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

[Gnu Ordure]

[Edit, 2 days later: This is now a follow-up poll, because I've changed Option 3, which used to say: "Amend it in some way".

So for new readers, the first 7 pages of this thread are to be understood in that light.

At the time I changed it, the numbers were:

Leave it: 18
Remove it : 2
Amend it in some way: 11

For further explanation, see my post on page 7.

[end edit].


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll 1.
====

I wondered, on another thread, why you guys didn't hold an opinion poll on the Karma issue, in order to see if there is in fact a significant desire to change the system. A couple of people told me to do it myself. Thanks, guys. So here it is.

(I'd like to mention that I was initially reluctant to do this myself, because I'm a gnubie, and some people might think I was trolling. So I checked with an Admin, and he (or possibly she) was cool about it).

Please note, this is not a referendum, it carries no authority. It's merely an opinion poll, hopefully informative - but not prescriptive.

Actually, there will be two polls, but the second depends on the result of the first. Let me explain.

Having just read all 11 pages of the Karma Transparency thread, there appear to be three basic points of view about the current Karma system: leave it alone, remove it, or change it.

So those are the options for this poll. The first two require no further polling, the third does. So I'll put up another poll which assumes that the first poll is in favour of change, based on Mooby's previous description of the options:

We now have the following karma capabilities:

- Display a log to all members with all karma actions
- Display a log that only shows what karma you gave/received
- Show +/- for individual posts
- Require members to post a reason for karma given
- Receive PMs or pop-ups when your karma changes
- Watch individual messages for karma changes
- A few other options

That was last July, so some of those already apply, of course. And they're not mutually exclusive, so people will be able to choose more than one option. I need to think about how to phrase this second poll - suggestions welcome. But this one can go ahead in the meantime.

Have fun.

Gnu.

PS If you think this poll could be different, please say - I may be able to add other options, I'm not sure.

[Ghost]

 I am having a problem deciding between removing it or amending it? To be honest I don't care if  they remove it but if they don't then it should be amended to be a transparent system. Can I get another option on there that says "remove or amend"? Or am I just being greedy with wanting more options 

About time someone did this +1 Gnu

Oh and there is far more than 11 pages of the karma discussion floating around here I believe? I bet I have read 4 or 5 different threads that were dominated by karma drama.

[Jezzebelle]

i vote amend!

[Ghost]

 You crack me up Jezz    +1

[Jay]

i vote amend!

I vote leave it as is.

[Jezzebelle]

boring!

[catwixen]

Amend!!!! 

No way silly smiters would explain every smite they did. They just would not bother I reckon.

[Jay]

boring!

[Jezzebelle]

b***h, please

[Ghost]

 ^Oh this is hilarious but I already gave you both a +1 

[Jay]

[Jezzebelle]

ok jay srsly... before we get reported to try out the new troll rule

[Tish]

ok jay srsly... before we get reported to try out the new troll rule

[catwixen]

ROTFL 

[Jay]

[Gnu Ordure]

I see.

So instead of engaging in a serious Hegelian dialectic in order to address the metaphysical yet also very real problems which currently assault the peace of the Glorious Motherland... you wish to post funny gifs to each other?

I don't why I bother.

Somebody please post a gif of a kitten. That would help me.

[Traveler]

There, there, Gnu. At least they're voting. I don't get it either, but there ya go. Bunch of godless commies if you ask me. 

[Ghost]

[Gnu Ordure]

There, there, Gnu.

Cheers, Trav.

I truly am a stranger in a strange land.



And thank you, Ghost - but that wasn't quite what I had in mind....

[Tish]

I see.

So instead of engaging in a serious Hegelian dialectic in order to address the metaphysical yet also real problems which currently assault the peace of the Glorious Motherland... you wish to post funny gifs to each other?

I don't why I bother.

Gnu, good on you for trying! 

I voted to amend the current system, although I think it will reduce the number of smites given, a some people like to be anonymous.  When you start your poll for the types of amends we should have, can you please include allowing a comment only, and not identifying the karma giver?  tyvm

[Ghost]

 Ok in all seriousness here now. I have been in favor of a system change since I have been apart of this site. Transparency to me equates to accountability and responsibility. Two things I firmly believe this site can benefit from IMO.

[JadedPulse]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

[Jay]

I see.

So instead of engaging in a serious Hegelian dialectic in order to address the metaphysical yet also real problems which currently assault the peace of the Glorious Motherland... you wish to post funny gifs to each other?

I don't why I bother.

