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

[Ghost]

Jezze:

so we maybe only to see our own, but admin/mods would be able to clearly see them all

At WWGHA, everyone can see all the Karma points, and the reasons given, that everyone has given to and received from anyone else.

No hiding, everything upfront and accountable. You stand by your words.

Totally agree with this! But the ability to leave a comment could be more trouble than it is worth? If they want to leave a comment maybe it should be optional? I would be happy just to have my name on everything I do in here regarding karma.

well you could always leave a "." in the space if makes you leave anything at all

i would like it totally open :)

I would be fine with that.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

well you could always leave a "." in the space if makes you leave anything at all

That means navigating to the second page, clicking in the field, typing a space, and clicking "continue," all so you could get the same functionality of 1 click now.  And don't you think that everyone who thrives on the anonymous karma now will simply just leave it blank anyways?

It means forcing everyone to do three times as much work so that a couple people can leave a probably useless comment.

[Gnu Ordure]

The less it is used just adds value to it IMO. Karma is thrown around on here like it means nothing, which it doesn't IMO without a name on it.

QFT.

[Jay]

Jezze:

so we maybe only to see our own, but admin/mods would be able to clearly see them all

At WWGHA, everyone can see all the Karma points, and the reasons given, that everyone has given and received to anyone else.

No hiding, everything upfront and accountable. You stand by your words.

Ugh.  No.  Do not like at all.  That will totally transform karma, and will seriously impact its use.  No no no on that.

I don't understand, Jay. You sound frightened.

What is the problem with openness?

After all, we're all operating here anonymously anyway. (Gnu isn't my real name, y'know).

So why not be open about what one likes and what one doesn't like?

We have to think about ALL of the ramifications on the karma system with a change.  Not just the positive changes.  And that change will have a negative impact.  I see that as severely lowering how often it is used.  And that is not a change I want to see, and therefore why I do not see myself ever getting behind that.

The less it is used just adds value to it IMO. Karma is thrown around on here like it means nothing, which it doesn't IMO without a name on it.

Well I just disagree.  I do not want to see karma frequency reduced greatly.  That has not nor ever will be my goal with making changes to the karma system.  My goal of any change would be to make it more useful, not reduce the amount it is used.  And any change must weigh the pluses as well as the negatives imo.

I have given my opinion on that matter, as a firm no.  And I also think that adding comments is opening up a huge can of worms.

If you want to tag my name to every karma action I make and send that info to the person I gave karma to(and only that person), I do not care.  But I still see that as lowering the amount it will be used.  Add on the other changes you all are recommending, and we may as well just toss the whole damn system, as I think we would seriously be breaking it.  Just my 

[Jay]

The more I think about it....I am changing my vote back to 'no changes'.  I reserve the right to change my mind again, but you all just have me to concerned now with some of the changes you are wanting to make.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

That's funny. I just changed my vote too, because your argument swayed me. I hope you have made up our mind.

[Jay]

That's funny. I just changed my vote too, because your argument swayed me. I hope you have made up our mind.

HA.  Well, I can not guarantee that I wont change my mind.  But I started out 'no changes' than moved to abstaining from voting, and then when I talked it out more....I moved back to 'no changes'.  So I havent swung too wildly.   

[Ghost]

That's funny. I just changed my vote too, because your argument swayed me. I hope you have made up our mind.

HA.  Well, I can not guarantee that I wont change my mind.  But I started out 'no changes' than moved to abstaining from voting, and then when I talked it out more....I moved back to 'no changes'.  So I havent swung too wildly.   

Are you sure you don't want to vote for Mitt Romney Jay?  (flip flopper  )

[Jay]

That's funny. I just changed my vote too, because your argument swayed me. I hope you have made up our mind.

HA.  Well, I can not guarantee that I wont change my mind.  But I started out 'no changes' than moved to abstaining from voting, and then when I talked it out more....I moved back to 'no changes'.  So I havent swung too wildly.   

Are you sure you don't want to vote for Mitt Romney Jay?  (flip flopper  )

Ugh.  Why did you have to depress me by bringing that goober up.  And I have made a firm decision on that BTW.  I have decided to not decide anything right now, as anything can happen between now and November.   

But Paul will always get my vote if I can place one for him.   

[Luigi]

The less it is used just adds value to it IMO. Karma is thrown around on here like it means nothing, which it doesn't IMO without a name on it.

Technically, all karma, with a name or not,  means nothing. We're on an internet forum. 


