[ALERT!! Re-vote!! Check it out!!] Have your say on the Karma System: Poll 1.

[JudoChop]

Is it possible to leave the karma as it is and make the karma log public?

It'd be a very similar situation to FB's 'like' except it'd also show 'dislikes'.

[nateswift]

Just a personal note: as the system stands, I pay almost no attention to my karma and only notice it when something is pointed out.  I use karma to hand out applauds, almost always with a note, and as a joke about smiting (I haven't given a real smite in a long time now).
I honestly don't know if that would change with karma transparency, but I think I would notice more with comments or identification. 

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Is it possible to leave the karma as it is and make the karma log public?

Yes, it is its own set of checkboxes. See the screenshot for the available options.

[JudoChop]

In which case I vote for an open karma log. I may have to use a mobile to post here in future if work get their way...

[Jay]

I thought it worked very well at the FV forum and that was a community of thousands. The only reason it was taken away was because members were getting more rep then mods and they did not like it which is why they kept getting the admins to auto boost their rep by 100's at a time to keep ahead. I'd like to think we're a more mature community than that.

You mean....it had nothing to do with me carpet bombing the mafia war newbie section and then signing all the karma away to the Harry Potter MW dude?

[Shawna]

My original vote was to leave the karma system as it is.

After reading through everyone's posts, I still lean towards that.  However, I can see where it could be useful to identify people who have given karma....   if you know who gave you karma, then you won't guess who gave you karma.  In the case of smites, guessing wrong can cause misplaced ill-will.  With open karma, you get to be mad at the person who gave you the karma, instead of guessing and maybe getting it wrong.

I hate the idea of comments.  If it is worth commenting on, it's worth commenting on in thread.  "that was intensely rude" belongs in the thread as a corrective, not hidden somewhere else.  And I really don't want to have to go through the additional step of dealing with the comment box..... since I have been known to go down threads, plusing everyone in that thread...  really the comment box would be a tedious nasty additional step.  Annoying....

If folks decide to go for open karma, I vote that everyone be allowed to view the karma log, so that everyone can see who has been giving karma to who.  That is its own corrective.

[Jay]

To those that seem to be the most upset with smites gotten on the religious boards....here is a tip.

Don't insult peoples personal beliefs and get nasty. 

I stay away from the religious boards not because I might get smites.  I stay away from the religious boards because they are...one, boring and repetitive.  It seems like the same arguments occur over and over again.  And two, because people get downright nasty in there everyday, and insult peoples deeply held personal beliefs.  You have to expect to get some heat in return.  Opening up karma is not going to stop these problems with that section.  It will only prevent you from getting a few smites on your record.  If you are that concerned with getting a few smites on your record, stop insulting peoples personal beliefs and do not get nasty.

To the rest that want to see an open karma system, for some other reason...I ask why?  What real benefit will be gained from a completely transparent system?  What problem are we trying to solve?  And make sure you consider the negative impacts that it may cause.  If the desire is born mostly out of nosiness, I do not think it is a wise course of action.

And to the rest....  -1 for being different.

[Shawna]

To those that seem to be the most upset with smites gotten on the religious boards....here is a tip.

Don't insult peoples personal beliefs and get nasty. 

*Deep sigh*

I wish it was that simple, Jay.  I currently have -376.  I seldom insult people's personal beliefs (never intentionally), and I only occasionally give in to the temptation to get nasty.  I've probably only really earned about half of those smites.  Sometimes people just get mad at other folks, and smite them regardless.

Smites happen.

My advice to those who are worried about their karma ratio... is not to worry about it.  Your posts will stand or fall by themselves, without the help of smites that have been gifted to you by someone who has taken a personal dislike to you.

[Alkan]

To those that seem to be the most upset with smites gotten on the religious boards....here is a tip.

Don't insult peoples personal beliefs and get nasty. 

*Deep sigh*

I wish it was that simple, Jay.  I currently have -376.  I seldom insult people's personal beliefs (never intentionally), and I only occasionally give in to the temptation to get nasty.  I've probably only really earned about half of those smites.  Sometimes people just get mad at other folks, and smite them regardless.

Smites happen.

My advice to those who are worried about their karma ratio... is not to worry about it.  Your posts will stand or fall by themselves, without the help of smites that have been gifted to you by someone who has taken a personal dislike to you.

The fact that you of all people have -376 is a testament to the problem. You're one of the nicest and most modest people posting there.

[Captain Luke]

Don't believe the hype. Ask kevin for the truth...

[Jay]

To those that seem to be the most upset with smites gotten on the religious boards....here is a tip.

Don't insult peoples personal beliefs and get nasty. 

*Deep sigh*

I wish it was that simple, Jay.  I currently have -376.  I seldom insult people's personal beliefs (never intentionally), and I only occasionally give in to the temptation to get nasty.  I've probably only really earned about half of those smites.  Sometimes people just get mad at other folks, and smite them regardless.

