Reputation - Like Buttons

[Chewett]

I have changed the type of reputation system to a "like" system. You will only be able to like content, after liking it your name is publicly visible.

 

This is a test period to see how people like it, hopefully it will now stop people -repping those becuase  they dont like them, since they cant.

 

We may also switch back to a +/- reputation system with visible voters, so that reputation spammers can be publicly seen, and dealt with.

[Eagle Eye]

I like this changes, no negative reputation  

[Change]

And +repping people because you like them is better? I suspect it doesn't happen as often, but still. I personally dislike all of the places where you can't dislike things. I'd vote for the +/- system with reputation viewing enabled.

[Zyrxae]

Personally I'm in favor of both positive and negative rep, as I feel having both more honestly represents the sentiments of the community. Negative reputation conveys as strong a message about a person's online interpersonal communication skills as positive rep does. I'm personally fascinated by the truths in each "Let's see how many neg reps xyz gets for asking literally the same question I did", but this isn't the main point here.

 

I much prefer being able to see the number of likes/upvotes on a given post, which we can't do currently. Much as I dislike its like-only system, Facebook at least allows this, albeit at the cost of anyonymity, which I consider extremely important: like polls, the +/- reps allow people to more openly express their opinions of a given post or topic without fear of consequence.

 

To take a recently reread quote not very far out of context,

[10/01/13 00:36] Muratus del Mur: we are now a handfull of people that just have one or the other friend and lots of grudges and complains, that will lead nowhere

A common sentiment seems to be that neg rep only increases divisiveness. But isn't it really more a symptom of the current fractured, fractious state of the realm?

------

EDIT: After some conversations and reconsiderations, I would support having the old +/- rep system reinstated along with the ability to see who has voted how on a given post.

This change would hold people accountable for their votes while still retaining our ability to briefly express dissent.

 

(DD, there are reasons people spam you and not everyone else. If it was one person continually bringing you down then a moderator would have taken care of it long ago, but you, Fang, and Seigheart seem to have personal hate squads. The community should by now be fairly familiar with the reasons for this.)

 

There's a good chance that enabling voter viewing will cause more short-term conflicts as people grumble about who upvoted whom wherever, but I believe that overall, knowing that we could be called upon to justify our actions will lead people to be more considerate in their voting.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Zyrxae

[Tarquinus]

I favor a system where people are held accountable for their votes. I do think it would cut down on the excessive neg-repping.

[DARK DEMON]

I do not agree, Zyrxae. More than half of my neg-rep is due to spam. Thus it may make people envision someone as a bad communicator, even though s/he isn't. Plus, people can change their communicating ways for the better, but the neg rep still remains on your profile.

 

Also, many people give neg rep just due to personal dislike; it's not restricted to the contents of the post.

 

+/- rep system should only return once everyone can see who's doing it, so that those who spam can be caught.

Edited May 5, 2013 by DARK DEMON

[Jubaris]

Pretty much what Tarquinus and others have already stated.

I am for kicking out neg rep, or at least, making neg rep clickers transparent.

[Dan]

I do not agree, Zyrxae. More than half of my neg-rep is due to spam.

So you agree that less than half of your neg rep is justified?

 

people can change their communicating ways for the better, but the neg rep still remains on your profile.

if people change their communicating ways, others will start positive rep-ing them. So in the end, their rep will improve.

 

Also, many people give neg rep just due to personal dislike; it's not restricted to the contents of the post.

if it is the case, then there will be others who positive rep the post, to conter-balance. Eveybody should be able to express the opinion, even though it is unjustified or personal, but in the end, the voice of community is the sum of every and each person's voice. So i dont think it matters that only 1 or 2 people hate neg rep you. If the reason is unjust, people will stand up for you.

 

+/- rep system should only return once everyone can see who's doing it, so that those who spam can be caught.

If it is the case, then why should vote remains anonymous? They are made this way for the same reason

 

 

[DARK DEMON]

So you agree that less than half of your neg rep is justified?

 

if people change their communicating ways, others will start positive rep-ing them. So in the end, their rep will improve.

 

if it is the case, then there will be others who positive rep the post, to conter-balance. Eveybody should be able to express the opinion, even though it is unjustified or personal, but in the end, the voice of community is the sum of every and each person's voice. So i dont think it matters that only 1 or 2 people hate neg rep you. If the reason is unjust, people will stand up for you.

 

If it is the case, then why should vote remains anonymous? They are made this way for the same reason

 

 

I can't partially quote now, nor can I remove that earlier response (above this) from me, nor can I edit it and type "redacted" cause post is too short. Great.

