exemplary post--that would be entirely a personal matter.

And yes, I have been on a forum where karma points were awarded by other members. Unpopular members sank like stones under a barrage of negative awards based largely on politcal orientation.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Some very good points being made here.

I wonder about the "good old days" of ehMac. I joined in early '04 when MacNutt was holding court. Although I felt like he was a jolly fellow and seemed to be able to take just about any insult I could think of dishing out, his posting style could be pretty brutal if one was the least bit thin-skinned. I also remember another person who jousted with him regularly from the left who would get particularly nasty and was banned that year I think. Not before he made some very insulting posts directed at a few members. I actually think things have toned down since those days. Just look back at some of the political posts from that time. I was fairly new to forum posting back then and I used to throw out some barbs as well, until I slowly started to see it didn't help me make my point and was not really reflecting anything useful.

But there seems to be something going on currently where a few select members really appear to really dislike each other and take every opportunity to bash each other in ways that seem to me to be mostly petty. In my mind it contributes a lot of noise to the signal.

I don't think it would be a good idea at all to have members rating each other. But if moderators are going to do that work, they may need to really try and be honest with themselves. If I was a moderator I would honestly find that to set my biases aside would be very difficult. As well, it is extremely difficult to interpret tone in text-based communication. And also, the moderator would have to correctly surmise the relationship going on between the two posters, it might be that what appears to look insulting between two people might be a kind of sarcastic jousting that they are both willing to be a part of, while with another two posters a slightly negative looking comment might be going off the deep end.

One tool that I think can work very well with this would be to analyze the style of the arguments made. I've posted this graphic here before, so I'll just link to it, but the "Hierarchy of Disagreement" rates types of arguing with name-calling being at the bottom and going up from there.

Over all, I think ehMac is generally a really great forum where even though some people can really disagree, those same people can be extremely helpful when you need some real-world advice, either about Macs or all manner of other things.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You know, thinking further on the topic, I fear it would amount to yet another layer of red tape and bureaucracy. Which reminds me. I was out and about in my 'hood earlier today and ran into a friendly fellow who commenced to talk about Canadian's profound love for rules and regulations. He loves his country but he also felt it was obvious that we allow ourselves to be governed to within an inch of our lives.

I don't know - to me, the man has a point. Too many rules and a place dies, suffocates under the unwieldy weight of its own behavioural code, however well meaning it may be. Nor in saying this do I mean to excuse bad behaviour here under the current conditions. I just don't see a graceful solution. Humans are messy, passionate creatures. Human society is really no different.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

The mods wouldn't have to read every post. There is a 'report post' button. I think it would be fairly obvious that if a lot of people hit the 'report post' button then perhaps the mods should look at the post.

But, if there is no repercussion for being a jerk, then the jerks will continue to be jerks. Conversely, if there is no acknowledgement of people who are helpful, why continue to try?


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

How does this not end up being a popularity contest? Or the regular posters vote for the regulars, and you get an alpha list.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

In my opinion it should be left to the community at large and individual members in particular rather than a few representatives making calls on what they think is acceptable or not.

If a member consistently finds a specific member's posts not to their taste, they already have the privilege of ignoring them. I think this is a good system and should be left alone. Anything else - though beginning with purely good intentions - will end up in censorship. If a moderator (or a designated authority-figure) takes offence at a post or a poster for whatever reason, they could easily reduce that poster's karma or points etc. to the point where members could only post what is acceptable to those authority-figures.

For example, I do not object to, and actually enjoy, the use of the F word (and do use it myself very frequently) where needed to provide emphasis or in its other conventional forms of use. If we have some members who find that distasteful, and if those members have a certain amount of influence here, it is quite easy for members such as me to lose karma and find ourselves penalised, irrespective of the validity of the argument we put forth.

Note, the above is just ONE example. There are others. For example, how much time would it take for generally accepted norms of Freedom of Speech to be considered unacceptable just because a few representatives feel uncomfortable? 

I am concerned that this will become like the United States where if one does not kowtow to popular opinion, one is branded the enemy and castigated.

I do understand and accept that there need to be rules for certain fora - however, these need to be specified per forum; and certain freedoms need to be provided in other fora.

Again, in my opinion, the only rule should be: as long as there are no ad hominem attacks, anything goes. Attack the issue, not the person.

And seriously, if you do not like to hear or see the world "F***", ignore the word itself and concentrate on the substance of the statement. And of you choose not to do that, get over it - you are all over 18 here!

Cheers

Cheers


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

tilt said:


> I am concerned that this will become like the United States where if one does not kowtow to popular opinion, one is branded the enemy and castigated.


F***'n eh! Tilt for moderator! Best use of politics not in a political forum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> The mods wouldn't have to read every post. There is a 'report post' button. I think it would be fairly obvious that if a lot of people hit the 'report post' button then perhaps the mods should look at the post.


That's the current system. I think it works fine.

One can be nostalgic about the year 2003, but all of the tinkering, censoring and rating in the world can't get you back to the playground in your mind--a state of innocence.

The situation in the good old days was, from what I've seen, full of its own special breed of diatribes and repetitive postings, but in a community with a thicker collective skin.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

Fragging - beejacon



> Unreal Tournament Game nights...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's the current system. I think it works fine.
> 
> One can be nostalgic about the year 2003, but all of the tinkering, censoring and rating in the world can't get you back to the playground in your mind--a state of innocence.
> 
> The situation in the good old days was, from what I've seen, full of its own special breed of diatribes and repetitive postings, but in a community with a thicker collective skin.


Agreed.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

On iPhone, so can't type much... But if anyone is bringing up the word "Censor" they are completely missing the point, and haven't read what I wrote. 

Member A calls Member B and idiot. Member A gets negative points. How in the world is that censorship? For the 100th time, it's not about censoring topics, or sensoring opinions, it's the decorum and civility in which members treat other members. 

There are members who have points of view that are 180 opposite to mine. I dont like the points of view, but I love the member because they don't post their point of view with petty jabs, barbs and WWE style rhetoric.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> That's the current system. I think it works fine.
> 
> One can be nostalgic about the year 2003, but all of the tinkering, censoring and rating in the world can't get you back to the playground in your mind--a state of innocence.
> 
> The situation in the good old days was, from what I've seen, full of its own special breed of diatribes and repetitive postings, but in a community with a thicker collective skin.


The difference between the current system and the one proposed by the mayor is that everyone would be able to see the reputation (or Karma) of each particular poster. I know I get confused a lot with all the similar but different names. So, if someone has a lower rating and has been verbally abusive, I would know that it's not an isolated incident and would know better than to take it personally. This is especially important for new members to the forum - and new members are important if the forum is to thrive. Most of the posters here have been here for a while. New blood is important, but new blood won't happen if people get turned off after their first or second post. 

If a particular poster keeps up with the abuse of others, then they will get fair warning as their reputation goes down. 

Right now what happens is all the warnings are in private, and then suddenly someone disappears for a while.

Justice, to work as both as de-motivator for abuse of others, and motiving for a more civil discussion, needs to be observed by all.

As the mayor has said, it's not the opinion itself, but the attacks on others.

For instance: I am a 'small c' conservative. I'm fiscally prudent. I don't deny it. To be lumped in as a 'Harpo CON' is insulting to me and my opinions. There are lists all over the internet listing the types of attacks and fallacies that are common in web forums - everything from ad hominem to Straw Man.

In many cases I just 'give up' and go have a sandwich. But sometimes there is a good discussion going that gets sidetracked by the 'same old same old' and it would be nice to have something new happen.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You make some excellent points. One thing I fervently agree with. This forum needs new members if it's actually going to be around for another ten years. It needs new blood. I often wonder if these older, almost BBS-like styles of communication can withstand the waves of social stuff that's swamped the decks. Multi-point, multi-media, incessantly fast, moving targets. I just don't know. In about 10 years of actively posting and reading other's posts on a variety of forums like this one, I've seen whole forums disappear or become merged into some other entity. These things tend to have finite lives. We ought to do what we can to keep this one relevant but I do feel it's an uphill battle.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Maybe bringing back "Unreal Nights" or something like that would be great. Would throw the offenders in the ring and have them fight till the death! 

More importantly, if we are going to have a system let the general population vote, but only let the Mods have power to discipline. It may be interesting to see how we feel about each other, although this may also serve to fragment our community even more. 

I was a part of Ehmac back in 2004 although under a different name (lost the password long story) and for me at least this forum was a place to get away from all the negativity surrounding Macs. It was my internet refuge, and those days we could help each other with problems we had. To put it bluntly we needed each other than, even just for the fact that many of us were isolated in a sea of windows users. For me, at least it was an "US vs Them" as most of the info out there was for them, but we were here for Us! In a way that is what we lost Macs and all the iDevices have become mainstream and now when a question is asked we no longer answer it, but get "Let me GOOGLE that for you!". While that is great I asked a member and these answers eroded the original reason why I joined. Without that glue I think we deviated and our interests have grown and being political is one avenue. It is a basic human need to belong and to feel special. I still love this forum, but I do not come here for the same reasons I did.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> The difference between the current system and the one proposed by the mayor is that everyone would be able to see the reputation (or Karma) of each particular poster. I know I get confused a lot with all the similar but different names. So, if someone has a lower rating and has been verbally abusive, I would know that it's not an isolated incident and would know better than to take it personally


I take none of it personally. These are pixels.



MLeh said:


> This is especially important for new members to the forum - and new members are important if the forum is to thrive. Most of the posters here have been here for a while. New blood is important, but new blood won't happen if people get turned off after their first or second post.
> 
> If a particular poster keeps up with the abuse of others, then they will get fair warning as their reputation goes down.
> 
> ...


This strikes me as the sort of micro-engineering that will simply kill spontaneity. I can think of a very few people here who get angry enough to call people names. There's a slightly larger group who makes disparaging comments about various parties and their supporters--King Harpo, lap puppy. Lieberals, et al.

So how many people is this massive reputation system going to weed out? Eight? Ten? 

And how will an introduction to a reputation system bring in new blood?

If what some people want is a kind and gentle, sit-around-the-cracker-barrel forum, you've got it in the Shangri-la Clubhouse. It thrives, On the other hand, a recent effort to create a thread for introverts seems to have already run its course. These things happen organically. You can't _make _them happen.



MLeh said:


> In many cases I just 'give up' and go have a sandwich. But sometimes there is a good discussion going that gets sidetracked by the 'same old same old' and it would be nice to have something new happen.


This wouldn't change. You can't put black marks against people for being repetitive.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I think you're missing out on the positive reinforcement aspect.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

A cynical part of me theorizes that some of those most against the idea of this kind of system are those who tend to behave badly. 

It may be that the BBS as a forum is just dying out. Back in the old days, there just weren't that many of us who saw reason to spend hours communicating online with a bunch of strange people, and so groups formed where you could do that. Now, well shoot, I can do that on Facebook, I can do that on Twitter.... 

One thing that such a system might do, is that many times I see two posters slagging it out and eventually they start arguing about who's the thread cop and who's telling who how to post and who's being insulting and who's just defending themselves and who's behaving badly.... when they are BOTH behaving badly. At least they might be able to see that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I think you're missing out on the positive reinforcement aspect.


The negative ones would stick out like sore thumbs. Looking through the forum over the last week, I can see maybe four or five people who might be affected. A positive post? I can't begin to imagine how such a thing would be rated. When we had the "LIKE" button it largely involved agreeing with various opinions. Other than that, what is a post deserving praise? Dead neutral? There are thousands of them on the forum.

Ultimately, such an unwieldy system would see a few people receiving their banishment papers. You might claim that "the community did it" but really the mods will have done it--as they do now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> You make some excellent points. One thing I fervently agree with. This forum needs new members if it's actually going to be around for another ten years. It needs new blood. I often wonder if these older, almost BBS-like styles of communication can withstand the waves of social stuff that's swamped the decks. Multi-point, multi-media, incessantly fast, moving targets. I just don't know. In about 10 years of actively posting and reading other's posts on a variety of forums like this one, I've seen whole forums disappear or become merged into some other entity. These things tend to have finite lives. We ought to do what we can to keep this one relevant but I do feel it's an uphill battle.


I recall someone I knew who was 85 years old. She belonged to the Order of the Eastern Star and much of the club activity was based around the idea of increasing membership, They had so few members they didn't have enough to fill the various offices. Ultimately, they just kept folding their memberships into other chapters. I remember once they got really hopeful when a 47-year-old joined out of the blue.

At the heart of the problem was the club itself. No young person in their right mind would have joined it. I can't imagine young people joining EhMac in any significant numbers, unless EhMac was a Facebook page. Turn EhMac into a Facebook page and the old membership would leave in droves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> One thing that such a system might do, is that many times I see two posters slagging it out and eventually they start arguing about who's the thread cop and who's telling who how to post and who's being insulting and who's just defending themselves and who's behaving badly.... when they are BOTH behaving badly. At least they might be able to see that.


If that turns into a problem under the current system, its an indication that the mods either don't see it as worth acting on, or are too busy with other chores to bother. How will new system change that?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

The demographics of the internet in the 1990's and early 2000's were mostly teenaged boys and older nerds. (I know, 'cause I was there.) Through the 2010's the teenaged boys have left school, completed University and gone out into the working world. (The only ones left on some of the other forums I go to are in Grad School). Lots of forums populated by the young have disappeared, because the young no longer have the leisure time.

The new demographic for internet usage for 'leisure' in the coming years is going to be 'retiring boomers'. Yes, a lot of people use Facebook (I have an account), but Facebook is different than a web forum. As the population ages there will be more and more retirees who will be looking for 'something to do'. Facebook may fill the niche, but there is also the opportunity for those who see the trend to engage the 'newbies' who are leaving the workforce and have the leisure time to fill.

I can't imagine 'young people' coming to this forum either. But is it the young we want to attract? Look at the demographics.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> A cynical part of me theorizes that some of those most against the idea of this kind of system are those who tend to behave badly.


Funny, that thought crossed my mind as well.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If that turns into a problem under the current system, its an indication that the mods either don't see it as worth acting on, or are too busy with other chores to bother. How will new system change that?


At the moment, I don't bother with the "Report" button unless it's something like Spam which needs to be deleted. I also only bother to mention it to the mods if it's something really egregious.... that's happened twice in almost 9 years.

Under the current system, I mostly don't see a reason to get moderators involved unless something seems so utterly acceptable that the user should be banned. 

However, if we had a reputation system where we are supposed to report people behaving badly--not so badly that they need banning, but badly enough that they probably should be told "hey, not cool"--then yes, I'd click Report a lot more often. Maybe daily. (Sorry mods.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I can't imagine 'young people' coming to this forum either. But is it the young we want to attract? Look at the demographics.


In all fariness, I don't know what the goal of EhMac is. Membership? Posts? Community building? Ad-clicks? A Mayberry version of EhMac?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I can't imagine 'young people' coming to this forum either. But is it the young we want to attract? Look at the demographics.


We do have at least some high school students here, but for what I can tell the mostly stay in the more technical part of the forum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> However, if we had a reputation system where we are supposed to report people behaving badly--not so badly that they need banning, but badly enough that they probably should be told "hey, not cool"--then yes, I'd click Report a lot more often. Maybe daily. (Sorry mods.)


I was once called out not for being rude in a post, but for saying something that I supposedly knew would cause another member to be rude. The other member went ballistic. Which post would you click to report? The first, the second, or both?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I was once called out not for being rude in a post, but for saying something that I supposedly knew would cause another member to be rude. The other member went ballistic. Which post would you click to report? The first, the second, or both?


For me it would depend on how the ultimate system actually worked. 

If my reporting were to cause an instant effect to someone's reputation, I would weigh that carefully but probably just report the second one, as ultimately I think we're all responsible for what we say and controlling our own typing. 

But if the system was reporting only put it up for moderator review, I might report both... not because I though the first person was clearly wrong, but because I'd want a second opinion on it.

So in sum, my opinion I'd think the 2nd person was definitely in the wrong, but the 1st person was kind of iffy, and I might want someone else to take a look. (I say might because if someone isn't directly rude, then I'm not particularly comfortable reporting them, but on the other hand anyone reasonably skilled with language can be very insulting without directly being rude.)

That brings up a point though, that if this was for moderator review, how does the poster know which post brought about the bad reputation? Or good reputation?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

That raises another question.

If a poster goes ballistic, and then later comes back and says "hey, sorry guys, I lost my temper there, that was uncalled for, I shouldn't have said it"--how does that affect Reputation?


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Sonal said:


> That raises another question.
> 
> If a poster goes ballistic, and then later comes back and says "hey, sorry guys, I lost my temper there, that was uncalled for, I shouldn't have said it"--how does that affect Reputation?


I would imagine that a post of apology would start to rebuild a positive reputation. It would be a two way street.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2012)

Giving members the ability to affect other members posting ability directly (or indirectly) is just something that would drive more people away and it would be abused. Politics and religion always cause fights, even on the most mild mannered forums I've ever been on. I mostly avoid the everything else forum for this exact fact. I loved it when there was a separate forum for political discussion -- then the everything else was a place that people could actually discuss things without getting shot down in flames or it turning into a large pissing match about politics or religion.

