Captain's Challenge..... - Page 3

obvious Child · 08-15-08, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

Anyone who thinks they can impact the election coming up by posting here is misguided in the first place. Although one way they have impact is that by posting on a forum where an anti-McCain crowd or an anti-Obama crowd can gather, they will get more campaign donations for their favorite candidate.

This I disagree with. I think one can impact the election at least on a small scale, but not in the way one intentionally tries. How many people have leaned one way or the other after hearing someone's intended argumemt?

How many have leaned the opposite after reading factless, **** filled, crazy bitch talk?

MC.no.spin · 08-15-08, 11:05 PM

How about enabling the reputation feature on this forum software as a start? It might inspire better posting, and alert users to poorly reputed posters. Putting them on ignore then leaves users with a more manageable scene.

This is what the vbulletin software this forum uses could enable, if desired (note the descriptions of the various levels can be re-worded, such as "partisan hack not to be listened to" "beacon of political wisdom" etc.):

"User Reputation in its simplest form is a ranking of your user's benefit to your forum. Its basis comes from the opinions of all of your forum users that choose take part in it.

Users gain and lose reputation based on how their posts are scored by other forum participants. Users with the ability to affect reputation, will either give or take aways points by approving or disapproving with a post's content."

vBulletin Manual

danarhea · 08-15-08, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

How about enabling the reputation feature on this forum software as a start? It might inspire better posting, and alert users to poorly reputed posters. Putting them on ignore then leaves users with a more manageable scene.

This is what the vbulletin software this forum uses could enable, if desired (not the descriptions of the various levels can be re-worded, such as "partisan hack not to be listened to" "beacon of political wisdom" etc.):

The reputation feature is not all that. At Political Forum, some people create multiple accounts in order to give themselves reputation points. People there also have groups, where everybody in the group give others in that group reputation points whenever they are able to, and thus reputation becomes a function of partisanship. IMHO, the thanks button is a better option.

MC.no.spin · 08-16-08, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

The reputation feature is not all that. At Political Forum, some people create multiple accounts in order to give themselves reputation points. People there also have groups, where everybody in the group give others in that group reputation points whenever they are able to, and thus reputation becomes a function of partisanship. IMHO, the thanks button is a better option.

I think the thanks button should be kept, and even add a "no thanks" button - I believe both this and reputation points can be used at the same time (I may be mistaken.)

The system has many modifications you can make to it. In fact, it could be set so that only moderators can give reputation.

Quote:

This section contains many settings that dictate how users of your forum are able to affect each other's reputation score.

* Enable User Reputation system
This is the global switch for the reputation system. If you disable this, users will not be able to rate each other nor will their scores be visible.
* Default Reputation
This is the reputation score that new users will start out with.
* Number of Reputation Levels to Display
When a user enters their User CP, they will see a list of their most recent reputation ratings. This affects how many of the latest ratings to display.
* Administrator's Reputation Power
If you wish to have administrator's wield a certain reputation power independent of their calculated score, enter it here. Otherwise, set this to 0 and they will use the same calculations as everyone else.
* Register Date Factor
The number of reputation points that a user is able to give or take is dependant on several factors, with the length they have been registered as one of them. A user's power is first initialized at 1 and then this factor and the factors that follow are used to increase it. For example if you set this to 365, every 365 days that the user has been a member of your forum, they would gain one point. So if they have been a member for five years, they would gain 5 points of power for a total of 6.
* Post Count Factor
The amount of posts that a user has can also affect their reputation power. Set this to number of posts that you want to award one point for. For example, set this to 50 and for a user with 500 posts, they would gain 10 points of power.
* Reputation Point Factor
The users current reputation score can also affect their reputation power. Set this to 100 and a user with a reputation of 1000 would gain 10 points of reputation power. If you set any of the power factors to 0, that will effectively remove that factor from having an effect on the user's reputation power.
* Minimum Post Count
If the reputation system is enabled, anyone will be able to rate a post but only users with a post count above the level you set here will be able to actually give points or take points from another user.
* Minimum Reputation Count
As with the post count above, a user must have a reputation above this level to be able to give or take points from another user's score.
* Daily Reputation Clicks Limit
This sets how many unique members that a forum user will be able to rate in any 24 hour period. Administrators can rate as many people as they wish.
* Reputation User Spread
This setting dictates how many unique members that a user must rate before they are able to rate the same member twice. The goal of this setting is to stop a member from either artificially bumping or dropping a user by repeatedly rating their posts.

obvious Child · 08-16-08, 12:04 AM

Why bother Mc.No.Spin?

We already know who's valuable here and who's a flaming pile of dog ****. Merely giving numbers doesn't change that. Do you really think certain posters are going to start posting intelligently because of that system? Do you think that Sutherland is going to change his excellent fact filled posting style because of numbers? The thanks system here doesn't do that. Why would that?