Somebody please post a gif of a kitten. That would help me.

I iz sowie.



I got carried away.  I gave you an applaud though. 

[Tish]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

Because you still have the anonymity, but you get to spell out exactly what it is you liked or hated about the post.   

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

FYI, here are the current settings:

What The Settings Do

Karma Mode
- Enable positive/negative (the way it is now)
- Show karma total (positive - negative)
- Disable karma

Enable Karma Description Mod/Karma mode/Enable Karma Description Mod/Amount of lines per one page in Karma Description log/Use member names as link to their profiles
N/A (Technical, layout, and/or admin managed settings not applicable to this discussion.)

Allow users view Karma Description log
Gives access to the "Big Log"

Enable karma links in users profiles
Puts two links in members' profiles:
- Log of karma the member has given
- Log of karma the member has received

Disable whole karma log for users but enable own karma log
Members can only see their own personal logs from the above bullet (no access to Big Log or other members' logs)

Display users karma(+/-) in Karma Description Log/Enable "Where" field in Karma Description Log
N/A

Show other Karma Statistics
Creates karma stats under the Big Log similar to the Forum Stats section.  Members must be able to see the Big Log to use it.

Applaud or smite users without explanation
Turns comments on/off.

Write this in the log, when explanation is disabled
N/A

Censor karma explanation
Makes the swear filter work on karma when comments are enabled.

Users can change only topic's starter karma
Self-explanatory.

Amount of karma, which user can put for 24h
This is total for both applauds and smites.  So setting this to, say, 20 would mean you couldn't applaud 21 posts you like.  It would slow smite sprees but harm applauding.

Show small images instead of karma applaud and smite text labels/Show small images in karma description log instead of + or - in action field/Delete user karma points when i delete descriptions of changing in Karma Description log/Use karma label as link to members karma description log
N/A

Enable karma notification
Lets people receive personal messages when they get karma.

Send PM from this Member ID (1 by default)/Send link in personal message to own karma log/Send the reason in personal message/Send link in personal message to message where karma was changed/User ID's, whose karma can't be changed/User ID's, who can't modify karma
N/A

Enable last karma change on BoardIndex
Similar to Recent Posts, this displays the recent Big Log entries on the main page.

Number of descriptions on BoardIndex/How much symbols will be in Description field on BoardIndex
N/A

Display karma points in messages that users has got for ther messages
Lets you see how much karma each post has gotten.

Allow users to watch karma changes for concrete message
Turns the above into a link that shows a mini-log of all karma actions on said post.

Set the minimum posts needed to modify karma
N/A

Set wait time in hours
How long you must wait before applauding/smiting the same person.

Restrict administrators to wait time/Karma label/Karma applaud label/Karma smite label
N/A

FYI, when people complain about smited posts, admins can simply check the post log, then the personal logs of the smiters on that post.  So in practice admins currently don't see "who smites who," we just see what one person is doing.

[close]

[Ghost]

 The argument about people being afraid to comment or give a negative/positive karma action just seems so ridiculous to me. I mean if we all want to behave like children then fine I see the point of hiding it.

Then I hear people say "well we should all act like adults and not abuse the current system". Yeah well in case nobody has realized that is never going to happen on here  .

[Ghost]

 Hahaha I was clicking on it to see if I could change it   

[Gnu Ordure]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

It depends on the nature of the comment. If someone points out that you contradicted yourself, and cites the contradictory comments as evidence, you don't need to know their identity. The point stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is making it.

Whereas if someone compares you to an anus, yeah, you need to know who said that, so that you can cross them off your Xmas card list.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

This thread needs a poem.

Smiting is easy, smiting is swell
And if you don't like it, go straight to
Albuquerque.
Smiting is soothing, smiting is quirky.
And has fewer calories than Woodrow's beef
jerky.

Smiting is easy, smiting is fast
And, boy, do its pleasures assuredly last.
Some take offense at the well-deserved smite.
Not I, not I--for that I'm too bright.
Polls have their pleasures. Polls have their place.
But nothing can equal a smite in your face.

I suppose it doesn't scan; but then it is modern poetry.

[JadedPulse]

The argument about people being afraid to comment or give a negative/positive karma action just seems so ridiculous to me. I mean if we all want to behave like children then fine I see the point of hiding it.

I don't always like the confrontation that comes from someone knowing that you smited them. I shy away from as much confrontation as I possibly can. It makes me uncomfortable.

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

Because you still have the anonymity, but you get to spell out exactly what it is you liked or hated about the post.   