I just took a hiatus from ehmac for similar reasons, too much noise, too many people giving out bad advice as if they were "the" authority on things, too many 'big' personalities trying to be the alpha dog, not enough respect for other posters. 

Again I'll chime in an say that I think giving users the ability to affect other users directly is a bad idea .. it rarely works from what I've seen on other forums.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> You know, thinking further on the topic, I fear it would amount to yet another layer of red tape and bureaucracy. Which reminds me. I was out and about in my 'hood earlier today and ran into a friendly fellow who commenced to talk about Canadian's profound love for rules and regulations. He loves his country but he also felt it was obvious that we allow ourselves to be governed to within an inch of our lives.
> 
> I don't know - to me, the man has a point. Too many rules and a place dies, suffocates under the unwieldy weight of its own behavioural code, however well meaning it may be. Nor in saying this do I mean to excuse bad behaviour here under the current conditions. I just don't see a graceful solution. Humans are messy, passionate creatures. Human society is really no different.


+1 My thoughts and sentiments exactly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

tilt said:


> *in my opinion it should be left to the community at large and individual members in particular rather than a few representatives making calls on what they think is acceptable or not.*
> 
> if a member consistently finds a specific member's posts not to their taste, they already have the privilege of ignoring them. I think this is a good system and should be left alone. Anything else - though beginning with purely good intentions - will end up in censorship. If a moderator (or a designated authority-figure) takes offence at a post or a poster for whatever reason, they could easily reduce that poster's karma or points etc. To the point where members could only post what is acceptable to those authority-figures.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> A cynical part of me theorizes that some of those most against the idea of this kind of system are those who tend to behave badly.





mrjimmy said:


> Funny, that thought crossed my mind as well.


I certainly wouldn't fit Max and tilt into that category and they aren't thrilled by the idea... seems to be a bit of "either you are with us or against us" kind of posting that to me gives credence to the notion that such a system would lend itself to forming cliques and posses...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> At the moment, I don't bother with the "Report" button unless it's something like Spam which needs to be deleted. I also only bother to mention it to the mods if it's something really egregious.... that's happened twice in almost 9 years.
> 
> Under the current system, I mostly don't see a reason to get moderators involved unless something seems so utterly acceptable that the user should be banned.
> 
> However, if we had a reputation system where we are supposed to report people behaving badly--not so badly that they need banning, but badly enough that they probably should be told "hey, not cool"--then yes, I'd click Report a lot more often. Maybe daily. (Sorry mods.)


And I think this is where self policing comes in as mentioned by tilt... if you don't like being treated in a certain way or seeing others treated in a certain way tell the poster, sure you get dubbed a thread cop but so what? 

In a conversation with a friend or family member and they say something I find objectionable (or the other way around) you just tell them, you don't phone the cops.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature said:


> seems to be a bit of "either you are with us or against us" kind of posting that to me gives credence to the notion that such a system would lend itself to forming cliques and posses...


I don't see it that way. The moderators would be making the determination of merit or demerit, based on input from the rest of the board members. 

The only difference between what happens now and the proposed system is the new system is a bit more transparent, and the only way a 'clique' would form would be if it were the mods themselves, or people sucking up to the administrators and mods.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I certainly wouldn't fit Max and tilt into that category and they aren't thrilled by the idea... seems to be a bit of "either you are with us or against us" kind of posting that to me gives credence to the notion that such a system would lend itself to forming cliques and posses...


Well, which is why I used the word 'some', characterized my thought as cynical, and added a . 



screature said:


> And I think this is where self policing comes in as mentioned by tilt... if you don't like being treated in a certain way or seeing others treated in a certain way tell the poster, sure you get dubbed a thread cop but so what?
> 
> In a conversation with a friend or family member and they say something I find objectionable (or the other way around) you just tell them, you don't phone the cops.


The difference online seems to be that just telling them seems to increase the noise and the argument. All the "you're a thread cop!", "no, you're a thread cop!" is the kind of thing I'd like to see a lot less of.... and for me, there's no way real way to address that behaviour in that thread without contributing to the exact thing I would like to see a lot less of.

If we were self-policing, what I would like to see is more people *ignoring* all these perceived insults and slights, because THAT is the kind of arguing that derails threads. Half the time, I'm sitting on my hands thinking "Jeez, will all of you just shut up already and let it go?" All this attack, counterattack.... THAT is the stuff that I would want to see less of. That is the kind of behaviour I would like to report under this kind of system--and there is no way to address it in thread without adding to the problem.

screature, I believe you've made the point in the past that it's like bullying in real life , and that the only to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. I don't think that this analogy holds well online. 

A bully in real life is trying to shut you down. Online, however, you cannot truly be shut down.... no matter what they say to you, whatever you've said is out there for everyone to see and judge for themselves. A person could argue all they want about what I am saying, but what I have said remains.

Online, the worst kind of character we have is a troll. A troll specifically wants to get you (general you, not specific-you) riled up. They want to see you stand up to them, because their purpose is to get you arguing with them and derail the thread into a bunch of pointless arguing. If you ignore them, they get lost in a sea of on-topic and intelligent posts. If you stand up to them, you create a storm and give their words more power.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> I don't see it that way. The moderators would be making the determination of merit or demerit, based on input from the rest of the board members.
> 
> The only difference between what happens now and the proposed system is the new system is a bit more transparent, and the only way a 'clique' would form would be if it were the mods themselves, *or people sucking up to the administrators and mods*.


Exactly... it would happen IMO. Self appointed "protectors of the peace" would be inundating the mods with complaints and why should I/you be subject to and trust the judgment of the mods and their personal biases and proclivities.

IMO it is better we police ourselves, as we do in every day conversation without resorting to some sort of pseudo tribunal to decide what our "reputation" should be. Basically such a system would put warning labels on people like the Nazi's did with pink triangles on gays.

I am not in favour of this proposition at all. People make their own reputations by their behaviour and there is no need to single them out and publicly label them, to me it would be an extremely regressive policy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Well, which is why I used the word 'some', characterized my thought as cynical, and added a .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You make some good points Sonal regarding the fact that online communication is problematic but I don't think publicly labelling people is the solution for reasons I stated above.

Regarding the back and forth of "you", "no you" when I am not involved I find it very easy to ignore and move onto to another thread and then check back in after the smoke has cleared.

We already have a system where insults are not to be tolerated and people can be given a vacation for bad behaviour, I think it is good enough as the alternative being proposed is rather Draconian IMO.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

First of all I would like to say the Mayor has done a wonderful job with this forum. He has the patients of a Saint, for all that goes on around here.

The first feedback item I would prefer is the "like button" or similar positive feedback mechanism reinstated. 

If a feedback mechanism was installed as contemplated, I should think it could not be administered by the Mayor and the Admins, too many posters and too few over viewers.

If the system was posters nominating and the Mayor and Admins reviewing to make a decision that might be feasible. 

I might suggest an additional step of a grievance procedure or feedback loop. The grievance procedure or feedback loop being you find out who is your accuser(s).

Along with the name of the accuser(s) the highlight of the offending words and (why) or how these words could be corrected.

This assumes few would appeal positive feedback but one might want to know who has accused you of being positive or "being nice." 

Knowing ones accuser is a fundamental right of common law. The right to appeal corrective measures is important and may also provide an avenue for an explanation of how to avoid contravention of the accepted behaviour in the future.

So please consider the positive feedback feature first, if not "like," maybe "stars," "classic Macs," "concur," or "yuuuuup" button, something that is simple and easy for the reader to indicate approval of thoughts or feelings expressed by another poster.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

In an open discussion about using a reputation / karma / points system for an online forum, references to Nazi are completely unnecessary, and quite ridiculous.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> In an open discussion about using a reputation / karma / points system for an online forum, references to Nazi are completely unnecessary, and quite ridiculous.


Sorry you took offence. I was not suggesting you are a Nazi or have any such inclination's.

I was simply stating a truthful historical reference regarding the labelling of individuals by "higher" powers.

I never mentioned you in regard to the reference, it was a simple statement serving to illustrate how public labelling of others has been abused in the past.

I apologize that you took offence as none was intended. Your post of complaint actually serves to illustrate how we can police ourselves without any need for public labelling and how misunderstanding can occur leading to complaints and reputation smearing where no insult was intended but a person is publicly humiliated/demonized even though no harm was meant.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Regarding the back and forth of "you", "no you" when I am not involved I find it very easy to ignore and move onto to another thread and then check back in after the smoke has cleared.


Perhaps you do, but not everyone does. 

Not long ago (and maybe I should be very specific and quote exactly and name names but for the moment I won't) one poster here was IMO was relentless in firing back. Someone else (thankfully) pointed out that this was not particularly helpful behaviour. Response: Well maybe not, but I'm going to do it anyway.

I kind of wonder if something like a Reputation system would add a little more clout to having someone say "dude, enough already." 

Personally speaking, I'm actually neither here nor there about the Reputation system, in that I don't think that it would affect how I personally would post (it's pretty rare that someone calls me out on being rude or offensive, though perhaps it happens more often than people say so.) 

I do, however, like the idea of being able to quietly chastise other people's behaviour without getting dragged into the fray. Sure, I've made a point of saying something once or twice... but most of the time I'd rather give up and go have a sandwich or something.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

An interesting thread, one which illuminates our many differences in here.

Most regulars in here know that I have no great love for many of the ideas that our friend MacFury propagates, yet I stand with him on opposing, in general, a reputation ratings system. I'm sure we have our overlapping reasons for that stance, and that we also have distinctly different reasons. That's the kind of world I live in - complex, intricate, full of nuances and greys. I'm OK with that.

Note that while I'm opposed to what is being proposed, I'm also respectful of the right of hizzoner the Mayor to do as he pleases. I'm more than willing to see what comes of it. I just think it's a well-meaning thing that has tremendous potential to go off the rails. If it works, fine. If it helps make this place a healthier place, all the better. I just don't think you can enforce an ever-clean, non-toxic space. You can try it but you also run the risk of achieving a kind of quiet sterility in so doing. May I be proved wrong.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> An interesting thread, one which illuminates our many differences in here.
> 
> Most regulars in here know that I have no great love for many of the ideas that our friend MacFury propagates, yet I stand with him on opposing, in general, a reputation ratings system. I'm sure we have our overlapping reasons for that stance, and that we also have distinctly different reasons. That's the kind of world I live in - complex, intricate, full of nuances and greys. I'm OK with that.
> 
> Note that while I'm opposed to what is being proposed, I'm also respectful of the right of hizzoner the Mayor to do as he pleases. I'm more than willing to see what comes of it. I just think it's a well-meaning thing that has tremendous potential to go off the rails. If it works, fine. If it helps make this place a healthier place, all the better. I just don't think you can enforce an ever-clean, non-toxic space. You can try it but you also run the risk of achieving a kind of quiet sterility in so doing. May I be proved wrong.


+1... sorry to sound like a broken record.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Perhaps then the solution (for me) is to start telling more people to shut it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Perhaps then the solution (for me) is to start telling more people to shut it.


Maybe... It might actually be more effective... since I think, at least among the regulars here, your voice is highly respected.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Maybe... It might actually be more effective... since I think, at least among the regulars here, your voice is highly respected.


Which may quickly erode if I start telling people off. :lmao:

Food for thought, though.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I believe that there are ways to tell people to shut it without coming off like an arrogant fascist. Sometimes you're doing the board a favour.

And I echo Screature's opinion that Sonal is indeed already highly respected - probably because she doesn't post mean-spirited comments, or single individuals out for a dose of personal castigation. You know, the type of behaviour that's so common in political and religious discussions!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Isn't ehMac great? Where else can you go for such invigorating debate online...?

Probably other places but I like this one and its particular Canadian bent.

Kudos to all those involved in this discussion regardless of point of view as it is fundamental.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

You guys may regret encouraging me when I get drunk on my own power.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hmmmm... you might have a point there, Sonal. The phrase "reap the whirlwind" comes to mind. OK Sonal, your reputation stinks!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Hmmmm... you might have a point there, Sonal. The phrase "reap the whirlwind" comes to mind. OK Sonal, your reputation stinks!


This calls for a song.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I don't have time to go on a long (but always entertaining) rant about why I think an automated or other 'reputation'/karma type system isn't likely to work, and *is* likely to cause undesired side effects.

I know I'm likely one of the people who've triggered this discussion; I like to argue, and I like the politics and religion threads, and I sometimes aggravate people. The latter is accidental (and usually regretted), but the former are a big part of why I come here. And if the place gets 'sanitized' I'll go argue somewhere else. Some may think "good riddance" but I like to think that my contributions here have stimulated some discussion and thought from time to time, and I don't think the mayor really wants to turn this into some kindergarten where we all step carefully around anything contentious for fear of hurting someone's over-sensitive feelings.

But this:



Sonal said:


> Which may quickly erode if I start telling people off.


...gives me an idea.

If I got PMs from Sonal, or any of several others who's opinions I respect, telling me that I've gone over the line, and should dial it back a bit, I would certainly consider it seriously. So rather than "self policing" (which we've been doing, but obviously not entirely successfully) or "over-moderating" (through whatever mechanism) on the other end of the spectrum, we could just be a little more generous with our PM's... I'd even take PMs from the people I'm arguing with saying something like "hey... you're starting to get too personal" as good indications that I may be overstepping the bounds of civilized discussion.

The only downside to this is that I find my PM box fills up pretty fast already, so maybe the mayor could increase the allocations to facilitate this sort of social buffering.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Perhaps then the solution (for me) is to start telling more people to shut it.


Speak like a TILT!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I know I'm likely one of the people who've triggered this discussion; I like to argue, and I like the politics and religion threads, and I sometimes aggravate people. The latter is accidental (and usually regretted), but the former are a big part of why I come here. And if the place gets 'sanitized' I'll go argue somewhere else.


As the Bible says--a good argument among friends is like steel sharpening steel.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I like that analogy. It also explains how you can suffer an accidental cut from time to time.

But I'm curious as to whether or not this reputation thing will actually go through, and if so, how it will play out.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Speak like a TILT!


Huh?


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

Why does anything need to be done at all? You can still report posts now and if someone rubs you the wrong way consistently; put them on your ignore list and be done with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

steviewhy said:


> Why does anything need to be done at all? You can still report posts now and if someone rubs you the wrong way consistently; put them on your ignore list and be done with it.


That's what I do. The forum looks exactly the way I want it to on any given day.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I hope you all enjoy your forum continuing on the way it's been continuing on. It's obviously exactly the way you want it.

I appreciate the fact that the mayor opened this topic for options to be discussed (although ultimately it is his decision), but it's hard to affect change when no one perceives a problem.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Stupid question how do you ignore someone? How do you know if you are being ignored?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

DR Hannon said:


> Stupid question how do you ignore someone? How do you know if you are being ignored?


You can ignore someone by adding them to your ignore list in the User CP. I don't think you can tell if you're being ignored by anyone.

http://www.ehmac.ca/profile.php?do=ignorelist


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Thanks, I knew it was an option. Just never knew how to do it.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

DR Hannon said:


> Stupid question how do you ignore someone? How do you know if you are being ignored?





John Clay said:


> You can ignore someone by adding them to your ignore list in the User CP. I don't think you can tell if you're being ignored by anyone.
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/profile.php?do=ignorelist


Sometimes you will be endlessly told that you're being ignored, and also the manner in which your posts are failing.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Sometimes you will be endlessly told that you're being ignored, and also the manner in which your posts are failing.



Ouch!! That many people are ignoring me!!! At least there a still about 3 people still talking to me.


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

A reputation/rating system is completely unnecessary. It's a forum, kids.

The only thing that's really changed here over the years is the number of members. There's a lot more now than there's ever been, and that's a good thing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2012)

Rob said:


> A reputation/rating system is completely unnecessary. It's a forum, kids.
> 
> The only thing that's really changed here over the years is the number of members. There's a lot more now than there's ever been, and that's a good thing.


Don't forget the photo areas that come and go (and take all the photos with them when they do), and the classifieds systems that go away and take all the reputation points with them when they go, none of which ever return again.

Honestly, again I'll chime in and say that a reputation system is just another thing that's going to suck up admin time to configure and test, suck up admin time to administer, and then **** everyone off if/when it goes away and they lose all their reputation points. They are typically not very portable either, so moving away from this forum software (is that still on the table?) would be even more difficult.

Just a quick $0.02 from a cranky geek...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Another suspicion of mine is that a reputation scheme could fairly quickly devolve into a popularity contest. Rather than keep people honest, I could see its potential for encouraging a kind of false good will. Bad theatre. Lemme tell ya, that sort of thing makes me retch more than honestly thorny people arguing the raging controversies of the day.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I agree that there isn't really a serious problem to solve here, so I don't think an major changes are warranted. Natural human social processes are well suited to dealing with minor disagreements; if you're uncomfortable with arguing about politics/religion/etc. don't participate in those threads, and if those topics come up in other threads, send PMs to the posters asking them politely not to derail the discussion. If individual posters persist in posting things you don't like, put them on ignore. Being chronically ignored or chastised by your peers is a powerful behavioural modifier.

It may be worth noting that certain topics (religion and politics being the obvious ones) are often so pervasive in their scope that they will frequently crop up in discussions of almost anything, so I don't think one can fairly expect to keep everything political or religious out of other threads. But if the rest of the participants don't want to pursue that aspect of the discussion, it will die out spontaneously.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

If we are going to use ignore in the way suggested there should be a way for people to know who is ignoring them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DR Hannon said:


> If we are going to use ignore in the way suggested there should be a way for people to know who is ignoring them.