As for my opinion on this matter, I personally liked the system that the FV forums used. They had anonymous karma where you could leave a comment if you wanted. I thought that worked well because you could leave a comment to the user as to why you applauded/smited them and you had the choice of whether to say it was from you or not. It allowed you to say "From Luigi: +1 for your kitten picture" or just say "+1 for your kitten picture".

I personally think this is a good system because it gives you the choice to be anonymous. I understand that Ghost and several other users want it opened up for several reasons, two of which include "it'll make it mean more with a name" and just because some people are nosy¹. Honestly, if you want it opened up because you're nosy, then shame on you and mind your own business. But as for "it'll mean more with a name", I don't think it'll be the name as much as the reason. If "-1 for your arrogance Luigi" came with one of the smites I received, it wouldn't matter if it had a name or not. Either way, someone still thought I was arrogant and I can learn from that. It doesn't really matter who it came from.

1- I know some people want karma open for other reasons, but those are the two I want to discuss.

In addition, those who want to own up to the karma they give can, and those who are okay with staying anonymous can do that too. It's a way to compromise on both sides. You can't force everyone to own up to every smite they give or else some people are just going to stop using the karma system all together. Some see that as a good reason (cutting down on excess karma) but I see that as a negative effect. I personally like IGI for how freely karma is given.

The way I understand it, if the admins allow comments, the comment box must be filled in to give karma, correct? To me, that isn't a problem either. If you don't want to leave a comment or identify yourself, just type in "." instead. I know some people brought up that it would be time consuming, but really, it'll probably take 10 seconds instead of the 2 seconds it takes now. Really, if you can't spare 8 seconds to type something into the box, do you really have the time to give out karma?

Also, if the comment box/anonymous system was put in place, we'd probably have to worry about name calling and insults. I don't know of this is possible, but an answer to that would be reporting the comment to the mods. Editing the insult/name-calling won't be an option, but I think there are other things to do about it. For one, we could take away karma privileges for a set amount of time. Whether it would be karma privileges for all users or just for the user insulted, I think that would be an effective way to deal with it most of the time. And we could always have a "three strikes, you're out" system, where if three of your karma comments get reported and were guilty of name-calling/insulting, you would lose your karma privileges for good.

However, that would only work if the mods/admins could see the karma log with both users involved and comments, AND there was a report link on each karma comment.

So, the tl;dr version:

I would like a karma system that is still anonymous but you can leave a comment if you want (or a "." if you don't want to). That way, it can stay anonymous if you want it to or you can make yourself known and the forum will no longer be clogged with "+1 for so and so reason" posts.

However, I'm not going to vote until I find out if a system like this is available. 

[JadedPulse]

As for my opinion on this matter, I personally liked the system that the FV forums used. They had anonymous karma where you could leave a comment if you wanted. I thought that worked well because you could leave a comment to the user as to why you applauded/smited them and you had the choice of whether to say it was from you or not. It allowed you to say "From Luigi: +1 for your kitten picture" or just say "+1 for your kitten picture".

The only thing I could see with it still being somewhat anonymous like that, is that people could comment that it was from someone else--which could also cause more drama.

For instance, I could give Myron a -1--and in the comment section say something like "-1 from Luigi because you are a smelly so and so and your post was completely stupid!". Which would then cause Myron to get angry at Luigi for a smite that was never actually given by Luigi. See? (Of course there are people that would never care, and no drama would ensue).

[Alkan]

I don't believe that the karma system should be anonymous.

I think if you feel strongly enough to smite someone, you ought to be forced stick your neck out. I am fine with applying this to me. Actually I like that: it makes my smites have more meaning if I'm willing to tell someone that I personally have a major problem with the post and put my name on that.

It would help alleviate pointless karma wars, and plus, giving positive karma doesn't take as much away. I personally don't feel quite as strongly about requiring a reason, but I feel very strongly about it no longer being anonymous. In fact, statistics should be kept on who smites who so that a person's overall negative karma can be evaluated in a more complex way that paints a clearer picture of what is happening.

For instance, if someone wants to simply trash my karma (happened plenty of times already), someone could click on my profile and see if someone is responsible for smiting me repeatedly.

Plus, it doesn't leave you guessing.

If you have something to say or have some way of feeling about someone's post, it damn well better show the opponent's point of view on it if it is going to forever affect what someone's profile looks like. You shouldn't get to just trash someone's profile because you dislike them, as our current system and a system that requires a reason allows. It starts creating pointless drama when people start having to guess at who is trashing someone else's karma.

[Luigi]

The only thing I could see with it still being somewhat anonymous like that, is that people could comment that it was from someone else--which could also cause more drama.