 

Anyways, the answers one by one:

 

1) Yes.

2) No, they will NOT start pos-repping them. It never happens cause they get used to clicking the neg-rep button.

3) Nobody counter-balances. Nor will anyone in the future. People never change their opinion on someone. First expression is always last expression in this realm. I've seen it for myself.

4) It should NOT be anonymous; that's my point.

 

Edit: neg-rep gives may give wrong impressions

Edited May 5, 2013 by DARK DEMON

[Mallos]

"People never change their opinion on someone. First expression is always last expression in this realm."

 

Not true.

 

 

So whether or not negative votes remain, which I'm a bit for but rather don't mind either way, I think we should be able to tell how many up-votes a particular post has received. Also, I don't think being able to see who has voted on what is a bad idea.

[dst]

DD you are soooo wrong.

 

I used to have a lot of positive rep. I went to major negative and now I'm positive again.

And how are you so sure about this:

Oh, this guy posted! Auto-neg rep!" kinda thing.

Have you seen the votes? Do you have any proof to sustain your affirmation?

 

I want the +/- back as well. It's the first feeback a player receives to his ideas.

 

Also, as an example: fenrir. He has the worst reputation even. BUT he has no neg repps to his "Leashes" topic opened few days ago. Same with fang (he even has some positives).

 

So no, it's not a conspiracy.

Forgot: if the votes will not be anonymous  we will definitely have less neg reps but we'll also have not so accurate results (because some will refrain from clicking the buttons - we have too many cowards in this game who prefer to do/say things behind someone's back rather than confront him/her). So I haven't made up my mind about being able to see who voted.

[DARK DEMON]

But it will put a stop to those spammers. Even if we don't catch them, we'll stop them, by making it not anonymous.

[Jubaris]

Dst, I agree with you for the most part, reputation changing (from negative to positive, vice versa) is quite possible and is not a rare case. I don't agree with the last thought:

 

Forgot: if the votes will not be anonymous  we will definitely have less neg reps but we'll also have not so accurate results (because some will refrain from clicking the buttons - we have too many cowards in this game who prefer to do/say things behind someone's back rather than confront him/her). So I haven't made up my mind about being able to see who voted.

 

Being anonymous does not promote fairness and accuracy here either, mostly it allows people to unleash frustrations with another individual, rather than rate a post justly.*

Maybe transparent voting will make 'cowards', as you call them, back away a bit, but the votes that we would have would be 'sure' (confident) votes for the most part.

It allows better analysis of which part of MD actually likes a certain post. We certainly noticed a lot of posts positive-repped by friends of the poster, or from people of their mainland. If such behavior is repetitive  people would be quicker to disregard those reputation points, which gives a better insight into support of MD community for certain thoughts.

 

I have an alternative - perhaps make positive votes anonymous (to avoid 'kissing ass'), and only negative votes transparent, if the system allows that...?

 

 

*Someone will argue that such 'spammer enemies' are relating to forum reputation, but I disagree, we are talking about reputation of posts, not of individuals. Every individual has a profile that can be rated on its own (by those five starts).

Edited May 5, 2013 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[Ivorak]

As someone who was rarely given negative reputation (it's kind of hard to check now, but I don't think I had any posts below -1) I'm still really in favor of the new setup.  By liking something with your name attached, you can show your support for an idea without cluttering the forum.  I also support the removal of negative reputation because having it discourages people to speak up on controversial topics (these things need to be discussed, but not shouted).  Another reason I think a lot of negative rep is given is poorly phrased posts (sometimes I'll see posts I think are agreeing with each other, one downvoted the other upvoted, and then a huge argument follows).  Miscommunication happens to all of us ocassionally and it's better resolved with clarifications then downvoting that immediately puts others on the defensive.  That's just one reason though.

 

My main concern is that we practice cutting people and their ideas down too much.  Yes, some ideas suck, but if we want to make MagicDuel a better place we get there by making it better, not just by tearing down what is bad.  Please, if you don't like an idea, voice some concerns constructively, then propose a better one and help make it reality.  

[dst]

Hmm..you have a point there Princ. I concentrated on neg  votes and forgot all about positive ones.

 

Also, there is an issue here which back then Chewett could not counter and that might have a solution through those "Like" buttons: private forums. In those forums, only "friends"* have access and they massively abused the system by pos repping each other (*cough* yes, Loreroot, you are my main target in here :D) so they show up as Knights/Jedies (no idea what's the plural) through fake inflated rep.