Okay, I could potentially go for something like that. Although if we move to get comments--we may as well just open it up completely.

[JadedPulse]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

It depends on the nature of the comment. If someone points out that you contradicted yourself, and cites the contradictory comments as evidence, you don't need to know their identity. The point stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is making it.

Whereas if someone compares you to an anus, yeah, you need to know who said that, so that you can cross them off your Xmas card list.

Also very good points!

[Ghost]

The argument about people being afraid to comment or give a negative/positive karma action just seems so ridiculous to me. I mean if we all want to behave like children then fine I see the point of hiding it.

I don't always like the confrontation that comes from someone knowing that you smited them. I shy away from as much confrontation as I possibly can. It makes me uncomfortable.

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

Because you still have the anonymity, but you get to spell out exactly what it is you liked or hated about the post.   

Okay, I could potentially go for something like that. Although if we move to get comments--we may as well just open it up completely.

I guess I view it as being given the courtesy to face your accuser 

[Gnu Ordure]

Mooby:

FYI, here are the current settings:

Gosh. That is sooo complicated. We certainly can't vote on all those options. We'll have to narrow it down...



Mooby, I tried to figure out the answer to Tish's question:

When you start your poll for the types of amends we should have, can you please include allowing a comment only, and not identifying the karma giver?

... but I can't work it out ('cos it's sooo complicated) . Is her request possible, or not?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

The problem with having to write a comment is that they are too short to be meaningful. "Yeah boy"! "Well, said"! Are not really helpful. And if there is substantive criticism of what someone says, then it should be said in the thread where it can be discussed properly. I can't tell from what Mooby posted if it is possible to just show who applauded or smited. I would be ok with that. I don't favor commentary.

[Jay]

Personally, I could care less¹ if smites are public.  I almost always claim them anyways, and probably would continue to state it publicly even if the person was notified that I smited them.  But that is just me.

But, I can also understand how others would not want to be as confrontational as that, and could possibly shy away from using the karma system if it is made public.

And that is why I voted to not make any changes, and stand behind my vote.

Note 1-  Yes, I purposefully used the words 'I could care less' just to piss of the English Grammar Nazis  :P

[Jay]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

It depends on the nature of the comment. If someone points out that you contradicted yourself, and cites the contradictory comments as evidence, you don't need to know their identity. The point stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is making it.

Whereas if someone compares you to an anus, yeah, you need to know who said that, so that you can cross them off your Xmas card list.

Also very good points!

Well comparing someone to an anus is probably what any comment system would be used for.

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?  Because you could generate some real flame wars through karma comments.  Trust me, I know.   

[Jay]

The argument about people being afraid to comment or give a negative/positive karma action just seems so ridiculous to me. I mean if we all want to behave like children then fine I see the point of hiding it.

Then I hear people say "well we should all act like adults and not abuse the current system". Yeah well in case nobody has realized that is never going to happen on here  .

I personally do not think it is widely abused. 

[JadedPulse]

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?  Because you could generate some real flame wars through karma comments.  Trust me, I know.   

That's also a good point. There would prolly have to be a whole new set of rules written up for any new karma changes put out there.

[Jezzebelle]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

It depends on the nature of the comment. If someone points out that you contradicted yourself, and cites the contradictory comments as evidence, you don't need to know their identity. The point stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is making it.

Whereas if someone compares you to an anus, yeah, you need to know who said that, so that you can cross them off your Xmas card list.

Also very good points!

Well comparing someone to an anus is probably what any comment system would be used for.

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?  Because you could generate some real flame wars through karma comments.  Trust me, I know.   

i can't imagine it would be different that profile comments

[Gnu Ordure]

The problem with having to write a comment is that they are too short to be meaningful.

Maggie, at WWGHA you get 140 characters to make your comment. I guess it's the same here.

I also guess that number is adjustable, but 140 is usually sufficient to make one's point.


If you want to say more, you can always make a post in the thread...

[Ghost]

Mooby:

FYI, here are the current settings:

Gosh. That is sooo complicated. We certainly can't vote on all those options. We'll have to narrow it down...



Mooby, I tried to figure out the answer to Tish's question:

When you start your poll for the types of amends we should have, can you please include allowing a comment only, and not identifying the karma giver?

... but I can't work it out ('cos it's sooo complicated) . Is her request possible, or not?