For instance, I could give Myron a -1--and in the comment section say something like "-1 from Luigi because you are a smelly so and so and your post was completely stupid!". Which would then cause Myron to get angry at Luigi for a smite that was never actually given by Luigi. See? (Of course there are people that would never care, and no drama would ensue).

Hmm....good point. I'd have to think about it some more, but there is one way that you could check on it. If a name is given in the comment, a user could ask an admin (or whoever can view the karma logs at this point) if the name matches the one who actually gave the karma or not. If it does, then the user knows who gave the karma. If not, then the user knows it wasn't the user named in the comment, doesn't know who lied about it, and the admin could have a talk with the person who put the false name. I don't know but perhaps a possibility of consequence if you purposely put the false name and get caught doing it.

I don't really see a less messy way to do something like that though. It'd make a bit of extra work for the admin/whoever can see the karma log and could still create drama. However, there will always be some sort of drama, no matter how you do a karma system.

[Ghost]

I don't believe that the karma system should be anonymous.

I think if you feel strongly enough to smite someone, you ought to be forced stick your neck out. I am fine with applying this to me. Actually I like that: it makes my smites have more meaning if I'm willing to tell someone that I personally have a major problem with the post and put my name on that.

It would help alleviate pointless karma wars, and plus, giving positive karma doesn't take as much away. I personally don't feel quite as strongly about requiring a reason, but I feel very strongly about it no longer being anonymous. In fact, statistics should be kept on who smites who so that a person's overall negative karma can be evaluated in a more complex way that paints a clearer picture of what is happening.

For instance, if someone wants to simply trash my karma (happened plenty of times already), someone could click on my profile and see if someone is responsible for smiting me repeatedly.

Plus, it doesn't leave you guessing.

If you have something to say or have some way of feeling about someone's post, it damn well better show the opponent's point of view on it if it is going to forever affect what someone's profile looks like. You shouldn't get to just trash someone's profile because you dislike them, as our current system and a system that requires a reason allows. It starts creating pointless drama when people start having to guess at who is trashing someone else's karma.

^^^yeah what he said  +1 again alkan

[catwixen]

I don't believe that the karma system should be anonymous.

I think if you feel strongly enough to smite someone, you ought to be forced stick your neck out. I am fine with applying this to me. Actually I like that: it makes my smites have more meaning if I'm willing to tell someone that I personally have a major problem with the post and put my name on that.

It would help alleviate pointless karma wars, and plus, giving positive karma doesn't take as much away. I personally don't feel quite as strongly about requiring a reason, but I feel very strongly about it no longer being anonymous. In fact, statistics should be kept on who smites who so that a person's overall negative karma can be evaluated in a more complex way that paints a clearer picture of what is happening.

For instance, if someone wants to simply trash my karma (happened plenty of times already), someone could click on my profile and see if someone is responsible for smiting me repeatedly.

Plus, it doesn't leave you guessing.

If you have something to say or have some way of feeling about someone's post, it damn well better show the opponent's point of view on it if it is going to forever affect what someone's profile looks like. You shouldn't get to just trash someone's profile because you dislike them, as our current system and a system that requires a reason allows. It starts creating pointless drama when people start having to guess at who is trashing someone else's karma.

[catwixen]

Actually I would probably smite more if there was a chance to explain why. I just have never seen the point in negative reinforcement without some sort of lesson in it. That is why I do not smite at the moment.

[Ghost]

The less it is used just adds value to it IMO. Karma is thrown around on here like it means nothing, which it doesn't IMO without a name on it.

Technically, all karma, with a name or not,  means nothing. We're on an internet forum. 


As for my opinion on this matter, I personally liked the system that the FV forums used. They had anonymous karma where you could leave a comment if you wanted. I thought that worked well because you could leave a comment to the user as to why you applauded/smited them and you had the choice of whether to say it was from you or not. It allowed you to say "From Luigi: +1 for your kitten picture" or just say "+1 for your kitten picture".

I personally think this is a good system because it gives you the choice to be anonymous. I understand that Ghost and several other users want it opened up for several reasons, two of which include "it'll make it mean more with a name" and just because some people are nosy¹. Honestly, if you want it opened up because you're nosy, then shame on you and mind your own business. But as for "it'll mean more with a name", I don't think it'll be the name as much as the reason. If "-1 for your arrogance Luigi" came with one of the smites I received, it wouldn't matter if it had a name or not. Either way, someone still thought I was arrogant and I can learn from that. It doesn't really matter who it came from.