 

@Ivorak: you don't post too much either and you're not one of the players to cause controversies. You usually take the side of the majority. So yeah, it's natural that you don't get too many negs.

[Zyrxae]

Ivorak, I strongly agree that we need more constructive criticism. Showing who has neg-repped a given post should serve this purpose, as those who spam neg-reps without justification will in turn be looked down upon by the community, which is a strong incentive against the tear-down we've all seen.
 

By liking something with your name attached, you can show your support for an idea without cluttering the forum.

Currently we can't do this. 'Liking' someone's post adds a point to their net reputation, and if a post gets five or more likes, it is starred as popular. We can't see who has liked our own posts or the posts of others, or see the number of likes a post has.
Edit: It's still a minor annoyance to have to log out to see who voted how, but thanks for the tip. Impressionistic data mine, here we come...
 

Forgot: if the votes will not be anonymous we will definitely have less neg reps but we'll also have not so accurate results (because some will refrain from clicking the buttons - we have too many cowards in this game who prefer to do/say things behind someone's back rather than confront him/her).

Accurate by what standard? I'd argue that the old system where we could neg-rep with relative impunity less accurately represents the view of the community than a transparent system, although this depends to what extent you think the opinions of these cowards constitute a valuable part of the community's input rather than mere spam.

Being anonymous does not promote fairness and accuracy here either, mostly it allows people to unleash frustrations with another individual, rather than rate a post justly.*
Maybe transparent voting will make 'cowards', as you call them, back away a bit, but the votes that we would have would be 'sure' (confident) votes for the most part.

I agree entirely.

To recap--possible systems:

• +/- rep as before
• +/- rep with transparency
• Current 'like' system (see above)
• 'Like' system with transparency (I've seen this as a 'favorite' system on non-IPB forums, and it may be possible here)
• +/- rep with transparency for neg reps but not +reps (Rhaegar's suggestion; not confirmed whether this is possible)

To that last one, I'd say that if we all can see just who's sucking up to whom, it should cut down on the ass-kissing and friend/landmate-back-scratching. Edited May 6, 2013 by Zyrxae

[Tipu]

Nooo..bring back neg reps

 

Then how the hell i can beat fenrir -600 reps

[Shemhazaj]

I'm for bringing back neg reps and making them (as well as pos reps) transparent.

 

There are times when I strongly disagree with a post but I won't reply because that'd mean repeating other people who replied before me, or because I'd need to use words that are considered by many offensive and I'd rather remain silent than offend people. That's when I find (visible) neg repping useful.

 

As for positive reps I'm also pro making it transparent. I don't do "ass kissing" and I don't really care if people see it that way. I guess people who accuse of ass kissing are the ones who'd know what it is in the first place :P

[Fang Archbane]

I say change it back and make it all transparent.

I'd say more, but I feel all I could have said has already been covered.

[Kiley]

I say Bullshit. 

 

Whether +/- if you have an opinion speak your mind.  Is this really going to be a debate.  This is MD.  Chew???? What the hell are you doing?

[Ivorak]

Something I just noticed.  I can only see who has liked a post when I'm logged out.

[Udgard]

There's a pro and con to both options, but somehow I find myself liking the old system better.

 

While transparency is in general good, I do wonder how that would work to people trying to "neutralize" a post's reputation? I know I've found myself often in a situation where I don't find anything good about a post, but I don't find it to warrant a neg rep either. If I see that post being neg-repped, I would sometimes positive rep it to make it neutral. With transparency, would this show up as if I pos-repped it? If so, that would bring a totally different impression to what I intended. 

 

And in response to some of DD's statements:

2. They do. I've done it myself, and I've seen negative post regulars get positive rep for (good) posts.

3. Again, same as above. 

 

[No one]

+/- system, with/without transparency.

 

With only positive voting you only count how much your friends visit the forum no matter how stupid your post was.

If you want to see how good a person is, you have to have the -rep too and thus the average will show. Otherwise one can get one good idea, read and voted by 1k ppl and will be the best poster on the forum.

 

 

Also, as Dst pointed out, there are hidden topics that i guess have huge +rep. The hidden topics should not get counted toward general reputation.

 

 

Also: was there no post liked in this topic ?

I want to see the +/- rep before voting myself.

Edited May 6, 2013 by No one

[dst]

Also: was there no post liked in this topic ?

I want to see the +/- rep before voting myself.

You can see them if you're logged out :D. A nice little bug Ivorak pointed out a bit earlier in this thread.

[Chewett]

You can see them if you're logged out :D. A nice little bug Ivorak pointed out a bit earlier in this thread.

I can see them, cant everyone? They were meant to be public...