I guess I missed the point of the poll? We can already give a comment in reference to any comment on the thread so how would that change anything? I wouldn't be opposed to being able to give a comment when you give karma but wouldn't care if it wasn't an option because we already have that option by just commenting in the thread.

[Jay]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

It depends on the nature of the comment. If someone points out that you contradicted yourself, and cites the contradictory comments as evidence, you don't need to know their identity. The point stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is making it.

Whereas if someone compares you to an anus, yeah, you need to know who said that, so that you can cross them off your Xmas card list.

Also very good points!

Well comparing someone to an anus is probably what any comment system would be used for.

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?  Because you could generate some real flame wars through karma comments.  Trust me, I know.   

i can't imagine it would be different that profile comments

But are not profile comments viewable by all?  Would the mods be forced to look at some separate log if someone complained about what someone said in a Karma comments?  IDK what kind of problems this would cause to the mods.

And additionally on profile comments, who actually uses them anyways?  I do not think I have ever made a profile comment.  Oh wait, I did once, and got yelled at for it.   

[Ghost]

 I also have seen on several occasions where someone who is answering to the comment above had to state "I didn't just give you that -1 by the way". And I am sure people have been reluctant to comment after someone just got smited. A transparent system would eliminate this also.

[Gnu Ordure]

Jay:

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?

The rules of etiquette which apply to ordinary posts would also apply to Karma feedback. No insults, no abuse.

That's the point; negative feedback should be constructive, not abusive.

[Jezzebelle]

What's the point of getting a comment if you don't know who is giving it to you?

It depends on the nature of the comment. If someone points out that you contradicted yourself, and cites the contradictory comments as evidence, you don't need to know their identity. The point stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is making it.

Whereas if someone compares you to an anus, yeah, you need to know who said that, so that you can cross them off your Xmas card list.

Also very good points!

Well comparing someone to an anus is probably what any comment system would be used for.

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?  Because you could generate some real flame wars through karma comments.  Trust me, I know.   

i can't imagine it would be different that profile comments

But are not profile comments viewable by all?  Would the mods be forced to look at some separate log if someone complained about what someone said in a Karma comments?  IDK what kind of problems this would cause to the mods.

And additionally on profile comments, who actually uses them anyways?  I do not think I have ever made a profile comment.  Oh wait, I did once, and got yelled at for it.   

i think it's one giant log... everyone doesn't have their own log.

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

[Jay]

I also have seen on several occasions where someone who is answering to the comment above had to state "I didn't just give you that -1 by the way". And I am sure people have been reluctant to comment after someone just got smited. A transparent system would eliminate this also.

Well, now that is a good point, because I have certainly felt the need to state that in the past.

IDK.  As I said....me personally, it doesnt bother me if smites are no longer anonymous.  And since my vote was mostly for my concern for others.......I have decided to remove my vote, and leave it up to others.  I wont be voting either way right now.

But, I still do think that if you want to make comments on karma allowed, that the mods really need to weigh in on this, as they may have to get in the middle of a karma comment flame war.

[Tish]

Mooby, I tried to figure out the answer to Tish's question:

When you start your poll for the types of amends we should have, can you please include allowing a comment only, and not identifying the karma giver?

... but I can't work it out ('cos it's sooo complicated) . Is her request possible, or not?

LOL!  He knows I've wanted that all along, I keep nagging him to do it.  It means that giving karma would require two clicks, rather than just one.  Plus, it's not a matter of just changing a setting, it's a sort of a hack.  ish   

Jay:

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?

The rules of etiquette would also apply to Karma feedback. No insults, no abuse.

That's the point; negative feedback should be constructive, not abusive.

We could make a really strict karma rule about no insults, and remove privileges, like FOR EVER!!   

[Jay]

Jay:

Which brings up another question....would mods have to monitor karma comments?

The rules of etiquette would also apply to Karma feedback. No insults, no abuse.

That's the point; negative feedback should be constructive, not abusive.

Well, that is not in the rules.  The mods would need to amend the rules to state such.  And they would need to be able to review karma comments to determine if they are infractionable.

But I still do not like that.  Then people could get caught up in thinking that they do not want to report a karma comment, because then the other person will know who sent the notification to the mods, and that could turn ugly with calls of 'tattle tale' and such.

If Karma is opened up and not anonymous, I do not think I can agree with making comments. 

[Gnu Ordure]

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.

[JadedPulse]

LOL!  He knows I've wanted that all along, I keep nagging him to do it.  It means that giving karma would require two clicks, rather than just one.  Plus, it's not a matter of just changing a setting, it's a sort of a hack.  ish   

Why two clicks?