That would probably be a bit invasive and--given what I've been hearing about the generally timid nature of some members--would probably discourage them from using the ignore feature when they would want to use it the most. 

Perhaps members could look at their control panels to see a running total of how many people are ignoring them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If the software allowed for that, it would be a good compromise.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

DR Hannon said:


> If we are going to use ignore in the way suggested there should be a way for people to know who is ignoring them.





Macfury said:


> That would probably be a bit invasive and--given what I've been hearing about the generally timid nature of some members--would probably discourage them from using the ignore feature when they would want to use it the most.
> 
> Perhaps members could look at their control panels to see a running total of how many people are ignoring them.


Personally I don't really see the need to know who is ignoring you or what purpose it would serve. It will be become somewhat self evident if you keep replying to someone's posts and they never respond to you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

But then again I suppose Macfury's running total idea could offer a compromise if it is felt by the majority that we need to somehow shame people into better behaviour, if as Max says the software allows for it.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

screature said:


> But then again I suppose Macfury's running total idea could offer a compromise if it is felt by the majority that we need to somehow shame people into better behaviour, if as Max says the software allows for it.


I thought that was the point of reputations.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

IMHO nothing is broken - ergo no fix, no reputation system, is required. Most ehMac denizens already have other forum members figured out, and have reached personal conclusions on their reputations, by way of what they say in the topics / threads they choose to participate in.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

DR Hannon said:


> I thought that was the point of reputations.


Shaming people?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The Doug said:


> IMHO nothing is broken - ergo no fix, no reputation system, is required. Most ehMac denizens already have other forum members figured out, and have reached personal conclusions on their reputations, by way of what they say in the topics / threads they choose to participate in.


Agreed.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

We could develop an elaborate (Rube Goldberg?) reputation/rating system that addressed everyone's fairness and accuracy concerns, but ultimately, would it be any better of a solution for managing the problem than currently exists? 

The new system would still be based on the same or similar rules or "laws" that are now in place.

The mechanics of how the Mayor and his deputies enforce laws in ehMacland may change, but whatever it is, it will still be subject to human error, appeal and undoubtedly personality clashes. So, how is the end result expected to materially improve?

I think just raising awareness of the problem and the fact that the majority of members find certain types of behavior undesirable will be just as effective in curbing or at least reducing such behavior.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

screature said:


> Shaming people?


With the reasons that some people have put forward the blunt answer would be YES. IMHO, why else show a negative reputation for all to see? I am not saying I am for it. Just seems to be what some people are looking for.

It was just something that I noticed.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

MLeh said:


> I hope you all enjoy your forum continuing on the way it's been continuing on. It's obviously exactly the way you want it.
> 
> I appreciate the fact that the mayor opened this topic for options to be discussed (although ultimately it is his decision), but it's hard to affect change when no one perceives a problem.


MLeh, yes, the mayor opened up this topic for discussion, and people are discussing it. They are offering their opinions and views on this - some are for it and some not so much.

Isn't this the point of opening up the topic for discussion?

Your statement "it's hard to affect (sic) change when no one perceives a problem" gives me the impression (maybe mistaken) that not only do YOU perceive a problem, but that you expect everyone else to do so too and expect them to come across to your point of view without having the option to have a different opinion of their own.

As I said, I may have misunderstood your position here, but that is what I gathered from your statement.

Cheers


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

DR Hannon said:


> With the reasons that some people have put forward the blunt answer would be YES. IMHO, why else show a negative reputation for all to see? I am not saying I am for it. Just seems to be what some people are looking for.
> 
> It was just something that I noticed.


I see you are speaking to the specific notion of having a reputation based system here not about one's reputation at large in the real world.

Yes, I agree with you that is what a reputation system would basically do here is to try and shame people into different behaviour. Kind of like what they have done in some jurisdictions in the States by posting the pictures of Johns arrested for prostitution in newspapers.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The Doug said:


> IMHO nothing is broken - ergo no fix, no reputation system, is required. Most ehMac denizens already have other forum members figured out, and have reached personal conclusions on their reputations, by way of what they say in the topics / threads they choose to participate in.


*There is. *

In the past year, 5 *prominent* members have left, all with thousands of posts, and have been here for many, many years. There reason they gave is the frequent bickering and negative tone by some members. One member stated, he felt no longer felt a connection with the community. 

I know forums over time just lose some members to attrition or lack of interest, but we're not prepared to lose members because they felt a disconnect from some members frequently directing negative comments specifically at them. 

We have had several other members who are still here, who have not stated publicly, but have sent me notes privately expressing frustration. 

I have had verbal comments from several Mac using friends and associates when I asked them why they don't participate on ehMac. Many have said they checked it out, but that it seemed quite cliquey with several members dominating the conversation and they explained they ran into a snarky tone quite often. 

It's not an issue with people disagreeing, or offering different viewpoints, it's how and the manner the points of views or opinions are presented. 

*There is an issue.* I'm 100% certain that it's driving away some really good members and I'm 100% certain it's keeping away a lot of great people from getting involved with the site. 

Some members don't mind it, and I believe for some, that is the actual enjoyment for them to coming to online forums. 

It's not the spirit for which ehMac was created and it's not what we overall as a community want. 

I will say it one more time, as clearly and precisely as I can:

This is NOT about censorship. It's NOT about stifling debates or strongly voicing differences of *opinion*. 

This is purely about presenting opinions, information, tips, recommendations, points of view etc.. in a manner that does not have the intention to insult / berate / offend / another ehMac member. 

Whether this is achieved through a reputation system, Karma points, private warning system, banning, or starting a whole new forum, we will achieve it. 

A certain negative style of posting on ehMac, that has comments directed to other members, or that constantly has berating rhetoric is going to be removed from ehMac, one way or another. It's the posting style we want removed, not members we want removed, but the ball will be in the court of any member who get's warned / pointed / Karma'd... whatever we use.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

ehMax said:


> *There is. *
> 
> In the past year, 5 *prominent* members have left, all with thousands of posts, and have been here for many, many years. There reason they gave is the frequent bickering and negative tone by some members. One member stated, he felt no longer felt a connection with the community.
> 
> ...


I've been avoiding this one for a couple of reasons. One, I occasionally still get sucked in to making less than ideal responses to what I perceive to be personal attacks. Two we do have a some volatile threads, mainly Religious and Political where trading barbs has become the main form of communication. Maybe these particular threads should be red-labeled "Free for All, Do not enter unless you have a very thick hide."

OTOH I have also seen this attitude bleed over into the technical sections. However one feels about anothers advice, in these areas it should be possible to counter a post without turning it into a personal attack. It is on these forums that I would really like to see the moderators take a much stronger hand. Most users but Newbies in particular, do not want to see their question turned into a personal sparring match or worse yet an attack on themselves.

Interestingly some forums such as The Shang and the Photo Forums self moderate quite nicely with members who have often strongly differing views and personalities quite peacefully co-existing and even enjoying the others contributions. 

Global Warming is certainly the odd man out. Clearly neither side is going to convince the other. Both sides have very strong and diametrically opposed views. Still I would rather see a diasagreeing post that is carefully thought out and presented, over the attack style that is too often employed. However both sides have on occasion, made some very worthwhile posts I would really hate to see this one simply abolished. Good luck cleaning up this snakes nest.

Overall I think my greatest worry is that some members might try to use the rating system as a way of extending their attacks on other members.

Perhaps we need a Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down and DNC category attached to posts. Up for agree or like, Down for disagree, DNC if you feel the post does not contribute. A sufficient number of DNCs should get that particular post deleted. Might or might not work


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

bryanc said:


> *I know I'm likely one of the people who've triggered this discussion*; I like to argue, and I like the politics and religion threads, and I sometimes aggravate people. The latter is accidental (and usually regretted), but the former are a big part of why I come here. And if the place gets 'sanitized' I'll go argue somewhere else. Some may think "good riddance" but I like to think that my contributions here have stimulated some discussion and thought from time to time, and I don't think the mayor really wants to turn this into some kindergarten where we all step carefully around anything contentious for fear of hurting someone's over-sensitive feelings.


Actually bryanc, that's not the case at all (That you're one of the people who triggered this). I don't want to single out specific members or posts in this thread, but I want to mention that almost all the time, your posts are the exact style that I like. Well thought out arguments and strong points of view and opinions that _strongly address an issue or point of view_, are the exact thing that I like. Your posts have great meat and thought behind them, and very infrequently do they get directed to the poster that you are "Arguing" with. 

That's the thing. I don't want to sanitize ehMac. I don't want to stifle discussion. It's just that comments can't be directed towards to the member posting. 

Comments can be very strongly directed to an issue. 

Negative comments can not be directed towards a member, either with insults, witty back-handed comments, negative stereotype rhetoric like liberal lap-puppies, you neo-CONS etc... 

Debate, argue, state your opinion or point of view on things like the best SSD Hard Drive, iPad case, whether Apple has jumped the shark, which political parties policies are best, whether we should have the death penalty etc... etc... Members are free to state their case on ANY issue. 

Just don't want members insulting other members or resorting to constant negative rhetoric to state their opinions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would say that only losing 5 prominent members in a year is pretty much the norm in a community this size. The tone of the forums here is miles beyond any comparable forum of this size that I've experienced. Heavy meddling with reputation systems, etc. will achieve nothing at best, but unintended consequences at worst--it will not restore EhMac to an imaginary state of grace, circa 2003.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

If there is an issue, it results from a persistent and tricky little thing called *human nature*. It seems to be all over the planet!

Points, karma, voting etc. are not the best way to deal with human nature - this requires interpretation and judgement, not some kind of numbering system.

Stepping up board moderation, reinforcement of board rules, and taking action where it is felt to be necessary, will do the job.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Okay, well on suggestion of a couple people here, I decided to try out the method of just pointing out things that I think create more enmity... and am now quite firmly reminded as to why I normally just ignore these things.... even though I very much do not like them, and yes, at times, will withdraw from threads because it's just getting ugly.

Put me down for a Reputation System where I can at least make my feelings known anonymously.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

the doug said:


> stepping up board moderation, reinforcement of board rules, and taking action where it is felt to be necessary, will do the job.


+1


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's precisely what I hate about a reputation system - that it's anonymous._ Yechhh._

_______________________

I don't think you can legislate good behaviour. You can try to reward it and similarly condone bad behaviour. Even then, good luck making it stick.

I also think that losing 5 good members in that time frame is nothing to worry about. People come and go. Not alway for the reasons they give at the time of their exit, either.

I believe that this is a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> I would say that only losing 5 prominent members in a year is pretty much the norm in a community this size. The tone of the forums here is miles beyond any comparable forum of this size that I've experienced. Heavy meddling with reputation systems, etc. will achieve nothing at best, but unintended consequences at worst--it will not restore EhMac to an imaginary state of grace, circa 2003.


I would say, losing even 1 prominent member, because they had frequent negative comments directed to them, is 1 too many. 

Don't care about the norm, or the status-quo of other forums. 

The tone of the forums here didn't happen by accident without any "meddling" (As you so positively characterized it) over the years.

Members who were here circa 2003 can and do remember a much better overall tone and sense of community. It's not that it's a huge difference, but there is a difference. 

I disagree that trying to achieve the goal we're trying to achieve will result in nothing. Un-intended consequences might be a matter of perspective.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

It should probably be pointed out that this thread is biased towards people who like ehMac as it is, as the people who have issues with how things go are more likely to just not be here and not participating.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> *I would say, losing even 1 prominent member, because they had frequent negative comments directed to them, is 1 too many.
> *
> Don't care about the norm, or the status-quo of other forums.
> 
> ...


I would say if a given prominent member had frequent negative comments directed at them it was most likely because they were dishing out at least their own fair share. These things don't happen in a vacuum and it usually takes at least two to tango.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ehmac: It seems to me that the lack of decorum that worries you is not something limited to this site alone - rather, it is a broader cultural development. Our general level of public discourse has, in many ways, gone down the tubes. Political partisanship is at an all-time high. Reader comments in major daily newspapers are brimming with vitriol, ignorance and arrogance - right, left, take your pic, it's all the same - vicious and endless. No quarter, no middle ground, no shading. It's the norm now. You're with us or you're against, us.

Hate to sound like an old fogey... but I do wonder where we're headed with all of this.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> These things don't happen in a vacuum and it usually takes at least two to tango.


+1

Sometimes people go off in a bitter huff, taking their toys with them. I've seen it happen in many different forums and I imagine I'm not alone in this regard.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> It should probably be pointed out that this thread is biased towards people who like ehMac as it is, as the people who have issues with how things go are more likely to just not be here and not participating.


Well there is no way to know that... it could be correct but one would think if one desired change one woould make their voice heard in such regard.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> That's precisely what I hate about a reputation system - that it's anonymous._ Yechhh._


So let's say you get a bunch of people who are slugging at each other, and someone steps in the middle of it all to say "hey, I don't like the slugging, can you people knock it off please?" and then they get slugged for it themselves. Who wants to subject themselves to that?

I mean, all this "oh, I don't want the board to be over-sanitized" is in some ways another way of saying "I like that I can slug people here." And if other people don't like it, what are their choices? Put themselves out there to get slugged themselves or leave?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Well there is no way to know that... it could be correct but one would think if one desired change one word make their voice heard in such regard.


Well if the Mayor has said that there are 5 formerly active people who have left over how things are here, then that's 5 opinions about what people *don't* like about ehmac that are not being presented here.

Give that there's about 25 people on this thread who are discussing this issue on this thread, 5 opinions is a fairly significant chunk.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Reputation / points / Karma, and system currently being discussed is not really anonymous, as it's being proposed that it comes from moderators. Members can just alert mods of any negative issues they feel need attention that mods haven't noticed yet... the exact same way alerts work now. 

It's the points / Karma that are public.

It's not just a "negative" points system, members earn positive Karma / points / reputation as well. Both automatic points over time, as well as some special points given out for great posts. It fosters good conversations as well. 

For negative issues, Instead of a private PM or email warning going out, points are dispensed (Or rather, taken away). They can be earned back, or if hostile posting style continues, the member will be sent packing. 

New members, if they get the business from someone who's been in a hostile mood, will see that that member has a history of hostile posting style, that has been recognized by the site.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal, I have no problem with asking people to knock it off. I've done it sometimes - usually I don't bother but occasionally I'm stirred into action. Well, I'm still here. If I'm going to ask that people behave themselves, I have to expect to take a few lumps every now and then. I'm fine with that.

I'm _not_ fine with people assigning a rep to me without my knowing who rated me. I think the anonymity factor on the net is generally a good, even necessary thing - but it can also lead to all sorts of cowardly, regressive behaviour. Hey, that's my take on it.

Only one way to see what shakes out, though - implement the system! Let's go.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> I would say if a given prominent member had frequent negative comments directed at them it was most likely because they were dishing out at least their own fair share. These things don't happen in a vacuum and it usually takes at least two to tango.


That's not necessarily the case at all.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I guess one has to trust that the mods "have your back" and know you well enough to judge you. I don't know if it's better that this reputation system is in the hands of the few, as opposed to being available to the general membership. Guess time will tell.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

It's been some years since I posted there (so I don't know how things have changed) but the best moderation/reputation system I'd ever seen was on slashdot. It was community moderated and meta moderated, high value posts would be made more prominent, low value posts less prominent, consistently excellent posters would be rewarded by having their posts default to a more prominent position, consistently poor posters would default to lesser prominence, etc.

That's well beyond the scope of what we can do here, though. But it was a system that worked well.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Slashdot did indeed seem to have a good system going at one point. Been a long time since I've regularly visited so I can't say what it's like these days.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Sonal, I have no problem with asking people to knock it off. I've done it sometimes - usually I don't bother but occasionally I'm stirred into action. Well, I'm still here. If I'm going to ask that people behave themselves, I have to expect to take a few lumps every now and then. I'm fine with that.
> 
> I'm _not_ fine with people assigning a rep to me without my knowing who rated me. I think the anonymity factor on the net is generally a good, even necessary thing - but it can also lead to all sorts of cowardly, regressive behaviour. Hey, that's my take on it.
> 
> Only one way to see what shakes out, though - implement the system! Let's go.


I'm the opposite. I have very little interest in taking my lumps when I am (in my mind) attempting to help improve the tone of this place, but I have no problem at all with being given a poor reputation anonymously. 

I mean, if a bunch of people feel that I am being an idiot, then I'll start thinking about how I'm presenting myself such that people feel this way. I don't need to know who. In fact, knowing who may create a bunch of bad blood. (i.e., "What? Max doesn't like me? What did I ever do to him? I can't believe it. I'm totally going to get him for this!")


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I guess one has to trust that the mods "have your back" and know you well enough to judge you. I don't know if it's better that this reputation system is in the hands of the few, as opposed to being available to the general membership. Guess time will tell.


Agreed. Placing a reputation system in the hands of a very few overtaxed people with their own biases and hoping they have the omnipotence to read and evaluate every post that's being called to their attention--and then rate it in some sort of objective fashion--is a pipe dream.