1- I know some people want karma open for other reasons, but those are the two I want to discuss.

In addition, those who want to own up to the karma they give can, and those who are okay with staying anonymous can do that too. It's a way to compromise on both sides. You can't force everyone to own up to every smite they give or else some people are just going to stop using the karma system all together. Some see that as a good reason (cutting down on excess karma) but I see that as a negative effect. I personally like IGI for how freely karma is given.

The way I understand it, if the admins allow comments, the comment box must be filled in to give karma, correct? To me, that isn't a problem either. If you don't want to leave a comment or identify yourself, just type in "." instead. I know some people brought up that it would be time consuming, but really, it'll probably take 10 seconds instead of the 2 seconds it takes now. Really, if you can't spare 8 seconds to type something into the box, do you really have the time to give out karma?

Also, if the comment box/anonymous system was put in place, we'd probably have to worry about name calling and insults. I don't know of this is possible, but an answer to that would be reporting the comment to the mods. Editing the insult/name-calling won't be an option, but I think there are other things to do about it. For one, we could take away karma privileges for a set amount of time. Whether it would be karma privileges for all users or just for the user insulted, I think that would be an effective way to deal with it most of the time. And we could always have a "three strikes, you're out" system, where if three of your karma comments get reported and were guilty of name-calling/insulting, you would lose your karma privileges for good.

However, that would only work if the mods/admins could see the karma log with both users involved and comments, AND there was a report link on each karma comment.

So, the tl;dr version:

I would like a karma system that is still anonymous but you can leave a comment if you want (or a "." if you don't want to). That way, it can stay anonymous if you want it to or you can make yourself known and the forum will no longer be clogged with "+1 for so and so reason" posts.

However, I'm not going to vote until I find out if a system like this is available. 

Maybe some do want it opened because they are nosy But I know I want it open so the people I am smiting or applauding can see I did it without me having to post a comment in the thread like I just did for Alkan. And I also would like to know who is doing the same to me.

[Ghost]

 I have also mentioned in other posts how much easier it will be to get to know the people in the forum just by being able to see what they agree with and disagree with. I have on many occasions read something that could be taken in a couple different ways because I had no idea what there views were or what angle they were coming from. Seeing who applauded and smited will speed this process up significantly IMO. Which could lead to more conversations and better relationships between users 

[Luigi]

Maybe some do want it opened because they are nosy But I know I want it open so the people I am smiting or applauding can see I did it without me having to post a comment in the thread like I just did for Alkan. And I also would like to know who is doing the same to me.

That would be what the comment box is for. Every karma you give, you can say "+1 from Ghost for the funny picture" or "-1 from Ghost for dodging a question".

And I still don't think forcing people to own up to every karma they give is a good thing. Not only will it severely cut down on the karma given (which is part of what makes IGI so different than other forums), but it'll lead to sour attitudes between a lot of members because then you KNOW who regularly disagrees with you, who smited you for a stupid reason, who didn't like your joke about turtles, etc. I don't think having that stuff out in the open for everyone to read is a good thing. I think it's going to hurt a few of the positive things we have now.

Not to mention, and call it some weird sort of altruism, it's kinda fun giving people applauds on random posts without having to say "I did this". It's like receiving a little box of happy every time you find you've received an anonymous applaud. I liking being generous like that and I don't want people to feel like they need to do it back.

[JadedPulse]

who didn't like your joke about turtles

How could anybody not like anything about turtles?!?!?! 

[Alkan]

Maybe some do want it opened because they are nosy But I know I want it open so the people I am smiting or applauding can see I did it without me having to post a comment in the thread like I just did for Alkan. And I also would like to know who is doing the same to me.

That would be what the comment box is for. Every karma you give, you can say "+1 from Ghost for the funny picture" or "-1 from Ghost for dodging a question".

And I still don't think forcing people to own up to every karma they give is a good thing. Not only will it severely cut down on the karma given (which is part of what makes IGI so different than other forums), but it'll lead to sour attitudes between a lot of members because then you KNOW who regularly disagrees with you, who smited you for a stupid reason, who didn't like your joke about turtles, etc. I don't think having that stuff out in the open for everyone to read is a good thing. I think it's going to hurt a few of the positive things we have now.

Not to mention, and call it some weird sort of altruism, it's kinda fun giving people applauds on random posts without having to say "I did this". It's like receiving a little box of happy every time you find you've received an anonymous applaud. I liking being generous like that and I don't want people to feel like they need to do it back.

No, I already feel contempt for people who regularly smite me, and I'm near certain that it becomes misdirected when I feel like a smite is from one of those regular smiters and it might actually be from someone else.