*envisions an "Are you SURE you want to complete this action?" pop up*

[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.

[catwixen]

But, I still do think that if you want to make comments on karma allowed, that the mods really need to weigh in on this, as they may have to get in the middle of a karma comment flame war.

True. I think there would be karma comment wars...and they would disrupt threads too. This would need to be if the mods have the energy for the extra work...and maybe a separate thread for karma comments responses...LOL We could have "The Ring" ding ding for people to go off and argue the disputed karma reasons. 

[Gnu Ordure]

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?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Mooby, I tried to figure out the answer to Tish's question:

When you start your poll for the types of amends we should have, can you please include allowing a comment only, and not identifying the karma giver?

... but I can't work it out ('cos it's sooo complicated) . Is her request possible, or not?

Yes, if you had notifications enabled it would send you the reason anonymously via PM.  Of course, this raises 3 issues:

- You don't see the comments if you have karma notifications off (like I do),
- Everyone who gives karma has to click through the comment page for the sake of those who like the comments (making karma more irksome to give)
- People will whine to the staff whenever they get a comment they don't like, demanding it be stricken from their records or the person gets identified or some such.

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

Logs come in three varieties:
- The giant log
- Logs for individual members
- Logs for individual posts

What you'd be able to see would depend on the settings.

Why two clicks?

These are two separate pages.

[close]

[JadedPulse]

Got it!

Thanks, Moobs!

[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.

[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.

[Gnu Ordure]

Anyway, these questions of how the system might be changed are academic.

We need to see how this poll pans out first.

Right now it's 8 to amend it , 3 to leave it alone, 1 to scrap it.

Let's see how it goes...

I have to go to bed, so I'll leave you to it.

More kittens....

[Jezzebelle]

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 :)

[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 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.

[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?

[JadedPulse]

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!

The problem with that becomes that the positive karma means next to nothing without the negative to balance it out.

There's just no good solution! *dies*

[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 

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

No worries Jade, I am an asshole so I wasn't offended at all  I actually get a little hot and bothered if ya know what I mean, when someone calls me names 

[Alkan]

I think in a thread that I started I suggested taking out just the negative karma, but few people wanted that.

I like having the negative karma button around, as long as you have to stick your neck out to use it. I think of it as an anti-asshole/b***h/nutcase button. But right now it's an "I don't like you so I'm going to attack your credibility" button.

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

Ah... Reminds me of camping when I lived in Minnesota back when I was a kid. I remember catching those guys and picking them up and they stick their heads, legs and tails in their shells. I think about leaving Tucson and getting back to that type of climate all the time...

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?

Indeed. They don't until they stick themselves into that place. That's the battlefield of this forum. I wish it was more like a friendly battlefield where we're all actually friends coming from different perspectives trying to improve each other's perspective. But instead it's devolved into pissing contests.

----------

Okay, when talking about improving insult rules I think we could possibly do better. Possibly. We should at least try. I'd like discourse to be a bit closer to professional around here than it is right now. I'm not asking for professional, but closer to it so that ideas can perhaps be made more quickly.

For instance, I had fun coming up with counterpoints to an actual academic paper that Gill used to justify his argument. It required more focus, but it was a lot of fun because of that fact. I want people to put out more effort because right now I feel like too many points are very easy to address (even if I cannot convince them, the "points" I address end up being too often silly and way too easy to address logically), so I kind of want people to ramp things up a bit and actually maybe cite some complex papers.

I'm a forum progressivist. I like seeing people get more educated and more able to defend viewpoints.

[JadedPulse]

About how much negative karma comes from the religious boards here, I hardly ever post there--and never get involved in deep discussions....and I have quite a few smites from my other posts elsewhere. *shrugs*

I do agree, the more heated discussion tend to garner more negative karma from people--but you can get negative karma from just about anywhere.

[Luigi]

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?

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.

Wow, how arrogant, both of you. You talk like the people who don't post regularly in there don't know what goes on in there.

I don't post in the religious section very often because it becomes people attacking others very quickly and I don't want to get in the middle of it. Religion is something a lot of people on here are passionate about, as you all know. If you go into the religious section, expect a lot of smites from people who don't agree with you. It's the nature of the beast.

(Just so you know, both of those sections annoyed me greatly. Don't patronize me.)

[Alkan]

I don't mean to patronize you. I just mean to say that you've not been the victim of repeated pointless smiting to the degree of about 30 or 40 points from the same person in the course of a month. Therefore you don't appear to empathize with my irritation and disappointment of having worked hard to keep my negative karma to post ratio low getting ruined by one person throwing a fit.