Maybe one can choke the life and spontaneity out of the forum and the introverts and lurkers will come back to lurk in droves--maybe post once every six months.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I would say, losing even 1 prominent member, because they had frequent negative comments directed to them, is 1 too many.


If you're trying to "re-imagine" the forum to prevent even one prominent member from leaving, good luck. 

To quote Bill Cosby:



> “I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.”


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

On the subject of jumping in to referee or defend someone involved in a slugfest: 

1. I usually choose not to, not because I'm concerned about getting slugged myself, or otherwise being told to MMOB, but simply because 99% of the sluggers here are more than capable of defending themselves. Not always in a classy, admirable way, mind you, but they are certainly not defenseless. 

2. OK, I'll admit it. _Sometimes_, it can be amusing to observe. When it becomes boring or repetitive, I simply find other threads in which to spend my time.

Edit: Part of the amusement is derived from how predictably and easily some sluggers take the bait left out for them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Personally, my inclination would be to try to use the existing system (PMs etc) more vigorously and see if that will do, but if the Mayor wants to put a more flexible/powerful/complicated system into play, that's not only his prerogative, I'm happy to see he's being proactive about trying to make ehMac a better environment. I'm just not that optimistic that it'll work  (of course, I'm always happy to be proved wrong).

As to the larger topic of the overall degeneration of social interactions, I both agree and disagree. On the one hand, I've been a participant in on-line forums since the early 1980's and I saw much more vitriol and personal attacks on UseNet 30 years ago than I see around here on a bad day, but on the other, I do worry that some of the posters who's contributions I enjoyed most seem to have left, so if there's something we can do that finds the middle ground between allowing vigorous and sometimes heated discussion, and cultivating contributions from less out-going individuals, I'm all for it.

I think part of my problem is shifting gears when coming back to ehMac; after visiting places like 'the Battlefront' on ArsTechnica, I'm often surprised when someone here takes offence at what would seem to me to be a very mild jab or sarcastic comment.

But I don't think we really need to worry about social customs degenerating too much...


Peter the Hermit A.D. 1274 said:


> The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behaviour and dress.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

KC4 said:


> 2. OK, I'll admit it. _Sometimes_, it can be amusing to observe.


You should've seen news groups like alt.flame back in the 1980's.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I think part of my problem is shifting gears when coming back to ehMac; after visiting places like 'the Battlefront' on ArsTechnica, I'm often surprised when someone here takes offence at what would seem to me to be a very mild jab or sarcastic comment.


I come here when I'm sick of vitriol elsewhere. Likewise, if I'm feeling particularly hostile, I take it out elsewhere.

So I'm not particularly happy when I see it here.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

KC4 said:


> On the subject of jumping in to referee or defend someone involved in a slugfest:
> 
> 1. I usually choose not to, not because I'm concerned about getting slugged myself, or otherwise being told to MMOB, but simply because 99% of the sluggers here are more than capable of defending themselves. Not always in a classy, admirable way, mind you, but they are certainly not defenseless.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on #2... and on the Edit. 

On #1, however, it's annoying to be looking for a discussion to participate in, only to open up a thread that's 3 pages deep in people arguing with each other about each other. 

Sure, people can defend themselves just fine, but what I would really love to see is a lot of the time is for them to just shush.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I feel badly for anyone who has been maligned in a technical/non-controversial thread. I've never experienced this myself. I have found the forum to be open and very informative when related to Mac stuff.

I've also found the forum to be informative on non-Mac stuff.

I avoid the Climate Change thread because my mind is made up and I really don't want to waste my time in debate that is, to me, pointless. I feel the same way as an atheist, my mind is made up and I really don't want to waste my time debating religion. Politics are a different matter. I hope I have not scarred off anyone from some of my more polemic posts, but I feel a need to confront what I view as mean-spirited policy that is altering the course of my life and others and destroying our many shared values.

Having said that, as has been pointed out by others, the ignore thread is your friend - use it if you want to.

I have no idea about how great it was back in the embryonic days of ehMac, but the majority of respondents on this topic have been here a long time. I don't think you can go back to those days ever again. That time is history and subject to interpretation.

I'm not in favour of RSD, but I would not leave if it were implemented.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I come here when I'm sick of vitriol elsewhere. Likewise, if I'm feeling particularly hostile, I take it out elsewhere.


Unfortunately, there aren't many other forums where intelligent people talk about Canadian issues.



> So I'm not particularly happy when I see it here.


Fair enough. And I do try to be gentle around here. But it's sometimes difficult to resist when the person you're arguing with sets themselves up beejacon And I certainly don't take it personally when people around here (or elsewhere on line) take a jab at me. It's all just pixels on a screen, and sometimes they even have a good point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I for one would like to hear what the other mods have to say. 

I asked a few days ago, here:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/100097-reputation-system-discussion-2.html#post1188982

So far, not a single mod has responded.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Unfortunately, there aren't many other forums where intelligent people talk about Canadian issues.


True, but I can save up my hostility for non-Canadian issues. And things like climate change, religion/atheism, and the whole conservative/liberal divide in general are discussed on many forums... in much more hostile ways if that's your thing.



bryanc said:


> Fair enough. And I do try to be gentle around here. But it's sometimes difficult to resist when the person you're arguing with sets themselves up beejacon And I certainly don't take it personally when people around here (or elsewhere on line) take a jab at me. It's all just pixels on a screen, and sometimes they even have a good point.


See, I do not think that it's not all just pixels on a screen any more than an in-person discussion is just soundwaves in the air. There are real people behind that. 

Sure, by all means, take a jab when someone leaves themselves open.... but there are many ways that people can choose to take that jab. And I do not see what's so terrible about wanting people to exercise some care and consideration in how they do this.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> True, but I can save up my hostility for non-Canadian issues. And things like climate change, religion/atheism, and the whole conservative/liberal divide in general are discussed on many forums... in much more hostile ways if that's your thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sonal I think that most people here already do that most of the time, but in certain circumstances between certain individuals there is history of animosity so when a jab is made it get's ramped up rather quickly and I don't think a reputation system is going to change that in those circumstances.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> I avoid the Climate Change thread because my mind is made up and I really don't want to waste my time in debate that is, to me, pointless. I feel the same way as an atheist, my mind is made up and I really don't want to waste my time debating religion. Politics are a different matter. I hope I have not scarred off anyone from some of my more polemic posts, but I feel a need to confront what I view as mean-spirited policy that is altering the course of my life and others and destroying our many shared values.
> 
> Having said that, as has been pointed out by others, the ignore thread is your friend - use it if you want to.


I don't think Ignore is the best solution. It's too coarse-grained. I may never want to hear another word from poster X about topic Y, but the rest of the time I may not have a problem with him or her. 

I think it's fine for you to confront whatever you want politically, but my point (which I am confronting here  ) is that you have many choices about how to go about doing that. And it would be nice if we all made some effort to so in a way that is respectful of other people here. 

As for politics specifically, I don't see how it adds anything to someone's expression of disdain for a particular political person or party to call them 'King Harpo', the Fiberals, Slob Ford, etc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> As for politics specifically, I don't see how it adds anything to someone's expression of disdain for a particular political person or party to call them 'King Harpo', the Fiberals, Slob Ford, etc.


I find that sort of thing juvenile, but other than asking people to stop--they didn't--I never expected the mods to punish the posters for it by giving them some sort of black ball rating.

I took my own sampling of the last five days of posts and honestly couldn't find anything from any poster that would warrant the type of intervention being suggested to deal with what is supposed to be a major problem.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Sonal I think that most people here already do that most of the time, but in certain circumstances between certain individuals there is history of animosity so when a jab is made it get's ramped up rather quickly and I don't think a reputation system is going to change that in those circumstances.


To my observation, that history of animosity has often been contributed to by both sides, yet both sides seem to post as if they have been victims of the other person's behaviour.

My thought is that a Reputation system would help illustrate to both people that they are BOTH behaving badly, and then hopefully at least of them would shape up or choose to deal with the other person differently so as to not be further brought down by them.

But I am in part speaking in general terms for what I would like to see on this forum, some of which cannot be addressed by any system.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I find that sort of thing juvenile, but other than asking people to stop--they didn't--I never expected the mods to punish the posters for it by giving them some sort of black ball rating.
> 
> I took my own sampling of the last five days of posts and honestly couldn't find anything from any poster that would warrant the type of intervention being suggested to deal with what is supposed to be a major problem.


I took my own look when we first began discussing this, and it has been a lot more civil around here lately.

But you know, I don't have a problem with people being punished for being juvenile like this. We don't currently have a mechanism for doing so. But should we add such a mechanism? Hey, why not?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> But I am in part speaking in general terms for what I would like to see on this forum, *some of which cannot be addressed by any system*.


Bingo.

I have often wished that some members would simply go away, but I would never request a system so convoluted that only those members might be discouraged from remaining.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Sonal said:


> I don't think Ignore is the best solution. It's too coarse-grained. I may never want to hear another word from poster X about topic Y, but the rest of the time I may not have a problem with him or her.
> 
> I think it's fine for you to confront whatever you want politically, but my point (which I am confronting here  ) is that you have many choices about how to go about doing that. And it would be nice if we all made some effort to so in a way that is respectful of other people here.
> 
> As for politics specifically, I don't see how it adds anything to someone's expression of disdain for a particular political person or party to call them 'King Harpo', the Fiberals, Slob Ford, etc.


I also think that ignore is too harsh for the very reason you have stated. However it is there. So you either grow a thick skin and put up with someone you do not agree with, do not read their posts, or ignore. Are those bad options?

As for name calling, I'll admit to going over the top at times but quite honestly, when one is being provoked by their own government, I do not see it as being unreasonable to poke right back. Henceforth, if the rhetoric becomes more congenial everyone will tone it down.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> As for name calling, I'll admit to going over the top at times but quite honestly, when one is being provoked by their own government, I do not see it as being unreasonable to poke right back. Henceforth, if the rhetoric becomes more congenial everyone will tone it down.


No system proposed on EhMac will prevent you from being provoked by the federal government!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> My thought is that a Reputation system would help illustrate to both people that they are BOTH behaving badly, and then hopefully at least of them would shape up or choose to deal with the other person differently so as to not be further brought down by them.


This is a very reasonable thought, and I completely understand what you're hoping to accomplish, I just don't think it's realistic. Think about 'real life'. IRL we have exactly this mechanism in place - if you're chronically nasty to people, you get a bad reputation. Does this change how people with a bad reputation behave? No. (In fact, I know several people - all academics - who have actively cultivated this sort of reputation (despite being genuinely descent people) in order to reduce the amount of crappy committee work they are required to do). All that happens is that others learn to either avoid them or deal with their prickly nature.

So I remain unconvinced that this sort of system will achieve much. But again, I'm not fundamentally opposed or offended by it in any way, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> I also think that ignore is too harsh for the very reason you have stated. However it is there. So you either grow a thick skin and put up with someone you do not agree with, do not read their posts, or ignore. Are those bad options?
> 
> As for name calling, I'll admit to going over the top at times but quite honestly, when one is being provoked by their own government, I do not see it as being unreasonable to poke right back. Henceforth, if the rhetoric becomes more congenial everyone will tone it down.


No, they aren't bad options and in most cases that's just about all you can do. 

But since we've opened up the floor for discussion on this issue, there's no reason not to ask people to take more care in what they choose to post.

I can certainly appreciate your passion for political issues. But the thing is, on here, you are not poking back at the government. You are poking other people, and I'm fairly sure none of them are Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> This is a very reasonable thought, and I completely understand what you're hoping to accomplish, I just don't think it's realistic. Think about 'real life'. IRL we have exactly this mechanism in place - if you're chronically nasty to people, you get a bad reputation. Does this change how people with a bad reputation behave? No. (In fact, I know several people - all academics - who have actively cultivated this sort of reputation (despite being genuinely descent people) in order to reduce the amount of crappy committee work they are required to do). All that happens is that others learn to either avoid them or deal with their prickly nature.
> 
> So I remain unconvinced that this sort of system will achieve much. But again, I'm not fundamentally opposed or offended by it in any way, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


How effective a system like this will be at achieving what I think it can reasonably do is going to rely on how much posters care about their own reputations. That's part of why Karma on slashdot works well... higher Karma gives you more prominence on the board, gives you more opportunities at moderator power, etc. 

But if nobody cares, well, it won't do anything. Except maybe reassure new posters that it's not just them, everyone else thinks that Poster X is a jerk too.

In real life, however, I don't think we always get a clear picture of what our reputation is. Maybe in a relatively tight-knit community as academia, but not everywhere. In my own line of work, yes, I'm pretty sure that at least a few of my tenants think I'm evil incarnate (again, a probably two-way animosity where I have a pretty good idea as to why they hate me but they may not know why I don't think much of them) but beyond that, I don't necessarily know.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> No, they aren't bad options and in most cases that's just about all you can do.
> 
> But since we've opened up the floor for discussion on this issue, there's no reason not to ask people to take more care in what they choose to post.
> 
> I can certainly appreciate your passion for political issues. *But the thing is, on here, you are not poking back at the government. You are poking other people, and I'm fairly sure none of them are Prime Minister Harper.*


Exactly.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Sonal said:


> But the thing is, on here, you are not poking back at the government. You are poking other people, and I'm fairly sure none of them are Prime Minister Harper.


In fairness I believe there a mere handfull, perhaps two, of Harper supporters that participate in the CDN poli thread. I do not believe that any of them have left. I have used the term "apologists" and on one occasion "traitor" as labels for some members. I've been called worse by some members but my view is it's better to air all this stuff for everyone to see and come to their own conclusions.

As previously stated, if the rhetoric dies down, so will the tone.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I took my own sampling of the last five days of posts and honestly couldn't find anything from any poster that would warrant the type of intervention being suggested to deal with what is supposed to be a major problem.





Sonal said:


> I took my own look when we first began discussing this, and it has been a lot more civil around here lately.
> 
> But you know, I don't have a problem with people being punished for being juvenile like this. We don't currently have a mechanism for doing so. But should we add such a mechanism? Hey, why not?


Hmmm. Interesting. Perhaps the increased awareness generated by this thread has already had a desired effect? 

I don't want to derail this thread because I find the discussion interesting, but I have noticed the word "punished" here, as well as elsewhere more than a few times in the last few days. 

What kind of society have we developed where we feel the need to punish others?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> In fairness I believe there a mere handfull, perhaps two, of Harper supporters that participate in the CDN poli thread. I do not believe that any of them have left. I have used the term "apologists" and on one occasion "traitor" as labels for some members. I've been called worse by some members but my view is it's better to air all this stuff for everyone to see and come to their own conclusions.
> 
> As previously stated, if the rhetoric dies down, so will the tone.


Firstly it doesn't matter the number, Sonal's point stands, secondly the numbers you cite is greatly underestimated (as many have now taken to simply ignoring the thread due to certain activities that have occurred (you have not been around here long enough to know many people with conservative inclinations participated in the political thread previously), thirdly many people are labeled as Harper supporters when they in fact support certain policies of the government, that does not mean they are a Harper supporter, forth the tone and the rhetoric are intimately intertwined and I think it is possible for one to change without the other changing as well on this Forum and it is not justifiable to make an excuse for "bad tone" to others here because of what is happening outside the forum, one can still be polite and debate matters reasonably and logically.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

KC4 said:


> Hmmm. Interesting. Perhaps the increased awareness generated by this thread has already had a desired effect?
> 
> I don't want to derail this thread because I find the discussion interesting, but I have noticed the word "punished" here, as well as elsewhere more than a few times in the last few days.
> 
> *What kind of society have we developed where we feel the need to punish others?*


Indeed or publicly label them and attempt to shame them.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just FYI.... I've had several private emails sent to me asking what specifically "Started this". It was suggested that it has something to do with Groovetube leaving. (I wasn't aware GT had left, and don't know if this is the case, but has nothing to do with him) 

I think there is a certain level of paranoia going on that this is about a specific member, or certain viewpoint, or certain "group" of members. 

Nothing really just "Started this" this isn't anything new, or anything that has cropped up out of the blue. This is something that has come up over the years time and time again that needs to be addressed. 

*From 2004:* 



> This is all great discussion.
> 
> The bottom line is, forums have to be free from personal attacks and insults. Attack issues and ideas vigorously. Get down and dirty. State your beefs and opinions (Such as this post). Just be civil.


*From 2007:*



> Just browsing through a few threads this morning I read a few posts with nasty tones that seemed to come out of nowhere.
> 
> The Everything Else forum has a lot of threads regarding issues that have strong opinions from members on the left and right. Many topics have been discussed and debated ad nauseam, such as youth crime, elected judges, etc...
> 
> These topics can continue to be discussed and debated, but if posts are going to continue to be personal, condescending attacks, threads will be closed or members given some time off.


There are for sure, quite a few other similar thread, and the message has never changed... There has just been slightly different approaches. The message is always the same, no personal attacks directed to other members. 

I'd say if there was an event that really made me think about it, it's that RickTheChemist (RTC) sent me a message asking me to delete his account, that there was just too much bickering going on. 

There has been other members earlier this year. And as I mentioned, I was just talking to some other non-ehMac Mac-using folks about the site. Good, level headed people. Was very sincere feedback from those "outside" that just resonated as something I totally understand. 

