Negative rep a no no conversation?

[Zarador]

The pettiness of this system is rearing its ugly head now that more people have farmed enough rep. The neg rep is getting handed out for anything and everything. Its a stupid system and was never needed. Just another bad choice by Turbine. This forum at one time had a civility to it, even though some disagreed, there was usually some form of rational discussion to be had.

If anyone really gives a **** about the community, head over to some of the sub forums, hand out some rep to the posters that actually contribute something besides caption this, pics of bacon, and the other "Witty" threads here on the general forum.

Something funny, since a certain poster has gotten to his/her rep goal, havent seen any more "caption this threads" have we?

One good thing about canceling an account, your forum account goes with it.

Great work Turbine.

So your fellow players disagree in the manner that someone presents them self in a thread, somehow Turbine should "fix" that? Just like I have no way of knowing what **** could possibly mean, far to clever for most to figure out.

There have been threads that were entirely on the other side of debate that got their point across and received positive reputation for doing so in an intelligent respectful manner.

How is it that so many very controversial posters managed to max out their reputation? Could it be that they know how to make a point without making a point a flame?

I do however agree with the part about canceling the account removes the forum account. I always abhorred the posts from people who left the game and still kept up the old tiring arguments explaining how two years later, they still don't care about the game. Let it go!

[Cromwall]

I don't mind the rep system as such. I can see that it would be useful for self moderating the forums to some degree. A passive form of control, a way to help stack the posts in favor of positive comments about the game.

I always find it amusing, however when some feel the need to tell the world that they have given out +rep. Maybe hoping that the person they gave it to will return the favor.

Either way.. have the forums and the pursuit of rep become more of a hobby than the game its supposed to be representing?

[xx19kilosoldier]

So your fellow players disagree in the manner that someone presents them self in a thread, somehow Turbine should "fix" that? Just like I have no way of knowing what **** could possibly mean, far to clever for most to figure out.

There have been threads that were entirely on the other side of debate that got their point across and received positive reputation for doing so in an intelligent respectful manner.

How is it that so many very controversial posters managed to max out their reputation? Could it be that they know how to make a point without making a point a flame?

I do however agree with the part about canceling the account removes the forum account. I always abhorred the posts from people who left the game and still kept up the old tiring arguments explaining how two years later, they still don't care about the game. Let it go!

Turbine created the mess. Tell me how the forums are some how better with this stupid system? Was there something wrong before? I think not. Im not trying to flame you, or the others who actually contribute with out the us vs them mentality that permeates around here lately. But there is no denying that there are a group of posters who have farmed their rep with an agenda to be had once they could neg rep posters. Personally if I where Turbine I would much rather have a place where some disgruntled players could come to vent and have a voice instead of just throwing up their hands and quitting and walking away because they get shouted down and neg rep by a very vocal minority that feel that its their "duty" to squash all dissent.

Again, if this doesnt pertain to those constructive posters, please forgive me, I do not mean to insult their contributions. I am a long time frustrated player who has been hoping maybe things will change in the game to bring back some of the enjoyment I felt is missing for me. I was lingering on the forums, not always as constructive as I would of liked but it was and had been the frustration I have been building for a bit now. There doenst feel like those of us in the community who push for change are not wanted, and thats fine for them, but I suspect that Turbine would have a different view on this.

[Khafar]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. What percentage of the rep points handed out do you think are negative? 0.1%? 0.3%? A very small percentage of posters here can hand it out at all, and I suspect most of them don't give out nearly as much -rep as +rep. I certainly don't - to date, I've dinged one poster exactly once, total. Not only that, but -rep is by design only worth 1/2 as much as +rep. So if I can bump you by +24, I can only ding you by -12.

The entire system is slanted toward giving out +rep.

Khafar

[xx19kilosoldier]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. What percentage of the rep points handed out do you think are negative? 0.1%? 0.3%? A very small percentage of posters here can hand it out at all, and I suspect most of them don't give out nearly as much -rep as +rep. I certainly don't - to date, I've dinged one poster exactly once, total. Not only that, but -rep is by design only worth 1/2 as much as +rep. So if I can bump you by +24, I can only ding you by -12.

The entire system is slanted toward giving out +rep.

Khafar

Khafar

Its not the neg rep in and of itself, its the atmosphere that it has created around here. You have always been pretty rational and I hope you can see where I am coming from on that.