And the fact that you don't post there? Exactly my point: you avoid that forum. I don't want it to be a place that people avoid. This forum's title is "Is God Imaginary?" That means that the religious forum should indeed be the main place for discourse, and people shouldn't have to avoid it because there are a few nasty people (as far as trying to hold a good discussion) in the forum.

I've been trying to address this problem for a long time. Yes, people get passionate, but I get tired of people getting rude over me calling them out for missing parts of my post that are important to the overall discussion and then smiting me for it.

You can still have strong opinions without discussion devolving into chaos. Plus, I want to post in the religious forum. I also don't want my karma trashed because I have an opinion.

[Luigi]

There are going to be nasty people in the religious section with or without karma, because it's the religious section. There's nothing you, nor I, nor anyone can really do about that as long as they don't break any rules.

And as for karma, perhaps making it open will stop your karma from being trashed. But I think it'll also take away a lot of positive things we have going with karma if it's open.

[Alkan]

Some things need be compromised, but I did offer one solution: only negative karma would require explanation while positive karma would require no explanation.

Beyond that I don't see how not knowing where a +1 came from is any better than knowing where it came from. In fact, you've pointed out the negative aspect of knowing who smote you, but couldn't the opposite be true of knowing who applauded you? Couldn't that help you see who kind of acts as a friend, strengthening the sense of companionship?

For instance, you know that I have a couple of smiting enemies, but I would like to be able to give them +1s that they know are from me, but perhaps in a more private and personal sense so that I can truly show that I don't mean to or want to be the enemy of anyone.

[Ghost]

 Luigi I wasn't referencing you specifically. And I am sorry if you felt that way. My comment was a general comment and it is a true statement. If you say something to the wrong person in there it can cost you -30 over just a few days without justification. Just to give an example my karma was something like +70 to a -55 when I decided to stay away from that forum. And now it is like +180 to -70. And the point is that you get smited repeatedly by the same person on one post and then they seem to follow you around for awhile and smite for no apparent reason. The transparency would put a halt to that sort of nonsense. If I had stayed out of the religious forum from the beginning I would probably only have 25 smites at the moment. And that is because I have a big mouth at times 

Nobody should feel uncomfortable in a forum do to the fear that someone is going to follow them around and smite repeatedly out of vindictiveness over one comment. If a name had to be put to it that would stop most of this behavior.

[Alkan]

Or rather, all of it. People could be banned/put in the corner for just abusing that system and doing repeat smites. Yes, I know the whole following around thing... I hate it. Sometimes I wonder if people are making sock puppets just to make it worse.

But yes, that is the point. I want to be able to post there without the fear of getting a karma ratio of like +1200/-900 within another year of trying to have good discussion there.

[JudoChop]

We should trial some changes for a month and if it turns out to be a complete s**t sandwich then change it back. Jay doesn't want any changes because he knows I'll leave nasty comments about the way he smells.

[Luigi]

Alkan: I've never been against adding comments to karma. I just don't want it to be required to put my name with each karma I give out. I want to be able to choose which applauds and smite I put my name on. Call me a chicken for not wanting to own up to all my smites. I don't like conflict, or fighting, or people not liking me. If I can avoid that, I will. However, when I feel strong enough about something, I'll tell someone. However, I want it to be on MY terms. I'm sure several people feel similar to this, or else I'm making a complete ass out of myself.

Ghost: Perhaps that sort of behavior would stop. But I can't help but think that knowing for certain who gave you (not you as in YOU, ghost, but you as in general) karma is going to create a lot of animosity between you and that user. For example, say I was responsible for at least 15 of your smites. If you didn't know that, you would probably like me because you and I typically get along. However, if you knew each and every time I smited you (for whatever reasons), you probably wouldn't like me as much. Heck, you might even seek out my stupid, annoying, or incorrect posts just to smite me back. You might start attacking me more often and there would be tension between us.

Honestly, I don't want to sacrifice all the good things that anonymous karma brings to get rid of a few bad things. Opening karma up to stop spite smites is like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear bomb. All the crap that comes with open karma probably won't be worth it.

[FGOH]

Personally I like things as they are. To me having the functionality of knowing which post has got applauded/smited was a big step forward because I like to know what posts people like or dislike. Who likes or dislikes them? Well, in many cases I can guess, or they say in thread, but I don't need to know that. I think the option to leave a comment is awful - it won't get used properly and I sure as hell don't want to have to moderate that kind of thing.