This thread is about nobody in particular, it applies to the site in general and is just another slightly different approach. It's not a radical rule change, or complicated system. Any tasks regarding workload or complexity with other mods will be discussed in private, not here on the thread. 

Whatever new system is put in place, everyone starts with the exact same positive points.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Is it really so hard to politely state your thoughts/opinions? Name calling, left-handed remarks, snide comments don't elevate your point of view, right? So why do it?

ehMax will clarify, but I don't think a points system will be designed to boost your "rating" rather everyone will be neutral and _*only those who offend the forum rules will be given a demerit point*_ for all (and they) to see. Sort of a reminder countdown to "three strikes and you're out" (for a cooling off period). We'll see very quickly who probably shouldn't be here as their intentions are to inflame others and not to have meaningful discussions.

It's simple, stick to the rules (which you agreed to) and we won't have a problem.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Firstly it doesn't matter the number, Sonal's point stands, secondly the numbers you site is greatly underestimated (as many have now taken to simply igorning the thread due to certain activities that have occured... you have not been around here long enough to know many people with conservative inclinations participated in the political thread before you you joined ehMac), thirdly many people are labeled as Harper supporters when they in fact support certain policies of the government, that does not mean they are Harper supporter, forth the tone and the rhetoric are intimately interwined and I think it is impossible for one to change without the other changing on this Forum and it is not justifiable to make an excuse for "bad tone" to others here because of what is happening outside the forum, one can still be polite and debate matters reasonably and logically.


If you look at the viewership of that thread, it is clearly very popular. Not to take this too far off track, but you have perhaps concluded that I don't have conservative inclinations, which I do. I can only say that there are several people who have clearly stated they support Harper from my own experience in the thread and the current thread's predecessor. I agree that reasonable debate is preferable to "poor tone". Hopefully the tone will become a little less inflamed and the non sequiturs will cease too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> If you look at the viewership of that thread, it is clearly very popular. Not to take this too far off track, but you have perhaps concluded that I don't have conservative inclinations, which I do. I can only say that there are several people who have clearly stated they support Harper from my own experience in the thread and the current thread's predecessor. I agree that reasonable debate is preferable to "poor tone". *Hopefully the tone will become a little less inflamed and the non sequiturs will cease too.*


One can only hope... well and actually make an effort as well.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

KC4 said:


> Hmmm. Interesting. Perhaps the increased awareness generated by this thread has already had a desired effect?
> 
> I don't want to derail this thread because I find the discussion interesting, but I have noticed the word "punished" here, as well as elsewhere more than a few times in the last few days.
> 
> What kind of society have we developed where we feel the need to punish others?


We already live in a society where people are punished for breaking the rules. They get reported to the police and then charged and put through the legal system and some kind of punishment is meted out afterward.

Here in ehMacland, it's a lot less formal than that, but currently, if someone is behaving badly the only thing that ehMax (the Authorities here) can do is give them a vacation, either temporary or permanent. Knocking off a Reputation points can serve as middle ground.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Bjornbro said:


> Is it really so hard to politely state your thoughts/opinions? Name calling, left-handed remarks, snide comments don't elevate your point of view, right? So why do it?
> 
> ehMax will clarify, but I don't think a points system will be designed to boost your "rating" rather everyone will be neutral and _*only those who offend the forum rules will be given a demerit point*_ for all (and they) to see. Sort of a reminder countdown to "three strikes and you're out" (for a cooling off period). We'll see very quickly who probably shouldn't be here as their intentions are to inflame others and not to have meaningful discussions.
> 
> It's simple, stick to the rules (which you agreed to) and we won't have a problem.


Where's the Like button?


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

I like the idea of implementing the Reputation systems as a staff-only tool. Letting everyone use it invariably leads to a popularity contest, with people giving rep to those who agree with their posts, and taking it from those who don't. While the system itself can be configured to limit the number of times you can give rep to an individual, it still often becomes meaningless over time. 

I believe it can a useful method to bring some accountability to people for how they post. How well it works depends on:


establishing a well defined set of criteria for the mods to follow when giving or taking reputation points
ensuring mods read each post and use the criteria to rate it objectively and impartially based on the content rather than their own stance on the topic or opinion of the poster (Good mods should be doing this anyway)
being prepared to deal with the complaints and appeals from those few users who consistently show red dots beside their names
(perhaps most important) having a membership which is mature enough to realize the value that such a system can add, both to the quality of the discussion and the ability of the board to attract new members.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bjornbro said:


> t's simple, stick to the rules (which you agreed to) and we won't have a problem.


If the existing rules were being enforced, nothing else would be necessary.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> If the existing rules were being enforced, nothing else would be necessary.


This has nothing to do with changing any rules, it is about the way the existing rules are enforced. 

There are probably 50 specific threads over the years with a general addressing the same rule. I've sent out hundreds if not thousands of PM's and emails over the years, and have issued warnings and friendly reminders. 

This is a slightly different method of enforcing the same rule.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonal said:


> We already live in a society where people are punished for breaking the rules. They get reported to the police and then charged and put through the legal system and some kind of punishment is meted out afterward.
> 
> Here in ehMacland, it's a lot less formal than that, but currently, if someone is behaving badly the only thing that ehMax (the Authorities here) can do is give them a vacation, either temporary or permanent. Knocking off a Reputation points can serve as middle ground.


I understand, but I still find it unsettling that instead of simply stopping or discouraging unwanted behavior, a "punishment" of some sort is felt appropriate or necessary. I know, some may feel that certain people may not learn to stop the behavior unless punished (like one learns not to touch a hot stove). 



Mythtaken said:


> I like the idea of implementing the Reputation systems as a staff-only tool. Letting everyone use it invariably leads to a popularity contest, with people giving rep to those who agree with their posts, and taking it from those who don't. *While the system itself can be configured to limit the number of times you can give rep to an individual,* it still often becomes meaningless over time.
> 
> I believe it can a useful method to bring some accountability to people for how they post. How well it works depends on:
> 
> ...


(Emphasis mine) Community feedback would be more meaningful and less apt to disintegrate into mainly reflecting personal differences or personality clashes if we each only had a few Merit and Demerit points to give out over a year. 

It reminds me of a restaurant review site that I also participate on. The leading ranked reviewers for each region are given only 2 "Recommended" stickers a year to award to restaurants they feel are worthy. Once they are stuck on the restaurant door, they are unretractable and can only be removed by the restaurant owner. One tends to think carefully about awarding them. I still have one left over from last year. 




ehMax said:


> This has nothing to do with changing any rules, it is about the way the existing rules are enforced.
> 
> There are probably 50 specific threads over the years with a general addressing the same rule. I've sent out hundreds if not thousands of PM's and emails over the years, and have issued warnings and friendly reminders.
> 
> This is a slightly different method of enforcing the same rule.


Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has been concerned about the existing rules changing, have they?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

KC4 said:


> I understand, but I still find it unsettling that instead of simply stopping or discouraging unwanted behavior, a "punishment" of some sort is felt appropriate or necessary. I know, some may feel that certain people may not learn to stop the behavior unless punished (like one learns not to touch a hot stove).


I've always said, if all people behaved reasonably and rationally all the time, there would be very little need for laws. (Or rules and enforcement, here in ehMacland.) It's not that we'd never offend or bother or harm anyone, but we'd be able to handle it amongst ourselves and without too much fuss. 

But we (meaning people) aren't reasonable and rational at all times.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mythtaken said:


> I like the idea of implementing the Reputation systems as a staff-only tool. Letting everyone use it invariably leads to a popularity contest, with people giving rep to those who agree with their posts, and taking it from those who don't. While the system itself can be configured to limit the number of times you can give rep to an individual, it still often becomes meaningless over time.
> 
> I believe it can a useful method to bring some accountability to people for how they post. How well it works depends on:
> 
> ...


If the powers that be are willing to do what is required for these criteria to be met, which requires quite a high level scrutiny, which we never could be completely assured of unless there was some sort of feedback on the part of the moderator to the accused, i.e. it could be demonstrated they read the post and that their objectivity is beyond reproach (which how can you prove?) I would be all for it... but as it is I can't see how these criteria could possibly be met.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Mods *should* be reading every post anyway, looking for spam, infractions, posts in the wrong forum, etc. I don't see it being overly onerous to add a few more criteria. This isn't a really high-volume forum.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> We already live in a society where people are punished for breaking the rules. They get reported to the police and then charged and put through the legal system and some kind of punishment is meted out afterward.
> 
> Here in ehMacland, it's a lot less formal than that, but currently, if someone is behaving badly the only thing that ehMax (the Authorities here) can do is give them a vacation, either temporary or permanent. Knocking off a Reputation points can serve as middle ground.


The whole question Sonal is who decides... currently the way the system is set up it is the moderators and ehMax who decide... the way the proposed system is set up it is the moderators and ehMax who decide... the only difference being a private or public chastisement and punishment...

Literally no one here can ever commit a crime by posting anything here unless it is against the law... it isn't a simple matter of obeying the "rules" as rules exist everywhere.

Rules already exist here as does recourse and it would be the same tribunal to decide... so why do you want to publicly shame and humiliate people here who have broken the rules of ehMac as opposed to just keeping it the way it is now where sanctions are handed out by the same tribunal but just privately? 

Remember these guilty parties aren't breaking any laws so why should their sanctioning be made public... and we aren't talking about physical violence like in sports where people potentially suffer life long lasting injuries.

The public shaming of people on a forum seems like a pretty sever punishment for what is a very minor infraction indeed.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Mythtaken said:


> Mods *should* be reading every post anyway, looking for spam, infractions, posts in the wrong forum, etc. I don't see it being overly onerous to add a few more criteria. This isn't a really high-volume forum.


There is an alarm button to allow logged in users to alert mods about questionable posts. 

I know it works, as SPAM seldom hangs around for more than a few minutes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mythtaken said:


> Mods *should* be reading every post anyway, looking for spam, infractions, posts in the wrong forum, etc. I don't see it being overly onerous to add a few more criteria. This isn't a really high-volume forum.


Perhaps so and if they actually did and enforced the existing rules that would be all that is necessary. As history would suggest this has not been the case... I think mods only look at complaints and as most of us just let things go and deal with the individual personally unless it gets really bad (which is as I think it should be) do we log a formal complaint.

Forgive me if I am wrong. but moderators are not paid for what they do and as such may not ascribe such a high level of importance to what they do as you think they should. Given that and the realistic time requirements of a volunteer position I personally think you are expecting too much.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> Perhaps so and if they actually did and enforced the existing rules that would be all that is necessary..


Why do you say the existing rules aren't enforced?


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

I cannot say that I am in favour of the reputation system. I know that I have had things I have said taken out of context. Does that mean I lose points or given a holiday? I just do not see a need when most of us (myself included) do not even use the tools we have. I just learned how to ignore someone. The point is, I do not think we need the mods reading every post. Most of us are adults here and if needed when can report unruly behaviour or at least we should. I love this forum, I start my day here. If we agree civility is a quality we desire should we all not strive for it and not place the burden on Ehmax? We can all fall back on him if the need arises, but can't we all just get along?


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Sonal said:


> It should probably be pointed out that this thread is biased towards people who like ehMac as it is, as the people who have issues with how things go are more likely to just not be here and not participating.


You might have a point there. MLeh made an observation that I sort of criticised with my response, and probably discouraged her from continuing to express her opinion here in this thread.

It is quite possible that the more vocal of us, the majority of whom are against the idea of a reputation system, have effectively silenced those who had arguments for the system.

Well, ultimately it is the mayor's decision as to whether to implement this or not - and he is just being courteous in gathering public opinion. Like Max said, let's implement something and see how it goes; and we can take it from there.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Evidently we can't.

Hmmm... I'd say the solution would be to ghettoize political discussion by stuffing the nasty stuff into its own separate space - after all, isn't that where all the toxins are generated? Except that doesn't work either. It tends to slow down traffic in all areas, at least from what I've seen.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> The whole question Sonal is who decides... currently the way the system is set up it is the moderators and ehMax decide... the way the proposed system is set up it is the moderators and ehMax decide... the only difference being a private or public chastisement and labeling...
> 
> Literally no one here can ever commit a crime by posting anything here unless it is against the law... it isn't a simple matter of obeying the "rules" as rules exist everywhere.
> 
> ...


Well, I see it that ehMax and the moderators are the Authorities here, so yes, they should decide. 

But we do have rules here that do not exist outside of forum. One of them is to be civil to one another. We agreed to that when we signed up. It's a 'crime' here in ehMacland not to be civil, but such crimes have not always been consistently enforced, and the Mayor has indicated that some of his current methods of enforcement (PMs, friendly reminders, etc.) to deal with the issue have been ineffective. So why not try a new method of enforcement?

If it makes it easier for the mods to enforce by having a user-based reporting system, then I have no problem with that either. 

Ultimately, how to enforce the rules here are at the discretion of the Mayor. If that means we walk around with Scarlet A's (for a-hole? beejacon   ) on this website, then so be it. 

As for severe punishment for a minor infraction, I don't agree. Severity of the punishment ultimately comes down to how seriously one takes their public Reputation on this site. But then, the severity of the infraction is ultimately based on how seriously one takes the 'pixels on a page'. Some people are not particularly going to care about either. Other people will care a lot about both. 

Frankly, I like online communities where we don't regard one another as mere pixels and we do care others here--which to me means that behaving rudely to one another is not so minor.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Evidently we can't.
> 
> Hmmm... I'd say the solution would be to ghettoize political discussion by stuffing the nasty stuff into its own separate space - after all, isn't that where all the toxins are generated? Except that doesn't work either. It tends to slow down traffic in all areas, at least from what I've seen.


And... there's seems to always be spillover.

When things get heated, politic discussion tends to enter non-political threads.

But also, the climate change thread, the religious thread... rancour is generated there too.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Both religion and climate change directly involve politics. It's pretty hard to contain politics, period. What divisions that are drawn up tend to be fairly synthetic and easily smeared.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> And... there's seems to always be spillover.
> 
> When things get heated, politic discussion tends to enter non-political threads.
> 
> But also, the climate change thread, the religious thread... rancour is generated there too.


This thread may be doing more good than anything in the past few years here. It has brought to the forefront examples of behaviours that are in some cases deemed to be insulting for one thing.

Has anyone noticed a change, or is it just my imagination? Go take a look at both the Religion thread or the Political thread and see for yourself the change in the decorum and how members are treating each other in those threads today. 

Gone are the references to "king Harpo" mentioned here by Sonal. Gone are any kind of jabs or pokes at any other poster. What is new, is the exchanges are civil and I suspect, likely what ehMax is looking for in terms of members treating other members with respect.

That has all happened in the last six days, since April 18 to be exact. Check the threads, before and after that date, and see the change for yourself.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Why do you say the existing rules aren't enforced?


Because you feel the need for the system to be changed...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

DR Hannon said:


> I cannot say that I am in favour of the reputation system. I know that I have had things I have said taken out of context. Does that mean I lose points or given a holiday? I just do not see a need when most of us (myself included) do not even use the tools we have. I just learned how to ignore someone. *The point is, I do not think we need the mods reading every post. Most of us are adults here and if needed when can report unruly behaviour or at least we should. I love this forum, I start my day here. If we agree civility is a quality we desire should we all not strive for it and not place the burden on Ehmax? We can all fall back on him if the need arises, but can't we all just get along?*


+1 Well said.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal;1189732[B said:


> ]Well, I see it that ehMax and the moderators are the Authorities here, so yes, they should decide. [/B]
> 
> But we do have rules here that do not exist outside of forum. One of them is to be civil to one another. We agreed to that when we signed up. *It's a 'crime' here in ehMacland not to be civil, but such crimes have not always been consistently enforced, and the Mayor has indicated that some of his current methods of enforcement (PMs, friendly reminders, etc.) to deal with the issue have been ineffective. So why not try a new method of enforcement?*
> 
> ...


As I said they do now...

Because it would amount to the same thing except for public humiliation which IMO is sever and unwarranted.

This already exists.

I am not on board with wearing scarlet A's, too much like pink triangles for me...

And so therein lies the rub if people don't care about wearing a scarlet A it won't change things one bit for those that do it may drive them away, which if that is the intention then it may be very effective indeed.

One this we can agree.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ehMax said:


> Why do you say the existing rules aren't enforced?





screature said:


> Because you feel the need for the system to be changed...


What's being proposed is clearly a different style of enforcement. Still not sure why you suggested existing rules haven't been enforced.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> If the existing rules were being enforced, nothing else would be necessary.


Said here as well, why is it suggested that existing rules aren't enforced?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> This thread may be doing more good than anything in the past few years here. It has brought to the forefront examples of behaviours that are in some cases deemed to be insulting for one thing.
> 
> Has anyone noticed a change, or is it just my imagination? Go take a look at both the Religion thread or the Political thread and see for yourself the change in the decorum and how members are treating each other in those threads today.
> 
> ...


I believe this is something of a honeymoon effect you are witnessing, Sinc. I do not expect it to last. A certain amount of backsliding to the norm is, I believe, inevitable.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> What's being proposed is clearly a different style of enforcement. Still not sure why you suggested existing rules haven't been enforced.