[Zarador]

Turbine created the mess. Tell me how the forums are some how better with this stupid system? Was there something wrong before? I think not. I'm not trying to flame you, or the others who actually contribute with out the us vs them mentality that permeates around here lately. But there is no denying that there are a group of posters who have farmed their rep with an agenda to be had once they could neg rep posters. Personally if I where Turbine I would much rather have a place where some disgruntled players could come to vent and have a voice instead of just throwing up their hands and quitting and walking away because they get shouted down and neg rep by a very vocal minority that feel that its their "duty" to squash all dissent.

Again, if this doesn't pertain to those constructive posters, please forgive me, I do not mean to insult their contributions. I am a long time frustrated player who has been hoping maybe things will change in the game to bring back some of the enjoyment I fell is missing for me. I was lingering on the forums, not always as constructive as I would of liked but it was and had been the frustration I have been building for a bit now. There doesn't feel like those of us in the community who push for change are not wanted, and that's fine for them, but I suspect that Turbine would have a different view on this.

First off, I respect your point of view on the subject. I rather like the system because I feel in some ways it promotes some degree of self restraint that was lacking in other game forums. Some posters would deliberately act in any manner they felt knowing at worse they risked a slap on the wrist and a few days in the corner. You could have a great thread going and someone would totally derail it with an insulting argument just to troll and aggravate their fellow community members.

In the current system, your community members and your moderators can rate you by your behavior. I'm sure there are abuses, every system out there is subject to misuse and abuse.

There are proper and improper ways to vent frustration and get an argument across. I have given +rep to those I strongly disagree with simply because they conveyed a point that was valid to them in respectful informative manner. I'm also sure that some players farm reputation purely to "hold the power" (in their own minds) to discriminate against opinions they don't care for or just to make people miserable.

[Grodo]

In the current system, your community members and your moderators can rate you by your behavior. I'm sure there are abuses, every system out there is subject to misuse and abuse.

The system is too subjective and lately, the posts aren't rated by behavior, but by the subject. Threads that poke fun, criticize, or question Turbine's behavoir are guaranteed a negative rep.

Disagreeing with a subject should not prompt anyone to give negative rep. I think most understand this, unfortunately as Zarador says, there may be a few who misuse, abuse, or just don't understand the system.

"With great power comes great responsiblity"

Please don't use this system to bury or conceal topics you don't agree with. In the long run it does more harm than good.

[revoked]

I agree that negative rep should not be used just because someone posts something you disagree with. Iirc, when you give rep (and I can't give negative rep myself), it indicates you think the post is informative/help vs. inflammatory, trolling etc. A well thought out, and reasonably expressed post is a useful one whether you agree with the author or not. An inflammatory post that makes broad (and inaccurate) blanket statements or attacks others, undermines the forum even if you agree with the conclusions drawn by the poster.

That said though, I wonder on what basis you can say negative rep is given just because of the subject of the post as opposed to how the content was expressed. Threads or posts don't receive negative rep individually and only the total rep of any given poster is shown. As far as I know, the only way to know negative rep was given is if it was given to you, because only you can see which of your posts garnered the negative rep. Even if you have received some negative rep for a post and you feel your opinion was expressed respectfully and thoughtfully, and really it seems it was just because someone who could give negative rep didn't like your opinion, that doesn't mean that is the case overall.

[Khafar]

Disagreeing with a subject should not prompt anyone to give negative rep.

That certainly won't ever get negative rep from me. In fact, if they make a good case for their position in a civil manner, I sometimes give +rep whether I agree with them or not.

The single time I've given -rep to date, it was for a guy being abusive toward other posters. I /report those too, and have for the past 3 years. I'm perfectly happy to see those people get "shut down" over time, because there are plenty of people around who are capable of expressing their opinions of the game, the forums, etc without being complete jerks about it.

Khafar

[Digital_Utopia]

The system is too subjective and lately, the posts aren't rated by behavior, but by the subject. Threads that poke fun, criticize, or question Turbine's behavoir are guaranteed a negative rep.

Disagreeing with a subject should not prompt anyone to give negative rep. I think most understand this, unfortunately as Zarador says, there may be a few who misuse, abuse, or just don't understand the system.

"With great power comes great responsiblity"

Please don't use this system to bury or conceal topics you don't agree with. In the long run it does more harm than good.