MC.no.spin · 08-16-08, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Why bother Mc.No.Spin?

We already know who's valuable here and who's a flaming pile of dog ****. Merely giving numbers doesn't change that. Do you really think Aquapub or Navy are going to start posting intelligently because of that system? Do you think that Sutherland is going to change his excellent fact filled posting style because of numbers? The thanks system here doesn't do that. Why would that?

It's definitely not an end all, be all, that's for sure.

It may not change some poster's style (due to mental deficiency), but it will give a heads-up for new users and perhaps keep their interest in remaining at the forum.

I just think it's pointless to have a thread about improving things without changes at the "policy" level.

independent_thinker2002 · 08-16-08, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

It's definitely not an end all, be all, that's for sure.

It may not change some poster's style (due to mental deficiency), but it will give a heads-up for new users and perhaps keep their interest in remaining at the forum.

I just think it's pointless to have a thread about improving things without changes at the "policy" level.

Like CC has pointed out, what you are asking is for censorship. If we aren't responsible for what we post and what we choose to respond to, why should we shift that responsibility to the mods?

MC.no.spin · 08-16-08, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Like CC has pointed out, what you are asking is for censorship. If we aren't responsible for what we post and what we choose to respond to, why should we shift that responsibility to the mods?

I am not asking for censorship. I am not asking to shift the responsibility to the mods. I am saying there is a software feature for this forum, that if enabled, could perhaps lead to improved postings. Danahrea pointed out a shortcoming of the feature, but in actuality, it was set-up improperly, opening the door to manipulation of it. The mods would not be the only ones to give reputation, in my ideal model of how it could work. It just shows how regulated that reputation feature could become. It has a fair amount of flexibility.

For example, it could be set so that no one under a 100 posts can give or take away points from a person's reputation. It could also be set so that the more veteran posters have more impact on the scoring, but also that their reputation themselves is the most important criterion in how many points they can give or take away (a buffer to the hyper-partisan crowd.) You can also require a "spread" of reputation to other posters before a poster can give (or take away) the same poster reputation points again. Etc.

Why re-invent the wheel? This is what the money makers on the subject have come up with.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-16-08, 03:03 AM

I have seen the reputation feature in the Mod Control Panel, but I do not believe that vauge has activated it. Though if used correctly, this would be a warning to posters as to who to take seriously and who to not. Unfortunately, similar to the "thanks" button, there is too much potential for abuse. It's a good idea, Spin, but I suspect it would be ineffective. The moderation team is watching this thread, so all suggestions are being considered.

I, actually, agree with Spin, to a point; in order for changes to occur, both policy and posting/participation alterations must be looked at. Some of you may not like the former, but in reality, without rules and consequences, often, a negative influence's behavior cannot be affected. Some people just won't get it or take responsibility for their behaviors, and their impact on others must be considered. Sometimes rules must be put in place to deal with this. This is not to say that this is what is going to occur. But this avenue cannot be dismissed, either.

This thread has morphed into exactly what I had wanted and I appreciate the feedback. What many of you have said is being taken very seriously by myself and the moderation team and is being actively discussed.

Please keep the discussion and suggestions coming.

MC.no.spin · 08-16-08, 03:57 AM

I see where you are going with this and let me just chime in a couple thoughts on this, in regards to rules and infraction points.

The suspension system has an important deterrant effect on posters, and the points system has a great deal of workability. I think that one should be wary of in adding a new interpretation of the system. One should judge the severity of the violating post carefully.

Since we are talking about hyper-partisan, over the top, asinine type posts and threads as the target trouble spot for the forum, let's use that as the example.

This could receive an infraction, but I think it's important to keep in mind the amount of drama and upset that can occur when too much opinion enters in on the judgement of what is and isn't a violation. Further, "exclusion" from board contribution via suspension has proven to be a heavy penalty towards users, witness the various craziness that surrounds a majority of them. Exclusion is the crux of insanity, actually.

So perhaps this type of perceived violation could be a little more tempered on the punishment. This presupposes that the "reputation" system would not be a strong enough handling, and frankly I think you're right. It's sometimes enough for a poster to find one other buddy who sees things his way. It's sometimes enough just to know he is bugging the **** out of everybody else.

What I might suggest is that an infraction level be created for this type of post, to be carefully considered before given. Other moderators can oversee the piloting of it and ensure no one is going overboard with his own political prejudices getting in the way. Also, it should be a lower amount of points taken away than the usual 3 pointer. 1 point. Once he reaches 5, he goes on a system where each post has to be approved by a mod before it gets posted, for a period of 2 weeks. He then is given another shot at posting more civil posts that actually contibute to the community. He could be switched back to mod approved posts again if it continues, etc.

It should also be even more clearly stated what kind of posts DO contribute to the community in a welcome address, as well as to all current posters so as to re-orient the forum to the ideal desired.