Like I said becuase you feel the need to do things differently and because by your own admission 5 prominent members have left in the last year... if the current rules were being enforced would this have happened?

According to your own posting the rules would not change just the style of enforcement ergo, there is a problem with the current enforcement of said rules.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I believe this is something of a honeymoon effect you are witnessing, Sinc. I do not expect it to last. A certain amount of backsliding to the norm is, I believe, inevitable.


Perhaps or perhaps there is some other influence or lack thereof involved. Time will tell...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, my bet is it's the honeymoon thing for sure. Only because so many eyeballs are clamped onto this very thread, and consequently folks are feeling more self-conscious than is the norm. Once the glaring spotlight is taken off this thread, things will change.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I didn't think this proposal was about the forum rules at all. I assumed the rules would continue to be enforced as they always have been. I understood this was a proposal to use the built-in reputation system as a simple and relatively innocuous way of reminding people when they have stepped over the bounds of propriety in a post. The only people who would find that publicly humiliating are those who repeatedly engage in personal attacks. In my opinion, those individuals *should* be pointed out and perhaps subjected to a "time out" for contemplation.

I don't see any negatives here. At worse, it could become a competition between members trying to make their arguments with the greatest amount of respect and decorum. Wouldn't that be a tragedy.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> *if the current rules were being enforced would this have happened?*


What do you mean by "enforce"? What would you describe as enforcement of the rules?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I have found that many people do not like change.

What is wrong with feed back? 

You can earn positive or negative "brownie points" ( The term "Brownie Points" comes from the Brown System of Progressive Disciple.) A system I was involved with in the railway industry for many years btw. 

You get some feedback and you pause and think about it ...or not. Some only take heed when they're on their last chance and some not even then.

I still think as part of the feedback system a person should know their accuser and how they've run afoul of the system. This is also part of natural justice.

This system award positive feed back and many are focused on the negative aspects only...interesting. 

Now here is an example of how I may post for my amusement. Did I run afoul of the intended new paradigm of an awarding system?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What happened to mguertin's last two posts? They were here and I tried to reply to one of them. Suddenly they are gone. What's with that Mr. Mayor? I thought you said nothing here was about censorship?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> What do you mean by "enforce"? What would you describe as enforcement of the rules?


I guess at this point all I can do is ask you the same question, why under the current system did 5 prominent members leave if there is to be no change in the rules just the enforcement of the rules... 

It seems you are perhaps getting a little defensive Mr. Mayor and I really don't know why as I am only referencing your own statements that something is broken and needs to be fixed... if that is the case it means something is wrong with the current enforcement of the rules if you don't feel the rules need to be changed. I don't what more else I can say.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> What happened to mguertin's last two posts? They were here and I tried to reply to one of them. Suddenly they are gone. What's with that Mr. Mayor? I thought you said nothing here was about censorship?


He asked to have his account removed. He wanted his posts removed too. When I delete the account, it doesn't delete old post, just changes the name to guest. I manually deleted posts from today for him.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mythtaken said:


> Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I didn't think this proposal was about the forum rules at all. I assumed the rules would continue to be enforced as they always have been. I understood this was a proposal to use the built-in reputation system as a simple and relatively innocuous way of reminding people when they have stepped over the bounds of propriety in a post. The only people who would find that publicly humiliating are those who repeatedly engage in personal attacks. *In my opinion, those individuals should be pointed out and perhaps subjected to a "time out" for contemplation.*
> 
> I don't see any negatives here. At worse, it could become a competition between members trying to make their arguments with the greatest amount of respect and decorum. Wouldn't that be a tragedy.


This is and can already be done just not publicly. The Mayor can give warnings, vacations and permanently ban whoever he chooses... why do the "3 strikes and you are out" need to be made public and how will it make for a better forum, when it can already be done.

I guess public chastisement is preferable to some rather than private but in all my years of management I always learned to never chastise someone in front of their peers if it is necessary it is done privately...


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

ehMax said:


> He asked to have his account removed. He wanted his posts removed too. When I delete the account, it doesn't delete old post, just changes the name to guest. I manually deleted posts from today for him.


It is to bad we lost another member. Hopefully they will be back.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> This is and can already be done just not publicly. The Mayor can give warnings, vacations and permanently ban whoever he chooses... why do the "3 strikes and you are out" need to be made public and how will it make for a better forum, when it can already be done.
> 
> I guess public chastisement is preferable to some rather than private but in all my years of management I always learned to never chastise someone in front of their peers if it is necessary it is done privately...


I agree with you in terms of a business and management context. I don't agree with you for an online forum context, but I may need to think a little bit in order to articulate exactly why the analogy doesn't hold for me.

The first thing that comes to mind, though, is that this isn't a business but a community, and one in which we have a fairly specialized form of interaction. And it is different.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mguertin said the very idea of the reputation system itself was something he was uncomfortable with. If losing even one longstanding member is considered a tragedy, then this tragedy was brought about by the proposed reputations system itself--its first casualty, and its first unintended consequence.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Sonal said:


> The first thing that comes to mind, though, is that this isn't a business but a community, and one in which we have a fairly specialized form of interaction. And it is different.


I could not disagree more. The more I think about it the more I think reputation points will fracture our community. I can see people claiming that they are just being picked on. If the general population does get to vote on people's reputations then it will become a popularity contest. No one here is a purely logical being and right or wrong we are influenced by our emotions. How many people here have never said something that they immediately regretted? If I wear my heart on my sleeve it will be reflected in my posts and not by popular demand. This is of course not my forum, I am but a guest. Though I have come to call it home. I have bought from members here because I see a lot of good in its members. I do not need to see positive points to make that determination. I have never met Ehmax in person, but the community that he has helped build here is second to none. I still send everyone I know here. It is something I am proud to be a part of. I, however do not wish to be part of a reputation system. I think I have earned some measure of respect. I just do not need a point system to show it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Another thing to keep in mind is that, while this place may be a community to many of us, it's almost certainly part of a larger business for Ehmax. You could see it as sort of a loss-leader for his own business of selling all things Apple to a very large and expanding universe of Apple users. Ehmac is not only a good social gesture, it's good business. Which is why I think the distinction between community and business is tenuous in this case.

It's more complicated than it would appear.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

DR Hannon said:


> I could not disagree more. The more I think about it the more I think reputation points will fracture our community. I can see people claiming that they are just being picked on.* If the general population does get to vote on people's reputations then it will become a popularity contest.* No one here is a purely logical being and right or wrong we are influenced by our emotions. How many people here have never said something that they immediately regretted? If I wear my heart on my sleeve it will be reflected in my posts and not by popular demand. This is of course not my forum, I am but a guest. Though I have come to call it home. I have bought from members here because I see a lot of good in its members. I do not need to see positive points to make that determination. I have never met Ehmax in person, but the community that he has helped build here is second to none. I still send everyone I know here. It is something I am proud to be a part of. I, however do not wish to be part of a reputation system. I think I have earned some measure of respect. I just do not need a point system to show it.


That's the big if, and as such, it depends on how the system is implemented--my understanding is that what is being proposed is that Reputation points are given or taken away by ehMax and the moderators only. 

Possibly, the interaction of the general public is only on the level of making moderators aware of abuses, and should one feel picked on for their views, they can report every post of a differing view and see what the mods think.

If we trust ehMax and the moderators to be reasonably fair, then I don't see how this necessarily becomes a popularity contest. 

If we don't trust them to be reasonably fair, well, then I don't think the method of enforcement matters so much.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that, while this place may be a community to many of us, it's almost certainly part of a larger business for Ehmax. You could see it as sort of a loss-leader for his own business of selling all things Apple to a very large and expanding universe of Apple users. Ehmac is not only a good social gesture, it's good business. Which is why I think the distinction between community and business is tenuous in this case.
> 
> It's more complicated than it would appear.


But... we are not employees. Clients? Partly, but not entirely. 

In some sense, the community is the product (at least, the loss-leading product), in which case we are all part of the of the product. 

But yes, more complicated than that.

EDIT TO ADD: if we are part of the product, than it only makes sense that ehMax would wants to shape this community into the most generally palatable product he can.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

We are not employees, agreed. But in a sense, we are products. Much like in Facebook or G+, members are the product.

Not to say that this is all we are - not by a long shot.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

I still fail to see how seeing points matters. The only thing I see is it gives some people a "I told you so" attitude. It is a game I am not interested in. Have people said things that offend me? Of course, I got over it. I did not need to see points missing to feel better about it.

ADDED. I do trust Ehmax. I did not just drop in yesterday!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> I guess at this point all I can do is ask you the same question, why under the current system did 5 prominent members leave if there is to be no change in the rules just the enforcement of the rules...
> 
> It seems you are perhaps getting a little defensive Mr. Mayor and I really don't know why as I am only referencing your own statements that something is broken and needs to be fixed...* if that is the case it means something is wrong with the current enforcement of the rules* if you don't feel the rules need to be changed. I don't what more else I can say.


I'm just asking questions for clarification. Please don't take question marks as getting defensive. 

But your follow-up statement is good. 

*Something is wrong with the current enforcement of the rules* is completely different than *not enforcing the rules*. 

I'll answer your question now from above: "why under the current system did 5 prominent members leave"

It's probably because their perception, like yours and others in this thread, was that the rules were most likely not being "enforced". 

Well...how would one know or not know if the rules were being enforced,_ if it's happening in private_? 

Here's the thing... They were being enforced. I have sent out so many PM's and emails over the past year. As I said, there have been most likely thousands of messages I have sent since ehMac started, with polite reminders of the rules and pointing out behavior. I've also posted many, many general threads about it, as to not call out publicly any particular member. 

Do you think everyone replies back to private messages with a smiley, "Sure, no problem Mayor!" :roll eyes: No... it almost always ends with a long reply about who started it, and how such-n-such said this, and why am I being singled out etc.... Maybe it get's fixed for a short while..

Meanwhile, the people who had hostile comments directed towards them. Do I have to send them a message that I sent out a message. What about people who were also reading the thread? 

The perception of the 5 members who left, was probably that not enough was being done. 

So you mentioned further:



screature said:


> This is and can already be done just not publicly. The Mayor can give warnings, *vacations and permanently ban* whoever he chooses... why do the "3 strikes and you are out" need to be made public


Well, vacations and permanently banning members are VERY PUBLIC, quite harsh, labeling and embarrassing to a member. It's quite an extreme public thing. But it is a way of _enforcement_ that you are suggesting. The warning in private can happen, but not really anyone knows they are happening, and as pointed out, it can be perceived that the rules are not being enforced. 

I think a points / karma system perhaps addresses that. 

If someone is insulting or being hostile towards the boards or another member, they can lose some points. It's not anywhere as extreme as temporarily or permanently banning them. They can still post. Under a system, they can possibly even offer a simple courteous apology for the hostile behaviour and get their points back. 

There wouldn't be the perception that the rules aren't being enforced by the person the hostility was directed to, or by others who read the posts as well. 

I think some perspective needs to be put on this, it keeps being compared to real life, work environments, putting on a scarlet A, even a reference to Hitler. This is an online forum. They are just little stars or points beside an online avatar. *We're just talking about a method to keep checks in place to prevent hostile comments directed towards other ehMac members. *

It's not that difficult to hit the reply button on ehMac and compose a post that doesn't have comments with hostility or insults directed to other members. 

I don't know, perhaps it is for some. 

Some have noted the tone has been a lot better in the past few days. That's great! That means there would be no negative points. Maybe that will continue for a long time.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I'm unhappy with were this is going. I'd like to point out this as an example of where I don't want us to go.

Are we really going to head in a direction where bolding a quote is too aggressive?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ehMax, my little joke about Scarlet A aside (and I apologize if that came out wrong), I'm in favour of this system. 

I think your last post makes it very clear why this may be a good idea.

And thanks as always for trying to keep this a good online community--quite the monumental task, I'm sure!


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

screature said:


> This is and can already be done just not publicly. The Mayor can give warnings, vacations and permanently ban whoever he chooses... why do the "3 strikes and you are out" need to be made public and how will it make for a better forum, when it can already be done.
> 
> I guess public chastisement is preferable to some rather than private but in all my years of management I always learned to never chastise someone in front of their peers if it is necessary it is done privately...


This isn't a business we're talking about, it's a public forum. You can't compare having a private word with a low-performing employee to dealing with someone who goes on a tirade in a public forum. 

I think you're also focusing way too much on the negative. Sure, if someone has a habit of committing angry or hurtful words to the public discussions, that person may have a lower reputation rating than some others. (Wouldn't they anyway?) More importantly, those who consistently employ discretions and civility would gain a higher reputation. (Again, those people tend to become known anyway). What's wrong with a system that allows people --especially newcomers-- to have an understanding of the people they are in discussion with? If it does nothing more than make more people hit the "Preview Post" button first and re-read their words before committing them record, it would be a win.

I also find it interesting that several people mentioned that insults hurled during heated discussions shouldn't be taken personally. "It's just pixels" was the statement I saw. Yet somehow, a lot of people seem very anxious about a few green dots.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> I also find it interesting that several people mentioned that insults hurled during heated discussions shouldn't be taken personally. "It's just pixels" was the statement I saw. Yet somehow, a lot of people seem very anxious about a few green dots.


I had the same thought, and thank you for expressing it so clearly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mythtaken said:


> *This isn't a business we're talking about, it's a public forum.* You can't compare having a private word with a low-performing employee to dealing with someone who goes on a tirade in a public forum.
> 
> *I think you're also focusing way too much on the negative.* Sure, if someone has a habit of committing angry or hurtful words to the public discussions, that person may have a lower reputation rating than some others. (Wouldn't they anyway?) More importantly, those who consistently employ discretions and civility would gain a higher reputation. (Again, those people tend to become known anyway). What's wrong with a system that allows people --especially newcomers-- to have an understanding of the people they are in discussion with? If it does nothing more than make more people hit the "Preview Post" button first and re-read their words before committing them record, it would be a win.
> 
> I also find it interesting that several people mentioned that insults hurled during heated discussions shouldn't be taken personally. "It's just pixels" was the statement I saw. Yet somehow, a lot of people seem very anxious about a few green dots.


The principle stands and your arguments for why it should not does not convince me. A business is a public place. It is about how we expect to be treated by those in a position of authority, public ridicule should not be part of that equation.

Because I see no positive.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> mguertin said the very idea of the reputation system itself was something he was uncomfortable with. If losing even one longstanding member is considered a tragedy, then this tragedy was brought about by the proposed reputations system itself--its first casualty, and its first unintended consequence.


Actually, ironically, most of his criticism was about the focus on the non-Mac threads, and specifically the Political and Religious threads where nothing get's resolved "like this thread", and that he doesn't get involved in those threads. There wasn't enough focus on the Mac threads. His discomfort with the reputation system was that it would be politically driven. I guess if I thought that, I would leave to. 

My ambition is to help keep ehMac a friendly place where members can discuss, share, post their points of view, without receiving hostility directed to them. 

I've been commenting on the same message since we started ehMac. 

It's right there in the original rules of ehMac that have been up since almost the beginning:

_*Forum Rules*

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

*ehMac sets out to be a positive online community for Canadian Mac users to discuss all things Mac.* Once you register, you become a "New Neighbour" where you may begin participating in various forums and areas on the community such as "Anything Mac" and the "Everything Else" etc... After a certain level of involvement (30 posts), you automatically graduate to becoming a "Full ehMac Citizen". *ehMac Citizens are encouraged to be a positive force in the community.* *ehMax, the community Mayor, frowns upon citizens who are extremely negative. ehMax may edit messages that contain offensive material. The mayor does really enjoy civil debates and lively discussions however! There's really just one main rule at ehMac: Be Nice!*
_


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Ottawaman said:


> I'm unhappy with were this is going. I'd like to point out this as an example of where I don't want us to go.
> 
> Are we really going to head in a direction where bolding a quote is too aggressive?


No.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Maybe I can offer a compromise. A red mark on the names of those that do offend rather than a point system. So many red dots and vacation time. It is public and could be used.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So if I get this straight, people who are privately told that their behaviour is out of line simply ignore warnings about vacations and bans by the owner of this site--but they would somehow be more likely to fall into line if they were publicly shamed by their karma points? 

There's something wrong with that picture.



ehMax said:


> I
> I'll answer your question now from above: "why under the current system did 5 prominent members leave"
> 
> It's probably because their perception, like yours and others in this thread, was that the rules were most likely not being "enforced".
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I'm just asking questions for clarification. Please don't take question marks as getting defensive.
> 
> But your follow-up statement is good.
> 
> ...


Point taken and what I should have said.

They would know by the results... i.e. if someone gets three strikes or how ever many are to be tolerated they are out. 

I don't see how everyone knowing someone's strike count will make this a better place...

At this point I see no point in my further involvement in this thread. I have said my peace, those that disagree with my position will almost assuredly continue do so and those who feel similarly will most likely continue to feel the same way they do now.

So at this point I will simply say we will have to agree to disagree... and perhaps if more of us could just leave things at that we wouldn't find ourselves here now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All this is somehow linked to preventing members from leaving ehMac? Perhaps a better question to be asked is, how many would leave ehMac if such a policy were implemented? I suspect that number might be much larger in terms of member losses.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> All this is somehow linked to preventing members from leaving ehMac? Perhaps a better question to be asked is, how many would leave ehMac if such a policy were implemented? I suspect that number might be much larger in terms of member losses.