Actually, giving negative rep simply because you don't agree with the poster's opinion is a perfect way to gain negative rep (among other disciplinary actions) for misusing the system. Who gives what rep to whom is anonymous to us, but I can guarantee that the mods can see everything.

I understand the logic behind the fear. If those who enjoy the game tend to be less angry, then it stands to reason they will get more rep faster than anybody else. If those people dislike those who criticize the game, then it would stand to reason that their targets for negative rep would be those people.

However, it makes a couple of assumptions that are not logical at all. First it would require that Turbine's moderators either don't moderate the rep system at all. Second it would require that Turbine's moderators support the censorship of criticism. Finally it would require that there would be enough fanbois on the forum who would choose to break the rules to do such a thing.

The 2nd assumption here is so completely off the wall that it makes me wonder if some people ever try to stop and figure things out for themselves. If you were a company (game or otherwise) that didn't want criticism of you, on your official website, which of the following features would you not add:

a) customer support email/phone number
b) user testimonials
c) discussion forums
d) personal blogs
e) a & b
f) c & d
g) all of the above
h) none of the above

If you answered "f", then congratulations - you are a completely rational individual. As you can probably see all over the place, if a company was so insecure as to not want any criticism on their site, there are better ways of pulling that off than including both a discussion forum and personal blogs. In fact, one might say that both of those are ways of encouraging criticism.

[ericlewis]

Well I have had my rep turned off for a while it just shows a grey box. I logged in this morning and was checking a topic I had posted on and found my rep had been turned on???

So I went to the cp and went to turn it off, scrolled down saw a couple of red ones. And one that was really strange. I had a grey box on one post so I guess somebody hit me red and sombody hit me green thus making it nuetral?

Oh well its turned back off. Just wierd to see a grey box. The red one I knew was comming and I knew why. One should be carefull of who post he quotes, while trying to point out the truth of the matter.

[BellusDuFenna]

Well I have had my rep turned off for a while it just shows a grey box. I logged in this morning and was checking a topic I had posted on and found my rep had been turned on???

So I went to the cp and went to turn it off, scrolled down say a couple of red ones. And one that was really strange. I had a grey box on one post so I guess somebody zined me red and sombody zinged me green thus making it nuetral.

Oh well its turned back off. Just wierd to see a grey box. The red one I knew was comming and I new why. One should be carefull of who post he quotes.

I could be wrong, but I think the grey ones are for when someone tried to give you -rep, but they don't have enough +rep themselves to be able to downrep people.

[Grodo]

However, it makes a couple of assumptions that are not logical at all. First it would require that Turbine's moderators either don't moderate the rep system at all. Second it would require that Turbine's moderators support the censorship of criticism.

Turbine's moderators absolutely support and actively engage in the censorshop of criticism. How many times are threads closed and deleted because "there already is a discussion thread on this subject"? Which is fine, but not consistent. Yet, favorable threads sharing the same topic are allowed to be repeated, redundant, and restarted. I have seen thread titles renamed by moderators just to make the words less harsh.

Finally it would require that there would be enough fanbois on the forum who would choose to break the rules to do such a thing.

It is possible for moderators to dish out positive rep to the 'fanboi' posts which gives them another form of censorship. I am not saying this happens and I have no proof. However, wouldn't removing this tool from the moderators ensure us tinfoil hat wearing posters that this practice is not occuring?

Why is it that only the 'fanbois' have the highest reputation? It shouldn't be this way, but that is what has happened to these forums.

[FajaSailors]

Man, I've seen it all now. I guess I've learned to live with all the nerd rage I see in game, but multiple posts whining about some silly forum rep system in the last few days is just hilarious. WHO CARES?

[DarkCntry]

That certainly won't ever get negative rep from me. In fact, if they make a good case for their position in a civil manner, I sometimes give +rep whether I agree with them or not.

The single time I've given -rep to date, it was for a guy being abusive toward other posters. I /report those too, and have for the past 3 years. I'm perfectly happy to see those people get "shut down" over time, because there are plenty of people around who are capable of expressing their opinions of the game, the forums, etc without being complete jerks about it.

Khafar

Agree. I've handed out a few negative rep, which were given to several posters who did nothing but hand out remarks that were going to be moderated anyways, to which I also did the obligatory reporting of.

I have not given rep out because I disagree with a stance, only in how that stance is stated.