If you feel strongly enough about letting someone know you applauded or smited them, and why, but you don't want the whole forum to know, you can use a PM.

[JudoChop]

*PM's FGOH*

"I like your post"

[Luigi]

Personally I like things as they are. To me having the functionality of knowing which post has got applauded/smited was a big step forward because I like to know what posts people like or dislike. Who likes or dislikes them? Well, in many cases I can guess, or they say in thread, but I don't need to know that. I think the option to leave a comment is awful - it won't get used properly and I sure as hell don't want to have to moderate that kind of thing.

If you feel strongly enough about letting someone know you applauded or smited them, and why, but you don't want the whole forum to know, you can use a PM.

While I'm sure it won't get used properly by a lot of people at first, eventually, after a decent set of rules and expectations get laid down, I think it might be beneficial in several ways.

And as for the "who" question, I agree with that. Does it really matter who liked or disliked your post? Not really. However, sometimes a reason would be nice.

[JudoChop]

So far the poll suggests we need to amend it how it is.

[Alkan]

For example, say I was responsible for at least 15 of your smites. If you didn't know that, you would probably like me because you and I typically get along. However, if you knew each and every time I smited you (for whatever reasons), you probably wouldn't like me as much.

This is exactly what I don't like. If you have something to say to someone, just say it.

I don't like conflict, or fighting, or people not liking me.

I think someone would be perfectly justified in going along with the underlined portion if you did give then 15 smites that seemed pointless. If you gave those smites with a good reason attached to each, then it wouldn't matter so much to me. But that's the point. It can be made into a much more meaningful system. Plus, with people I generally like, I don't hand out smites. Plus, I generally require that people are repeat offenders and constantly frustrate me before I will even give them a -1.

Look at Gill, for instance. I understand where he comes from and despite the fact that I find him frustrating and his negative karma is in the same region as his positive karma, I have not smote him once. This is bad karma going into the religious direction that is mostly unnecessary. This is even after I've had lots of heated discussion with him.

I reserve smites for more serious occasions when someone seriously deserves it. Most of the time. Sometimes I hand out a retaliatory smite. But even that behavior of retaliation that I am guilty of I would like mitigated by a transparent karma system with reasons attached.

If karma wasn't recorded on someone's profile, I would hand out a lot more smites. But it is recorded, and I treat the system generally with reserve because I know that it is important to some people.

But as you've said to me, that karma is supposedly meaningless. If it is truly meaningless, then we should stop recording it on people's profiles. I'm fine with either getting rid of recording it or with making it transparent. But no more of this profile trashing system that we have in place now.

[Shylala]

Whats wrong with a monthly trial like judo said? Thats the only way we can test it and know what we want for sure. We keep speculating about what will happen , lets just do it and see.

[JudoChop]

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.

[Luigi]

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.

Really?! Is THAT why it was taken away? I guess I never really knew.

[JudoChop]

Well they said that it was because it was being abused aka 'The Rep Game' but we know different...

[FGOH]

Well they said that it was because it was being abused aka 'The Rep Game' but we know different...

Wasn't it the Mafia Wars crowd that had a hissy fit over being neg repped that caused the problem? Funny how neg rep seems to cause hissy fits.

[JudoChop]

I think that helped nail the coffin definitely, I also remember Lexi mentioning that n00bs could find members with bundles of rep 'intimidating'...

[Luigi]

All I remember was everyone throwing a huge fit when Karma was taken away and the mods being d**ks about it. I remember we all put our karma bars in our sigs too, hahaha

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Really, if you can't spare 8 seconds to type something into the box, do you really have the time to give out karma?

It's not 2 vs. 10, it's instantaneous vs. not. Currently our buttons allow you to make a near-instantaneous change because nothing happens to the page when you click it. You can give your karma and keep reading.

Forcing comments takes members physically off the page onto a new page, where they have to type something and confirm, only to return to the previous page and find their place again. This is irksome, and at a subconscious level will quickly train a person to avoid giving karma.

Then you have to opt-in to even read the comments, which means we'd all have to conform to this for he few who care enough to look. And the less tech-savvy will not know how to set notifications, so we'll get threads whining about how they can't see any.

Furthermore, adding anonymous comments means we'd need rules about them, and the mods would have to be involved to enforce them and handle the volume. This means that mods would need full access to the logs (they currently have the same access you do.) This will create a two-tiered system since mods will always know who smote them, and people will know this when smiting them.