I suspect more than 5.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I do too.

I would rather see politics be (re)ghettoized than this reputation ratings scheme.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So if I get this straight, people who are privately told that their behaviour is out of line simply ignore warnings about vacations and bans by the owner of this site--but they would somehow be more likely to fall into line if they were publicly shamed by their karma points?


Maybe so.

It's like people who comment harshly and rudely when they are protected by the anonymity of the internet, but in real life would never say those things in a crowd of people... because suddenly it has some public consequence.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ehMax said:


> _*Forum Rules*
> 
> Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.
> 
> ...


ehMax, can we put those rules up somewhere that we can all access every day? (Unless it's there and I just can't find it.)

Honestly, the first time that I remember you bringing up that we all agreed to this when we initially signed up, I'd totally forgotten that I'd agreed to this.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> All this is somehow linked to preventing members from leaving ehMac? Perhaps a better question to be asked is, how many would leave ehMac if such a policy were implemented? I suspect that number might be much larger in terms of member losses.


I'd like your reasons for why you suspect the number would be higher.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> The principle stands and your arguments for why it should not does not convince me. A business is a public place. It is about how we expect to be treated by those in a position of authority, public ridicule should not be part of that equation.
> 
> Because I see no positive.


We don't always agree but we do here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> We don't always agree but we do here.


I'm with you 100%.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

How is getting temporarily or permanently banned, less "ridicule" or "public shame" than losing a few points, that can quickly be earned back, that still allows a member to post and participate, that is also designed to give "Public compliments" to members who have earned positive points?

That isn't a facetious questions, I sincerely would like a sincere answer.



I also find it strange, that when any moderation action is done in private, the first thing that often happens is that many who seem to oppose the idea of anything being public, are the first ones demanding publicly to know what happened. 



Doesn't a system like this make everything more transparent and accountable?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> I'd like your reasons for why you suspect the number would be higher.


Because some people will not submit to public shaming and as Max and MF concurr that more will leave than do so now, I suspect that it may even cause a full scale revolt. Many such as The Doug say it's not broken, just leave it alone. Those are the kind of members this system may very well drive away. The possibility this will backfire looms large and the risk should be weighed carefully before implementing change.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I just want to remind people, that at this stage, this is solely just an open discussion. Please keep your pitch forks in the barn, and please keep any feedback on it calm and simply honest. There's no panic, this is not something we're making a decision on in the next 48 hours or anything....


Another thing to throw out there, what if members had the option to simply hide their points / reputation if they didn't want any other members seeing it? In that scenario, it would serve as a private notification.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> I just want to remind people, that at this stage, this is solely just an open discussion. Please keep your pitch forks in the barn, and please keep any feedback on it calm and simply honest. There's no panic, this is not something we're making a decision on in the next 48 hours or anything....
> 
> 
> Another thing to throw out there, what if members had the option to simply hide their points / reputation if they didn't want any other members seeing it? In that scenario, it would serve as a private notification.


Unless I am misunderstanding you, then why bother with any change? That option would leave things just as they are, would it not?

Not sure why you think I have a pitchfork. I am calmly asking questions or offering possibilities to consider.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Others such as MLeh say that it _is_ broken, or at least in need of improvement. And, as I've pointed out, people who have left the forum because they don't like the way people behave here, are similarly not here to give their comments on why they believe there is a problem in ehMacland.

And even some of the people not in favour of the system, such as Max and bryanc, have said that they're willing stick around to try it out and see what happens.

We have one rule on ehMac which is be nice to each other. Some people don't care if this is followed or not. Some people do. And yet some of those who don't seem to care that much if this is followed or not seem to be very concerned about being 'publicly humiliated'? That does not follow to me. You don't care if people are civil to you or not, but you do care that the website labels you as uncivil? 

Personally, I think the words humiliation and ridicule are overly strong for what's being proposed here.

EDIT TO ADD for clarity's sake: I mean, if you are concerned about being publicly shamed or ridiculed, to me this implies that you care what people think of you. So if you care what people think of you, why wouldn't you just be nice in the first place? 

And if you're being nice in the first place, you're unlikely to be publicly shamed or humiliated for it anyway.

(And yes, I do understand for some, it's simply the principle of the thing.)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding you, then why bother with any change? That option would leave things just as they are, would it not?
> 
> Not sure why you think I have a pitchfork. I am calmly asking questions or offering possibilities to consider.


Yeah, maybe it would leave things just as they are. 

The pitch fork comment was just tongue in cheek to talk of a mass revolt.  










----------------------

Time for bed for now.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Okay, I just see people saying things that they think is innocent then cry foul when they lose points or people after the mayor because someone did not lose point when they thought they should. I just see this causing more problems. I am sure that there are plenty of people on both sides of this that have not engaged in this discussion and those that do not care either way.

Since I don't post often if I do say something stupid will it take longer for me to get back to good? Some seem to want to take these points like badges of honour. That is why I am against it if you have done nothing wrong than no points should be given. Why do we need people saying "Look at me, do I not have a lot of points?" that would cause elitism.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I've watched this discussion go on for a few pages now, and I'm amazed how so many people have lost perspective.

The word 'humiliation' is so over the top. It's called 'consequences for your choices'.

As Sonal says, if you don't like negative feedback, then quit being negative to others. Completely lost in the discussion is the opportunity to encourage those who don't post often with positive feedback.

I will reiterate what the good mayor has tried to say countless times: negative feedback is not on IDEAS, but on HOW WE ACT TOWARDS OTHERS. I like the idea of public feedback because then I know I'm not the only one who finds the offending posts offending: I know that the moderators and administrators are aware as well, and that the person has been cautioned that their activity is not promoting healthy and civil discussion on the forum.

The discussion in this topic has gone the same way so many others go on ehMac - a few individuals pounding their own opinions home, not listening to other's opinions. I'm in the habit of stating my opinion once, and trusting people to be able to read. Just because you state something 15 times in the same thread doesn't mean that you've changed my opinion - it means that I've moved onto something more productive.

Also lost in the discussion of 'old members leaving' is the fact that the new system might encourage new people to stay. I'm in sales and I know that you should work hard to retain existing customers, but you also need to make allowances for attracting and retaining new customers. The mayor has stated (quite often) this goal.

Some people have complained that a 'reputation' or Karma system might result in the formation of cliques on this forum. Might result? Listen people, there is ALREADY a clique - a clique of people who feel 'entitled' to post the way they want. People who over-run discussions with their own personal animosity towards other certain members with constant bickering. People who know the opinions of others but still think that a barrage of posts is going to change that other person's opinion. 

Imagine (if you are capable) of being a newbie to the site, and posting an innocent comment, only to get broadsided by 'established' members. I know I wouldn't come back. The idea of having a 'public' reputation is to help those new people establish who they might want to 'ignore', or at least not take their postings personally. 

Some people say "It's the internet, suck it up." Well, that was the internet then - when everyone was safe in anonymity. I like to think that the internet, like all things that develop over time, has shed its sharper edges and can function on a slightly higher plane of existence. One where people can share ideas and opinions in a mature manner. If encouraging maturity means having a public system for showing the history of one's actions on the website, then so be it. Again, as has been stated previously, if you don't like the idea of negative feedback, quit posting negatively. And yet again (for those who still don't get it), it's not for 'being stupid', but 'for being stupid TOWARD OTHERS'. Play nicely and life will be good.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> The word 'humiliation' is so over the top. It's called 'consequences for your choices'.


No, the consequences for choices is what we have today. You're asking for a convoluted system of humiliation and goads with a tiny group of people judging the fate of each members' reputations.



MLeh said:


> As Sonal says, if you don't like negative feedback, then quit being negative to others. Completely lost in the discussion is the opportunity to encourage those who don't post often with positive feedback.


They'll somehow be rewarded by busy moderators for posts that are so infrequent or so unnoticeable that they're currently ignored? Are these the same people who are posting in THE QUIET THREAD that was created _just_ for them?



MLeh said:


> I will reiterate what the good mayor has tried to say countless times: negative feedback is not on IDEAS, but on HOW WE ACT TOWARDS OTHERS. I like the idea of public feedback because then I know I'm not the only one who finds the offending posts offending: I know that the moderators and administrators are aware as well, and that the person has been cautioned that their activity is not promoting healthy and civil discussion on the forum.


The mayor has described just how effective it is to warn people that their actions are uncivil.



MLeh said:


> The discussion in this topic has gone the same way so many others go on ehMac - a few individuals pounding their own opinions home, not listening to other's opinions. I'm in the habit of stating my opinion once, and trusting people to be able to read. Just because you state something 15 times in the same thread doesn't mean that you've changed my opinion - it means that I've moved onto something more productive.


They ARE listening--they do NOT agree. Moving on is your choice.



MLeh said:


> Again, as has been stated previously, if you don't like the idea of negative feedback, quit posting negatively. And yet again (for those who still don't get it), it's not for 'being stupid', but 'for being stupid TOWARD OTHERS'. Play nicely and life will be good.


How about a voluntary system where introverts submit their own accounts for karma ratings, leaving the rest of the members to live in the adult world? The complaints appear not to be directed toward the notion that people need some form of feedback, but that the natural feedback created by interaction in the adult world needs to be amplified and formalized or else it will fail utterly.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Wow. I've been too busy to check on this thread for the past day or so, and I see that it's sparked quite a discussion.

That's a good thing, in that it shows that there are a significant number of members who care enough about ehMac to argue about how it should be run, but also a problem for the Mayor, in that it indicates the existence of some, possibly unbridgeable, divide between the desires of the members.

I have an alternative (but not at all novel) suggestion: Rather than karma or reputation points, why not try adding a new 'room' to the forum system? We could have a 'civilized discussion only' forum, where people who really don't like the argumentative style of some other members can converse under rules of decorum more to their liking, and a more unconstrained discussion forum, where it's acceptable to make the occasional rude remark if you think it's called for. I'm not suggesting ehMac should host a 'wild west' forum where anything goes; I completely agree with the overarching goal of creating an enjoyable and friendly forum for discussing things of interest to Canadians and Mac users. But what's enjoyable to one person is stifling to another and offensive to yet another.

So rather than ghettoize the specific topics (religion/politics/science, etc.), we could have two "everything else" sub-forums, one in which the rules of polite discussion are enforced more rigorously, and one where things are a little more casual, but, like everywhere on ehMac, hateful speech and personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated in either forum.

If it doesn't work out, the Mayor can just merge the rooms, and we're back to the status quo.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Are these the same people who are posting in THE QUIET THREAD that was created _just_ for them?


The quiet thread wasn't created as a place for introverts to post. That's your perception (and perhaps your wish, leaving the field open everywhere else). 

The quiet thread was created so I could express my frustrations at the way the entire forum was being dominated by a few people who can leave no thought (however insignificant) unexpressed, or like to have confrontational discussions at the expense of those who might be less forceful in expressing their opinions. 

You're the one who decided it was THE place for introverted people to post. I like to post in all sorts of threads and so do, I imagine, other people.

I like my voice to be heard. As was discussed in the referenced topic, it's the 'signal to noise' ratio, and the constant reiteration of the same opinions in every topic that frustrated me.

bryanc's suggestion of 'two forums' is just an extension of this thought process, and is, in my opinion, not viable. The loudest (or most persistent) voice is not always the one with the best ideas.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I like my voice to be heard. As was discussed in the referenced topic, it's the 'signal to noise' ratio, and the constant reiteration of the same opinions in every topic that frustrated me.


A reputation system will not make you "heard" and it will not protect you from the reiteration of ideas. This strikes me as attempting to control the entire community so a few members don't feel their ideas are not being heard to their satisfaction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I have an alternative (but not at all novel) suggestion: Rather than karma or reputation points, why not try adding a new 'room' to the forum system? We could have a 'civilized discussion only' forum, where people who really don't like the argumentative style of some other members can converse under rules of decorum more to their liking, and a more unconstrained discussion forum, where it's acceptable to make the occasional rude remark if you think it's called for.


How about creating a voluntary karma system, then create a forum where only people rated well on that system can go? It will soon become the "HOT" club on EhMac--so much so that soon everyone will be clamouring to be rated according to their karma. By their good examples, the Karmites will convince others of the superiority of their system.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I am amazed this thing has taken on legs. There's certainly a good side to that. But it's also prompting some spikes on the emotional graph.

As I've said, I'm willing to try out the experiment. But if it's going to happen, let it happen quickly - let's try it on for a set period of time and then perhaps review. What's happening right now feels excruciating. Ironically, it's a very strong thread with excellent participation. But I've a sense it's ripping the place in two and causing waves of anxiety over Ehmac's future. Talking about this reputation system endlessly in a round-robin of theoreticals and hypotheticals is, I fear, doing more harm than good.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I like your idea, MF (flinches, expecting sky to cave in). Over-achieving karmites with their own exclusive club! And perhaps the political rabble can be called dogmites.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I like your idea, MF (flinches, expecting sky to cave in). Over-achieving karmites with their own exclusive club! And perhaps the political rabble can be called dogmites.


Woof!


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> A reputation system will not make you "heard" and it will not protect you from the reiteration of ideas. This strikes me as attempting to control the entire community so a few members don't feel their ideas are not being heard to their satisfaction.


I was responding to your comment about the quiet thread, not using it to justify the reputation system.

The reputation system is something different, and I believe came about more as a result of a specific discussion in the religion thread, and generally elsewhere, where people are attacked _personally_ because of what they post. 

(for instance: I am tired of myself or others being labeled or generalized as 'Harpo CON apologizers' when disagreeing with certain social policies, and I think my response in the recent contentious aspect regarding women in the religion thread was a bit more constructive than just saying "You're stupid, your idea is stupid, I hope you die.")


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Here's an option to consider:

If we go to a public feedback system, why not rank the posts instead of the posters? 
Red Flag, Yellow Flag, Green Flag....etc. 

The system will automatically give each new post a green flag until a mod decides it needs another color of flag. 

Then it will also serve as an educational system as to what kind of behavior is deemed desirable, undesirable/worthy of a warning or should be stopped. 

For the record, I don't have much confidence that any rating system will result in a material increase in the quality of posts, or quantity of members, over the system that is currently in place (with perhaps a more concerted "rule awareness" effort by all concerned). I am merely making a suggestion for consideration or discussion, rather than a recommendation.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> bryanc's suggestion of 'two forums' is just an extension of this thought process, and is, in my opinion, not viable.


You may be right. But it strikes me as the easiest to implement without major disruption and potentially driving away members with a dubious reputation system. And it's easy to revert to the status quo if it turns out not to work.

Perhaps this could be combined with bringing back the 'like' button (perhaps in combination with a 'dislike' button). I recognize that these things are purely a popularity measurement, but it might be valuable for some posters (including me) to see an indication of how well their postings are going over with the other members. If this is anonymous and without meaningful consequence, it would serve as a harmless indicator of how well-recieved your postings are; you can ignore it if you don't find the information useful (perhaps there could be a setting in the user control panel allowing one to choose wether to use/show this feature?).



> The loudest (or most persistent) voice is not always the one with the best ideas.


Certainly not. However, I would hope no one would hesitated to post their ideas here out of fear that their ideas may not be "the best." Often it's difficult to recognize good ideas, even in hindsight, so we should all be comfortable to express ourselves.

If, as I understand is the case, you're trying to engineer a change in ehMac such that people with less confidence and/or less extroverted personalities/communication styles are more comfortable posting (which I see as a laudable goal), it strikes me that having two forums is a good approach to that problem. You and I could both post in a "civilized forum", and I'd simply have to be more circumspect about my posting style (and if I failed, you or the mayor or anyone else would be perfectly welcome to remind me). Similarly, you and I could both post in a more casual forum, and if you found my replies to your post a little over-the-top, I, or others would be free to remind you that it's just pixels on a screen and you shouldn't take it personally. 

I see ehMac as something like a social club, and this discussion is akin to arguing about wether we should have a dress code. Some people like dressing up, and others don't. Personally, I don't even own a tie, and won't go anywhere or do anything that requires dressing up. But I understand that there are people who really enjoy that sort of thing, and I certainly don't want to impede their enjoyment by showing up to their parties in my grubby sweatshirt and jeans. But it needs to be reasonably clear what's expected of posters, and I'm not sure we can have one set of rules that will satisfy everyone.

The downside, which I presume is your objection to this proposal, is that all the activity may gravitate to one 'room' or the other, forcing everyone into one style, and leaving us with the same problem we've got now. That definitely could happen. The other thing that could happen is that the 'casual' forum devolves into a flame-fest, and animosity spreads and contaminates the civilized forum. I think the Mayor can prevent the latter problem from occurring, and I'm certainly not advocating for a completely unmoderated forum; the rules of civilized exchange are fluid but not infinitely flexible.

As for the former problem, it's a possibility, but the worst case outcome is exactly what we have now, so it seems worth trying.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> How about creating a voluntary karma system, then create a forum where only people rated well on that system can go?


I kind of like this idea too. Have an open forum like we have now, and a "members lounge" which requires a certain ratio of like/dislike from the other members in order to maintain access. The "members lounge" can maintain a more civilized tone, while the open forum can be more relaxed.

