Negative rep a no no conversation?

[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?

[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.

[Kraggy]

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.

No, it is as he said, if you disable showing rep. in your Profile you get a grey box, like he and I. If you try to give -ve rep. and you can't you get a message telling you, that's all.

[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!)

[gildhur]

No, it is as he said, if you disable showing rep. in your Profile you get a grey box, like he and I. If you try to give -ve rep. and you can't you get a message telling you, that's all.

No, those are from people who +rep you, but have no rep (or posts?) themselves, so it gives you 0. Trying to -rep someone when you don't have enough will give you an error message and nothing will be transmitted.

[BellusDuFenna]

No, those are from people who +rep you, but have no rep (or posts?) themselves, so it gives you 0. Trying to -rep someone when you don't have enough will give you an error message and nothing will be transmitted.

I knew it was something like that, I had it backwards I guess (sort of).

[FutenCake]

All I can say is that the reputation system is amusing, if confusing at times.

I wish it had a way to note why you are giving negative rep. Usually positive rep is easy to figure out. The negative rep I have been given is what makes me wonder.

I have learned though that there are folks out there who are capable of negative rep who are apparently hypersensitive about the Microtransaction topic, so if you joke about it, make sure to put a at the end of your post.

It is really funny though to see which posts get rep. For me whenever I get negative rep it is usually something that I also get a lot of positive rep for.

[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.

[carlosjuero]

Very very simple solution - if you don't like the optional forum rep system then turn it off. Bingo - out of sight, out of mind.

The rep points of folks are only as important as the forum goers make them. High Rep folks aren't special, they don't get special weekend getaways from Turbine, and they aren't involved in the inner circle plot to destroy your world.

I honestly don't get the fuss. Its a few pips and some numbers - it means nothing in the face of life itself right? If you get so upset about someone w/ higher rep or that you got neg rep then.. well I don't know what to say. Life itself is much crueler and more harsh - get some perspective.

Yes, this post is not very even leveled - I just find it kinda crazy to see folks arguing about this. When I compare the rep system to what I deal with on a daily basis in real life I get boggled that anyone could care so much about something so little.

Use it. Don't Use it. No one is going to force you either way, and no one is going to make those little boxes mean anything except for yourself.

[this is a general reply, not necessarily directed at any one poster in this thread]

[Grodo]

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.

So one should complain only if they can offer construction? I agree construction helps, but I also believe anyone who has a valid complaint should be able to. Also there are degrees of censorship, here it is not absolute nor consistent.

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.

I don't think anyone is arguing this.

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.

You doubt they are repping fanboys, but there is no regulation of this. If moderators have the ability to access reputation transactions of who is giving rep (as a previous poster stated), they should not be able to give and receive rep.

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.

Just quoting an earlier 'fanboy' poster.

[FutenCake]

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.

I really dislike the "fanboy" label, although sometimes it really is applicable. I think it should have one use; for pointing out when someone is being irrational in their defense of something Turbine has done.

The term does have some meaning, and does have at least this one valid use. Without negative connotations it wouldn't be functional.

On the other hand, I think that they should put a filter into the forums, every time you post the word "Fanboi" your rep just automatically goes down.

You know, one thing I haven't seen come up in this thread (not sure if I missed it) is mention of the Ignore function.

It is kind of hard to find, but it is dang handy. Many of these threads are a lot more readable when you use it (assuming there aren't too many replies to that person). The drawback I suppose is that people on ignore are never going to be moderated.

I have quite a few of the more annoying, and incendiary posters on ignore and I highly recommend it. It is amusing to come into a thread (such as this one) and see all these ignored posts, and people fighting with the ignored person and thinking "Now why the heck did I put this guy on ignore again?"

[Raven_SB]

Just out of curiousity how do you put people on ignore? I agree it's a good way to deal with those posters who annoy you (out of sight out of mind), but I've yet to figure out how to actually do it.

With regards to negitive rep, the few times I wanted to give it out, have been to posters who were either rude, abusive, arrogant or (sadly) all three. I don't mind people expressing their displeasure/unhappiness/annoyance, it's the way some people choose to do so that gets me at times.

[Thuarval]

I thought the same thing... a "letter" is not really a good sign. :P Usually if they're really interested in retaining folks they'll send someone from the corporate office to personally reassure everyone.

Oh and the Rep system is broken.

But hey, whatever.

I worked on a film with WB years ago, and we all received "Welcome aboard" letters. It is a nice nicety.

[Ayrolen]

Just out of curiousity how do you put people on ignore? I agree it's a good way to deal with those posters who annoy you (out of sight out of mind), but I've yet to figure out how to actually do it.

In your UserCP on the left hand side there is a link to "Edit Ignore List." You add a forum name to it and Update/Save (can't remember exactly what it says). It'll put the name at the top of that page with a check mark. If you want to take them off the ignore list, you uncheck and update again.

[robnkarla]

In your UserCP on the left hand side there is a link to "Edit Ignore List." You add a forum name to it and Update/Save (can't remember exactly what it says). It'll put the name at the top of that page with a check mark. If you want to take them off the ignore list, you uncheck and update again.

Also you can click on the poster's name then click "View Public Profile". From there there is a down arrow next to "User Lists" and click "Add to Ignore List".

The easiest for me is to hold down SHIFT when clicking View Public Profile to open the profile in its own window and then just close the window once done.

[Kathindi]

I honestly don't get the fuss. Its a few pips and some numbers - it means nothing in the face of life itself right?

You're absolutely right... as far as it goes. The real "fuss" is that people take it so seriously - and that Turbine implemented such a bone-headed waste of time in the first place. That says a lot... none of it very positive.

[Darej]

Also you can click on the poster's name then click "View Public Profile". From there there is a down arrow next to "User Lists" and click "Add to Ignore List".

The easiest for me is to hold down SHIFT when clicking View Public Profile to open the profile in its own window and then just close the window once done.

middle mouse button does same thing for me...

[robnkarla]

middle mouse button does same thing for me...

Hehe, very true Only mentioned shift for those who might not have a middle mouse button for whatever reason

[FutenCake]

Just out of curiousity how do you put people on ignore? I agree it's a good way to deal with those posters who annoy you (out of sight out of mind), but I've yet to figure out how to actually do it.

Looks like you already got the answer, but I wanted to say that this is *exactly* why I bring it up.

It's just...really hard to find. Usually when people get too worked up I will just mention it in a non-confrontational way.

It isn't like ignoring someone stops you from ever seeing their post, its just a really good way to kind of hide things you don't really need to read (like my posts for example, or some of the oddly missing, and more conspicuous members of this community.)

[Ayrolen]

It isn't like ignoring someone stops you from ever seeing their post, its just a really good way to kind of hide things you don't really need to read (like my posts for example, or some of the oddly missing, and more conspicuous members of this community.)

I really wish it wouldn't tell me that the ignored person has posted at all, that way I'm not even tempted to take them off of ignore for a second to read it. If I go as far as to ignore someone, which happens pretty rarely, I really want to forget they even exist on the forums.