Turbine's moderators absolutely support and actively engage in the censorshop of criticism. How many times are threads closed and deleted because "there already is a discussion thread on this subject"? Which is fine, but not consistent. Yet, favorable threads sharing the same topic are allowed to be repeated, redundant, and restarted. I have seen thread titles renamed by moderators just to make the words less harsh.

Censorship of criticism would result in no negative remarks remaining on the forum, anywhere. What you're talking about doesn't happen, what does happen is pretty much commonplace anywhere, post in a tone that is entirely negative without construction and your posts will get moderated in some fashion.

For example, a poster earlier posted nothing more than jabs at people's social standing in the world based upon the replies they saw. Should that not get moderated? Posts like that have been the only posts I've ever noticed ever getting removed.

It is possible for moderators to dish out positive rep to the 'fanboi' posts which gives them another form of censorship. I am not saying this happens and I have no proof. However, wouldn't removing this tool from the moderators ensure us tinfoil hat wearing posters that this practice is not occuring?

Do you not consider the CMs part of the community? Do you think of them as some ruling force that shouldn't have a voice of their own? They are policed just as much, if not more, than any other member of the community, I know this first hand, and I seriously doubt there's any of them repping fanboys just so they could 'censor' the forums.

Why is it that only the 'fanbois' have the highest reputation? It shouldn't be this way, but that is what has happened to these forums.

Perhaps it's because fanboys aren't going around labeling others in ways that demean them, ever thought of that?

Tact goes a long, long way.

[bigsix66]

It is possible for moderators to dish out positive rep to the 'fanboi' posts which gives them another form of censorship. I am not saying this happens and I have no proof. However, wouldn't removing this tool from the moderators ensure us tinfoil hat wearing posters that this practice is not occuring?

Yeah, that's what we really need to do. Make changes that accommodate the lunatic fringe. We really wouldn't want those folks to be unhappy. Good call.

[Ayrolen]

The system is too subjective and lately, the posts aren't rated by behavior, but by the subject. Threads that poke fun, criticize, or question Turbine's behavoir are guaranteed a negative rep.

I disagree. From my observations, it's only the people that criticize in an incredibly nonconstructive manner that get dinged with the negative rep. Threads with subjects like "LOTRO still fails" aren't going to be looked upon very favorably and I find it hard to even want to read the body of a post with a title like that.

The other posts that tend to get dinged are those where the poster feels the need to speak for the entire community, rather than just saying how they feel about the State of the Game. No likes being spoken for, especially when posters call out certain players by name and constantly label them as "fanbois." If you honestly can't control yourself on the interwebs and insulting other players is the only wayyou feel like you can get your point across, don't expect a round of applause and a proverbial pat on the back via the rep system.

[Dotlbeme]

....
The other posts that tend to get dinged are those where the poster feels the need to speak for the entire community, rather than just saying how they feel about the State of the Game..

This nails it. I often get miffed with posters who do EXACTLY this (and I never realized that was the main reason until now!)

[robnkarla]

One thing I would be curious to see would be what the titles are for negative rep. I don't think I've seen anything other Neutral, but would be interesting to see a list of the titles. (Imagine what kind of rep farming their might be if the title was "the Creep" )


Also, I'm really amazed at which posts seem to garner rep and which ones do not. Often the posts that I feel might actually have an impact and have seen positive reactions fall flat, but an odd comment here and there can be flagged a few times with +rep.

I've hidden my rep often as I would rather be viewed under the context of the current post than any added opinion (positive and/or negative) a reputation level might bring, but in the end I decided to show it. This was due more to the fact that I find it fascinating to see what people give rep for and when it is hidden it is not used as often.

[Sapience]

One thing I would be curious to see would be what the titles are for negative rep. I don't think I've seen anything other Neutral, but would be interesting to see a list of the titles. (Imagine what kind of rep farming their might be if the title was "the Creep" )

There is only one title for negative rep, "Neutral".

[robnkarla]

There is only one title for negative rep, "Neutral".

Thank you for answering. How many red boxes can one have? I thought at first it might only be one, but I thought I saw a person with two.

[Sapience]

Thank you for answering. How many red boxes can one have? I thought at first it might only be one, but I thought I saw a person with two.

In theory, 11.

[finafarn]

Negative Rep is like Nuclear power it can be used for good or evil but you don't want to get any on you.