I'd like to think that I'd be able to move freely between the two, but I might get kicked out of the lounge occasionally... sort of like real life


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I kind of like this idea too. Have an open forum like we have now, and a "members lounge" which requires a certain ratio of like/dislike from the other members in order to maintain access. The "members lounge" can maintain a more civilized tone, while the open forum can be more relaxed.
> 
> I'd like to think that I'd be able to move freely between the two, but I might get kicked out of the lounge occasionally... sort of like real life


Perfectly self-regulating too. The members can strip each other of karma if any members become too uncivilized and banishment becomes an automatic process when karma ratios fail. They can continue to observe banished members' behaviour in the general forum and slowly restore their karma balance if they believe that their behaviour has been improved.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

There is no one strong, one-size-fits-all solution. I've seen forums which voluntarily split in two - a pub, say, for more lively/conversational talk and a cafe/lounge for more genteel exchanges. Too often the overall effect on the forum is schitzophrenic. More significantly, eyeballs are drained away on both sides. Again, not so good for the board as a whole.

We must also bear in mind that certain suggested improvements may not fall within the scope of this particular board software's feature set. To a certain extent the behaviour is dictated by the kind of 'container' used. Different software enables different parameters, sometimes more winking lights, bells and whistles, sometimes less.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

No. If you are going to have a Karma system, it needs to be externally regulated to be fair, such that two people who hate each other have little ability to directly affect each other's Karma.

As I say, if we trust ehMax and the mods to be reasonably fair, then the system can be reasonably fair.

ehMacland is not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship. Really speaking, even if the system seems unfair, but is meted out according to ehMax's preferences and policies, then hey, it's his board and he's welcome to try to shape in the way he sees fit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If two people hate each other the karma factor simply cancels out for the two of them. But that's a single karmic transaction. However, others are free to assign whatever karma levels they feel each of those individuals deserve. In any case, how many angry pairs are we talking about? Very few, I'd say. It takes a lot of energy and commitment to hate people. Most of what this board sees is dogs whose bark is far worse than their bite.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

on


KC4 said:


> Here's an option to consider:
> 
> If we go to a public feedback system, why not rank the posts instead of the posters?
> Red Flag, Yellow Flag, Green Flag....etc.
> ...


+1


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> If two people hate each other the karma factor simply cancels out for the two of them. But that's a single karmic transaction. However, others are free to assign whatever karma levels they feel each of those individuals deserve. In any case, how many angry pairs are we talking about? Very few, I'd say. It takes a lot of energy and commitment to hate people. Most of what this board sees is dogs whose bark is far worse than their bite.


It doesn't cancel out... it brings them both down.

Now if they are both misbehaving, sure, the net effect ends up being fair. But if one is being insulting and the other is keeping themselves under control? Then it becomes unfair.

Ultimately, negative karma is probably only going to affect a few people on this board. But they happen to be very vocal, which in turns brings down the overall tone.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> If you are going to have a Karma system, it needs to be externally regulated to be fair, such that two people who hate each other have little ability to directly affect each other's Karma.


As Max points out, this sort of thing would, at most cause a few 'dislikes' and they'd cancel each other out {edit to add: in response to your post above, you're right, if one is being obnoxious and the other is being reasonable, this isn't 'fair', but it'd only amount to one 'dislike'... if someone's being fair and their opponent is being obnoxious, I think the community would overwhelmingly support the one being reasonable, so the one 'dislike' wouldn't matter). Besides, I don't think there's really much antipathy around here; I know I rarely get beyond mildly annoyed with the people I argue with here. (Something I've tried to make clear on several occasions is that I like to argue, and I have nothing personal against any of you).



> As I say, if we trust ehMax and the mods to be reasonably fair, then the system can be reasonably fair.


It's not that I don't trust them, I just don't expect them to spend the kind of time necessary to read and rank each posting. So in order to be meaningful, it has to be a community ranking system (which is, by definition, what defines acceptable behaviour anyway... I don't think ehMax wants to impose his tastes and values on us, even if he is a benevolent dictator).



> hey, it's his board and he's welcome to try to shape in the way he sees fit.


Absolutely. And I think one of the most commendable aspects of what he's trying to do her is not impose a specific 'shape' on it, but rather let us, as the participants make it into what we want it to be, within the constraints of (typically Canadian) inclusivity and tolerance.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

KC4 said:


> Here's an option to consider:
> 
> If we go to a public feedback system, why not rank the posts instead of the posters?
> Red Flag, Yellow Flag, Green Flag....etc.
> ...


But isn't the idea of a reputation system simply a way of aggregating all these post-ranks so that you can see which poster consistently makes desirable or undesirable posts?

I do think it's useful to be able to keep the posts flagged, since one issue with Reputation is that if someone makes a dozen posts in one day, and that day their Reputation goes down, how do they know exactly which posts did it? (Assuming this is technically possible.)

But I'm a believer that on forums, you are what you post. Your persona on a web forum is determined by what you choose to say. So to me, I'd rather see these post rankings aggregated to the user.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> It's not that I don't trust them, I just don't expect them to spend the kind of time necessary to read and rank each posting. So in order to be meaningful, it has to be a community ranking system (which is, by definition, what defines acceptable behaviour anyway... I don't think ehMax wants to impose his tastes and values on us, even if he is a benevolent dictator).


I see it as the community reports which posts they would like a judgement on, and then the mods make the ultimate judgement.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It's not that I don't trust them, I just don't expect them to spend the kind of time necessary to read and rank each posting. So in order to be meaningful, it has to be a community ranking system (which is, by definition, what defines acceptable behaviour anyway...


Exactly. And not only read, and rank each post in the full context of the thread, but deal with disputes over any perceived unfairness. Which post caused their karma to be reduced? Why did another post from another member not earn the same negative rating? Why did the moderator not look back X number of pages to see what started it? Why was a post everyone liked not given a high rating?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. And not only read, and rank each post in the full context of the thread, but deal with disputes over any perceived unfairness. Which post caused their karma to be reduced? Why did another post from another member not earn the same negative rating? Why did the moderator not look back X number of pages to see what started it? Why was a post everyone liked not given a high rating?


Which post caused their karma to be reduced? 

Send them a link.

Why did another post from another member not earn the same negative rating? 

Because no one reported it, but please feel free to do so. 

Why did the moderator not look back X number of pages to see what started it?

Because it doesn't matter what started it, it matters if you are being civil or not. If someone was uncivil earlier, report it, and there will be a judgement call.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Which post caused their karma to be reduced?
> 
> Send them a link.
> 
> ...


And how many full-time employees will EhMax be hiring to administer this?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I feel the whole board's karma sinking just dragging this on.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> And how many full-time employees will EhMax be hiring to administer this?


I don't know. How long do you think it would take for people to learn to take a moment to be civil to one another?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I don't know. How long do you think it would take for people to learn to take a moment to be civil to one another?


My honest answer: it simply won't happen as it won't happen in real life. It will be a constant effort of a team of moderators to chase "uncivil" behaviour and punish it, always trying to beat it down but never achieving anything. Like the War on Drugs.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I believe that the forum should be left alone, but if people are het up that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, then make it completely voluntary, with community-based judgement.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonal said:


> But isn't the idea of a reputation system simply a way of aggregating all these post-ranks so that you can see which poster consistently makes desirable or undesirable posts?
> 
> I do think it's useful to be able to keep the posts flagged, since one issue with Reputation is that if someone makes a dozen posts in one day, and that day their Reputation goes down, how do they know exactly which posts did it? (Assuming this is technically possible.)
> 
> But I'm a believer that on forums, you are what you post. Your persona on a web forum is determined by what you choose to say. So to me, I'd rather see these post rankings aggregated to the user.


Sure it is. But it's the unwanted behavior we want to stop or reduce, not the posters. The members could use the current reporting system to warn mods that, in their opinion, certain posts need their flag color changed. 

For further clarity as to why the post's flag was changed, the mod could highlight the undesirable word or phrase that triggered the new flag. 

It was stated earlier by someone, perhaps even you, something to the effect that "I want to know that others find something in this post offensive too" .... well, there's the proof. Yup, something, is indeed considered offensive by others. 

Original posters could edit their posts to remove or amend the offensive material and have their green flag restored. Everybody can experience a bad day sometimes and post without due care and attention and wish they could rewind and redo. Great. Go for it. 

Perhaps a poster with more than a designated number of _standing_ red and/or yellow flags gets a holiday? Maybe (like at the carnival) 3 yellow flags earns you one red flag, three red flags earns you the "Big Prize"


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

KC4 said:


> Sure it is. But it's the unwanted behavior we want to stop or reduce, not the posters. The members could use the current reporting system to warn mods that, in their opinion, certain posts need their flag color changed.
> 
> For further clarity as to why the post's flag was changed, the mod could highlight the undesirable word or phrase that triggered the new flag.
> 
> ...


I think something like this could be fair, if it's technically feasible. And I like the idea that a designated number of standing flags automatically gets you a holiday... in some ways, it becomes more fair because it's very clear that a particular number of warnings get you a vacation. You have so many chances, and this is all well-known to you.

If that means we lose a lot of people who just can't be civil, well, that's not necessarily a bad outcome.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

SINC said:


> Perhaps a better question to be asked is, how many would leave ehMac if such a policy were implemented?


I prefer thinking about how many _new,_ quality members would join or lurkers would finally post because the noise has gone away. :heybaby:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Perhaps a poster with more than a designated number of _standing_ red and/or yellow flags gets a holiday? Maybe (like at the carnival) 3 yellow flags earns you one red flag, three red flags earns you the "Big Prize"


Just look at how the yellow/red card system gets soccer players diving and writhing around on the grass like they've been shot every time anyone goes near them. 

In real life we need police because anti-social people can cause you real harm. On an online forum, the worst someone can do is expose you to some pixels you find offensive. So I think the libertarian ideal of a completely self-policing community is more realistic online, but even here I see the value in the existence of some authorities being able to step in to limit escalation if things get ugly.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Just look at how the yellow/red card system gets soccer players diving and writhing around on the grass like they've been shot every time anyone goes near them.
> 
> In real life we need police because anti-social people can cause you real harm. On an online forum, the worst someone can do is expose you to some pixels you find offensive. So I think the libertarian ideal of a completely self-policing community is more realistic online, but even here I see the value in the existence of some authorities being able to step in to limit escalation if things get ugly.


I generally think that it's the same kind of people to react badly to their post being flagged who are likely to act badly in the first place. That is, I do think that most reasonable people try to behave civilly most of the time, and if flagged, most reasonable people will assume there's a reason for it and try to figure out what they have done and make amends. 

bryanc, I believe you've said yourself that you tend to be someone less argumentative in real life. Clearly, you see some sort of value in not exposing others to some soundwaves that they may find offensive. How is it different from pixels? Is it the degree of social connection?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> bryanc, I believe you've said yourself that you tend to be someone less argumentative in real life. Clearly, you see some sort of value in not exposing others to some soundwaves that they may find offensive. How is it different from pixels? Is it the degree of social connection?


If I've said that I'm less argumentative in real life, that is at least partially misleading. I like to argue IRL as well, but IRL there are many more social cues that will help me avoid being accidentally confrontational... I won't pursue an argument if it's obvious the person I'm arguing with isn't enjoying it; if they're getting mad or taking it personally, for example. There's also the fact that arguments IRL have to occur in real time, so I can't just sit down and start dissecting someone's position when I feel like it. 

So I'm less likely to get into these sorts of arguments IRL both because of the constraints of real time communications, real time commitments, and real time variations in mood. But also because I can pick up social cues that might let me know it's not always appreciated more easily.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> If I've said that I'm less argumentative in real life, that is at least partially misleading. I like to argue IRL as well, but IRL there are many more social cues that will help me avoid being accidentally confrontational... I won't pursue an argument if it's obvious the person I'm arguing with isn't enjoying it; if they're getting mad or taking it personally, for example. There's also the fact that arguments IRL have to occur in real time, so I can't just sit down and start dissecting someone's position when I feel like it.
> 
> So I'm less likely to get into these sorts of arguments IRL both because of the constraints of real time communications, real time commitments, and real time variations in mood. But also because I can pick up social cues that might let me know it's not always appreciated more easily.


I may have put that unclearly in an attempt to be succinct.

But then from what you are saying, wouldn't flagged posts or changes to karma also have a similar effect as social cues? To tone down the argument because other people are not enjoying it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> But then from what you are saying, wouldn't flagged posts or changes to karma also have a similar effect as social cues? To tone down the argument because other people are not enjoying it?


Possibly/probably. It would depend on who I thought was making the changes and why.

I would certainly respond more favourably to a few dozen anonymous 'dislikes' (provided that any one member could only click once and only members could express an opinion - i.e. the dislikes have to be representative of the community here) than I would to a yellow card bestowed by a moderator who's responding to an individual who objected to what I had to say.

Indeed, I can say with confidence that members being given a holiday by the mayor for what one perceives as unfair or unreasonable grounds is exactly what would be likely to drive me away (even if it was not me that was put on vacation). I know that's not what the ehMax is proposing, but I think it's worth emphasizing that turning the mods into thread cops who ban posters in order to "teach them a lesson" is a *bad idea*(TM).


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Is not part of the problem, that we failed to use the tools we had at hand. Most of us have admitted not using the report button for anything other than SPAM! Now this is going to change to let mods know to flag someone or give them bad points? This will lead to a lot of extra work for the mods and if it does not happen quick enough will we complain that it takes to long and the offense is over?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just for the heck of it, I went through the thread and counted individual member's posts where they expressed an opinion of a new system. I realize that only a small percentage of members have weighed in at this point but here is what I determined by rating members who made their opinions known: For a new system 6. Against any change 18. Neutral 3. That translates into two thirds of the board who have expressed an opinion, feel no changes are necessary. Interesting.

That noted, it is not a real perception of the board's overall opinion on the issue and perhaps one way to see what all members think would be to run an anonymous poll with a range of options to get a feel for those who do not wish to publicly reveal their preference.

Something like this, but I will leave any poll up to the mayor who is the one who should properly author the poll:

1. I am in favour of a new Reputation system of moderation.
2. I think the current system of moderation works well enough, but could use some changes.
3. I would not want a system that 'labels' me by the content of my posts.
4. If it isn't broke, why fix it? It works fine the way it is.

At any rate, however a poll would be worded, it would allow lurkers and shy posters the opportunity to express their opinion. At the end of the day, isn't it those people who some here think are the ones who want such change?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc: a poll is brilliant idea.

And in the spirit of moving on (feeling that I've made my own views clear by now), no more posts will I make on this subject - at least, not in this seemingly interminable thread.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Perhaps a better understanding of the system may assuage some of the fears. 

Reputation/Karma systems are used on thousands of forums. To date, I don't recall hearing of one member either dying from shame or being ostracized into oblivion by the madding crowd over his/her rep level. Many forum sites find the system quite useful. It allows (especially) new members to identify those members who have proven themselves to be the most helpful and friendly. It makes them more approachable for new members. 

Most systems assign an icon (dot, etc) in response to an internal numeric value. Messages are often attached to the number of dots, such as "_Username_ is on a distinguished road" To those who may have earned a low reputation by their behaviour are assigned such condemnations as "_Username_ can only hope to improve" It isn't a system to denigrate or punish anyone. Rather, it is a visual system to identify the best of the members (in conduct and character) as a reward for their behaviour. And yes, you can tie the system to other benefits, like admission to an exclusive forum area. (Strange how the take on a reputation system turned around when people started seeing potential for personal gain)

I've belonged to hundreds of forums since the dial-up bbs days and I've never seen any group on any forum get so bent out of shape over what is generally perceived as something of a game. Speaking as a forum admin myself, I can say this isn't something that will be overly difficult to administer. The alternative would be to use the internal infraction system, under which offending members would receive official reprimands, warnings, loss of privilege and ultimately be banned from the site.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Place is turning into a kindergarden. LOL


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Place is turning into a kindergarden. LOL


Nice to see you back!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nice to see you back!


Never left Don, just stopped posting, too much other stuff on the go right now.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Thanks everyone who provided feedback on the possibility of a reputation / points / karma system. 

Based on feedback, both on the boards and in private, at this time we're not going to go with this kind of system. 

For now, I am going to look at having a separate "Politics, Religion, Social Issues" section. I'm going to slightly re-arrange forums so that it isn't a sub-forum, "ghetto" forum, but part of a slightly expanded Everything Else forum. 

Same board rules will still apply to the Politics etc.. forum, but those who want to avoid the topic may do so more easily. 

As for mod-style, I will continue to occasionally post public general reminders when needed, and also send out private messages. To this point, almost none did not contain any wording about possibility of being put on vacation, but they will most likely include this possibility. 

I'll also post more clear forum "debating" rules, as well as the registration rules. 

At some point, we will also have a better "+1" type button (That is well implemented) to allow membership to give positive votes for posts.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

One other thing, I read a ton of posts in various forums, and the decorum has been quite good lately in everything else. That's really fantastic and greatly appreciated. 

Maybe it's this thread... maybe it's someone leaving... maybe both... maybe it's the weather.. maybe it's the shoes... either way, it's great, and that's my only goal in all of this.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

With that too.. I'm going to close this thread. Feel free to PM me if you wanted to get anything other feedback in.


----------