I think that you should be able to leave the box blank if you wish, at least for applauds. I think that applauds should be handed out often and encouraged while smites should be mostly reserved for more severe occasions. The latter part is the only thing that's really bugging me. +1s aren't a problem as they are.

It feels kind of awkward and heavy to handle, but perhaps smites need to be treated differently since they are negative messages. But on the other hand, I like context in my applauds as well. I like to know who also tends to simply agree with what I say more often rather than me actually making a point that brings out people that perhaps don't typically agree.

I think if we couple this with more enforced and realistic rules about what is actually insulting that discourse in this forum would be a lot more civilized where it need be.

[JadedPulse]

I think if we couple this with more enforced and realistic rules about what is actually insulting

That will be ridiculously hard to make up rules for that. Sure, there are some general things that most people will find insulting--but there are things that some people would be insulted by that somebody else wouldn't, etc. Being insulted is totally subjective, which is part of the reason why the mods don't take into consideration the feelings of the person being insulted when they make their decisions on insulting posts.

[Luigi]

who didn't like your joke about turtles

How could anybody not like anything about turtles?!?!?! 

Beats me. This picture will forever be my favorite picture:



Just look at how happy he is!!

[Ghost]

I think if we couple this with more enforced and realistic rules about what is actually insulting

That will be ridiculously hard to make up rules for that. Sure, there are some general things that most people will find insulting--but there are things that some people would be insulted by that somebody else wouldn't, etc. Being insulted is totally subjective, which is part of the reason why the mods don't take into consideration the feelings of the person being insulted when they make their decisions on insulting posts.

Assholish to one person is not assholish to another correct jade 

[Alkan]

I didn't say that we could fix the problem entirely. I just said that we could probably improve it pending a different creative discussion. Just because you can't see a solution right away doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

I also want to add to what I was saying to Luigi: you seem to spend less time in the religion forum. Things get real ugly real fast there sometimes and unnecessary smites just start rolling in. You've got -30. I apparently pissed off the wrong person, because as soon as I started talking to that particular person who won't be named, my negative karma went from about 25ish to somewhere in the 60s real fast.

So, yes, I think it is completely necessary to have to own up to at least negative karma.

[Luigi]

Exactly, ghost.

Maggie once called me a snotty teenager. I thought it was funny because it was true at the time. However, perhaps if she had called Jade that, Jade might have been insulted. It's all subjective to the person. Some get insulted if you disagree with them while some don't get insulted no matter what you call them. 

Another option, since smites seem to be the huge issue, is just taking negative karma away completely. Can't have drama about smites if we don't have smites!

[Ghost]

 Did someone say turtles? This is "Tiny" and my boys and I had him as a pet for several weeks last year before releasing him back into the lake. My son still asks me if we will see Tiny again. Being that we fish in that lake a lot it is highly possible but tough to identify if it is him. Western painter by the way

[JadedPulse]

I think if we couple this with more enforced and realistic rules about what is actually insulting

That will be ridiculously hard to make up rules for that. Sure, there are some general things that most people will find insulting--but there are things that some people would be insulted by that somebody else wouldn't, etc. Being insulted is totally subjective, which is part of the reason why the mods don't take into consideration the feelings of the person being insulted when they make their decisions on insulting posts.

Assholish to one person is not assholish to another correct jade 

Everyone might have a different interpretation of what "assholishness" is.

[JadedPulse]

Did someone say turtles? This is "Tiny" and my boys and I had him as a pet for several weeks last year before releasing him back into the lake. My son still asks me if we will see Tiny again. Being that we fish in that lake a lot it is highly possible but tough to identify if it is him. Western painter by the way

OMG!!! *squee* I love him!

+1

[Ghost]

I didn't say that we could fix the problem entirely. I just said that we could probably improve it pending a different creative discussion. Just because you can't see a solution right away doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

I also want to add to what I was saying to Luigi: you seem to spend less time in the religion forum. Things get real ugly real fast there sometimes and unnecessary smites just start rolling in. You've got -30. I apparently pissed off the wrong person, because as soon as I started talking to that particular person who won't be named, my negative karma went from about 25ish to somewhere in the 60s real fast.

So, yes, I think it is completely necessary to have to own up to at least negative karma.

You know Alkan I thought about bringing that exact same thing up. About how much the negative karma flies around in the religious forum. And I actually stay out of there as much as possible now because if like you said "piss off the wrong person" the smite you religiously just because. But the people that don't go into that forum may not understand this?