Smites happen.

My advice to those who are worried about their karma ratio... is not to worry about it.  Your posts will stand or fall by themselves, without the help of smites that have been gifted to you by someone who has taken a personal dislike to you.

And you probably do not deserve half of your applauds either.  And I am not saying I am any different on either.  But so what. 

If you make an enemy, yeah...you are going to get some smites you do not 'deserve'.  But if you make some friends, you will get many applauds you do not deserve either.

[Alkan]

Flowchart for another idea:

Give+1---->Pop up window asking to give explanation---->if yes----> explanation screen and post.
                                                                          |--------------------->if no, no explanation screen and redirection to the page.

Reason for this system: it doesn't take time for a pop-up screen to load, since the page loads while the little pop up screen similar to the one we have for "view the karma log" when your karma is changed.

Give -1---->instantaneously directed to the explanation screen----->leave reason----->add negative karma.

Giving positive karma should be a streamlined easy thing. Giving negative karma should not be.

[FGOH]

^all very well if the system functionality allows this. I am not sure that it does.

[Traveler]

Here's a thought. What if each person could only add karma to an individual post once? I sometimes am re-reading a thread and can't remember if one of the applauds is mine. So I applaud again. I wouldn't mind if I couldn't applaud more than once, and it would keep spite-smiters from trashing a particular post.

I don't know. The more I think about this the less I like the idea of public karma. I think. Honestly, I keep flip-flopping. There are positives and negatives to any solution.

[Alkan]

I like the idea of only being able to add a negative karma to a single post once, no matter what system we have. It's just like I don't get to go wait in line for another 2 hours to go vote for Barack Obama again just because I feel strongly against a Republican candidate being in office.

[Shawna]

The fact that you of all people have -376 is a testament to the problem. You're one of the nicest and most modest people posting there.

LOL! Obviously, there are those who disagree with you.

And you probably do not deserve half of your applauds either.  And I am not saying I am any different on either.  But so what. 

If you make an enemy, yeah...you are going to get some smites you do not 'deserve'.  But if you make some friends, you will get many applauds you do not deserve either.

I probably don't deserve 3/4 of my applauds.  I am very good at sucking up.   

It's sort of like real life, ain't it, Jay?  .... Sometimes people won't like you.  Other folks will.  In the end, there's no point worrying too much about the turkeys.

Don't believe the hype. Ask kevin for the truth...

Luckily for me, Kevin is on walkabout right now.  Otherwise, my goody-two-shoes goose would be cooked.   

[Jay]

I like the idea of only being able to add a negative karma to a single post once, no matter what system we have. It's just like I don't get to go wait in line for another 2 hours to go vote for Barack Obama again just because I feel strongly against a Republican candidate being in office.

I would be okay with only smiting OR applauding a single post once per person.  I do not think think this would have much of an adverse reaction to the karma system.  But, if someone really wanted to smite you, they can always find another post of yours.  But if it is a simple change for the admins, and does not require actual coding....I can not see how it would be a problem.

I would also be okay with a maximum amount of karma actions a person can perform per day.  Both positive and negative ON ANYONE.  say....IDK, 20.  That would at least limit someone from going on a karma spree. 

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Flowchart for another idea:

Give+1---->Pop up window asking to give explanation---->if yes----> explanation screen and post.
                                                                          |--------------------->if no, no explanation screen and redirection to the page.

Reason for this system: it doesn't take time for a pop-up screen to load, since the page loads while the little pop up screen similar to the one we have for "view the karma log" when your karma is changed.

Give -1---->instantaneously directed to the explanation screen----->leave reason----->add negative karma.

Giving positive karma should be a streamlined easy thing. Giving negative karma should not be.

We only have the functionality I posted with the screenshot. It is not an infinitely customizable system, and even if JM learns the code and hand codes it, it would cause issues with updates.

If you look at the screenshot, you will see a single checkbox.  Our options on comments are "yes" and "no." There is no in-between. There is no way to enable them for smites only. They're either on or they are off.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I like the idea of only being able to add a negative karma to a single post once

Not an option.

[Jay]

Mooby, what is.... "Disable whole karma log for users, but enable own karma log'??

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

It means you get to see your own personal mini log of who has given you karma and who you have given it too.  You can't see the big log or other people's logs. Which makes little sense unless we count those mini logs as private info and prevent people from calling each other out.

[Shawna]

I would also be okay with a maximum amount of karma actions a person can perform per day.  Both positive and negative ON ANYONE.  say....IDK, 20.  That would at least limit someone from going on a karma spree.

In the old days, after a past silly smiting spree, IGI had a system that allowed members to smite one person every two hours.  That meant that one member could smite a total of 12 times per day.

The applauds were the same as now:  a member could applaud any other member every two hours, for a nearly infinite number of applauds per day.

I thought that worked really well.  I think that one of the upgrades removed that as an option, but I wonder if it could be brought back.

[Shawna]

It means you get to see your own personal mini log of who has given you karma and who you have given it too.  You can't see the big log or other people's logs. Which makes little sense unless we count those mini logs as private info and prevent people from calling each other out.

If you decide to make it possible to view a karma log, I think it would be better to just make everyone be able to see the whole log, rather than have private logs.

The private log doesn't make much sense to me either.

[Hemingway]

I am actually happy with the system as it is.

I would be in favour of not changing it. Silly smiters could be dealt with by the Admins/Mods once rules for Karma abuse have been put in place.

[Jay]

It means you get to see your own personal mini log of who has given you karma and who you have given it too.  You can't see the big log or other people's logs. Which makes little sense unless we count those mini logs as private info and prevent people from calling each other out.

Well, it would be kind of cool to see who I gave karma to historically if it only displayed the karma I gave out and not what I received.  Not very 'useful' but just kind of a fun statistic to know.  ie, I gave Mooby 50 positive and 20 negative karma over the last month.  Again....not very useful....just sort of interesting stats one could look at for themself.

But if it shows who gave you karma....well then we are back to the whole 'open karma' discussion.


Anything else I have heard or seen on that screenshot though....I just do not like.  I think the best change we made was when we tagged karma to individual posts and made that visible to everyone.  I think it really cut down on random smiting sprees, and made it more obvious when it does occur. 

I think the current problem that we have always had of a 'silly smiter' can be rectified with some rule changes....and is aided by the members being able to see what posts were smited.

The other problem that some seem to have is them getting karma that they deem 'in excess' and think an open karma system will prevent that.  And maybe it would...but I think the negatives to that system outweigh the positives. People always want to know who is smiting them(and hey, I want to know that too when it happens) but I look at it like our Justice system.  It is not perfect, but it is the best we got....Try to overhaul it too much, and you break it.  And making the Karma system totally open would be a huge overhaul.

I do not see us ever coming together and completely agreeing on the idea of an open karma system though.  It has been discussed many times before....and the same concerns always come up.  I think we have struck a decent balance though right now.

[Jay]

I would also be okay with a maximum amount of karma actions a person can perform per day.  Both positive and negative ON ANYONE.  say....IDK, 20.  That would at least limit someone from going on a karma spree.

In the old days, after a past silly smiting spree, IGI had a system that allowed members to smite one person every two hours.  That meant that one member could smite a total of 12 times per day.

The applauds were the same as now:  a member could applaud any other member every two hours, for a nearly infinite number of applauds per day.

I thought that worked really well.  I think that one of the upgrades removed that as an option, but I wonder if it could be brought back.

Well, all I see in the options is a 'maximum' number of karma actions per day per user.  Currently set to '0' which means no limit. 

That could be set, but it could also make it MORE DIFFICULT for the mods to implement a rule to stop blatant abuse of the system.....although, it may prevent blatant abuse of the system.  But it is balance....make it a big enough number that people are not too constrained, but a low enough number to prevent huge smiting sprees.  10-20 would be a decent number IMO.  But then we are basically allowing a person to throw out 20 random smites per day...although I guess it could be still accompanied by a new rule.

[Alkan]

I am actually happy with the system as it is.

I would be in favour of not changing it. Silly smiters could be dealt with by the Admins/Mods once rules for Karma abuse have been put in place.

Well, removing the -60 that came from one or two people would be a start in me being fine with not changing it. But 2 hours isn't short enough between smites... I remember pissing one person off (not in a terribly offensive way) and getting a smite every 2 hours on the hour.

Can I please just be able to post in the Religion section without having my profile trashed? Can we work on a solution to reach that end?

[Shawna]

Can I please just be able to post in the Religion section without having my profile trashed? Can we work on a solution to reach that end?

Nope.  Nothing will prevent that, I'm afraid.  Look on it philosophically, as good training for life.  You will never be able to express an opinion in the real world anywhere, without someone taking a dislike to what you say.  This is as good a place as any to learn how to let things roll off your back.

And your profile isn't trashed.... you have +453.  That's nothing to sneeze at.  Oh wait.  +454.

[FGOH]

Can I please just be able to post in the Religion section without having my profile trashed? Can we work on a solution to reach that end?

Change your posting style? It's a bit rich to want the whole forum set up just so you don't get smited in the Religion section.

(I don't expect you meant it quite like that, but that is how it came across. And how you come across in your posts is all people have to go on when they decide whether to smite or applaud you.)

[Happy Evolute]

Can I please just be able to post in the Religion section without having my profile trashed? Can we work on a solution to reach that end?

If you get negative karma for a good post that means that the smiter can't think of a retort; that's a good result, isn't it? Think of it as getting another positive point.