I think anonymous comments are the absolute worst way to configure the system.

[JudoChop]

Could members opt in for any changes to their karma options or would it just affect the board as a whole?

[Captain Luke]

Forcing comments takes members physically off the page onto a new page, where they have to type something and confirm, only to return to the previous page and find their place again. This is irksome, and at a subconscious level will quickly train a person to avoid giving karma

Also, for those members using their phones or tablets to read the site it makes it awkward.

I like karma as it is, but if pushed I would go for total transparency over who smote who, with no comments.

One more thing, I'm not keen on the Admin staff arbitrarily deciding when someone is "silly smiting" and deleting their smite records (and removing karma privileges). There aren't any rules concerning the karma system, and there isn't even a consensus about how it should be used. If you want to restrict what you consider to be abuses of the karma system then you need to either set the system up so that it prevents the incidents that you don't like, or put something in the rules. It may be quite sad to open up multiple tabs and run down a thread smiting everyone in it, but who is to say that that is an abuse of the system if there are no guidelines to how the system should be used. We all use the karma system in different ways.

[FGOH]

There is an ongoing discussion about how to deal with the "silly smiter" issue and what rules/system tweaks might be put in place, although given that the membership as a whole has now got interested in the karma system I am not sure there is much value in our continuing to discuss that detail if it is eventually decided to change the system anyway.

[JudoChop]

I vote for total transparency over who karma'd who, with an option to leave comments.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Could members opt in for any changes to their karma options or would it just affect the board as a whole?

Board as a whole.

And yeah, Luke has a good point. Loading a new page is a big deal for phone browsing.

[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.

[Jay]

Alkan,
Your profile is not 'trashed'

A quick look at your stats shows that almost a third of all your posts are in religion. And the vast majority of your posts are in other divisive boards.

A quick comparison puts you 'on par' with Nate above who is a mod. I think you are taking any smite to personally.  Just my opinion. But have a plus 1 on me. I owe it to you anyways for being 'mean' to you in the political area a few weeks ago.

[Jezzebelle]

I think if you want it kept close just because you don't want your name attached to the smites you give out... you have no business giving them out at all.

I'll stand by every karma action I give.

[JadedPulse]

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?

Everyone has their own reasons for caring about karma, or not caring about it--but may I ask why it's so important to you to have a low smite count, or a "non-trashed" profile? I'm failing to understand the importance as you see it.

[Jezzebelle]

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?

Everyone has their own reasons for caring about karma, or not caring about it--but may I ask why it's so important to you to have a low smite count, or a "non-trashed" profile? I'm failing to understand the importance as you see it.

yeah, i agree... your profile isn't "trashed."

[Traveler]

I've changed my vote to leave it as it is. Since I'm on the fence, I stand by my previous note (weeks ago?) that we shouldn't change unless there's a very, very strong reason to. The fact that I can't make up my mind tells me that the reasons to change are not compelling enough to take the risk of making a change. Some guidelines or rules about smite attacks should be sufficient if someone chooses to troll using the karma system.

[Alkan]

It's not trashed yet.

Like I said, there are some (more like one person) people who simply dislike me strongly for disagreeing with them. I remember one day getting 4 negative smites on the same comment every two hours on the hour.

I just want to get rid of that repeated smite behavior. Because when you already have over 1500 negative karma, what does it matter anymore if someone "gets you back?" It's harm that one person can inflict.

I think we do at least need some rules about repeated smites from one person. We also need a way to make sure that we know that the same person is or isn't doing it or creating sock puppets to do it. This would only work if mods are able to see who gives +/-1s....

[FGOH]

^ Admins can see who gives what karma. They don't check it as a rule but they can and did during the silly smiter debacle.

Staff team is currently discussing what rules to implement regarding silly/vexatious smiters (assuming the whole karma system is not changed)

Sock puppets are not allowed and are banned as soon as we spot them.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

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.

That was something Assy hand-coded, and was lost in the upgrades.  This is what will happen with anything JM hand codes.  Compounding this is that Assy was more experienced with hand-coding for this forum than JM is, and JM is more focused on other aspects of keeping the forum running, so we shouldn't rely on hand-coding as an option.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I can't help but think you have to be careful what you wish for. If someone believes her smites are all coming from one or two people but it turns out that there are 6 or 8 or 10 people who find her posts arrogant, ill-thought out, or silly, what will that do for her self-esteem? True, we have a doctor in residence but he is not specializing in psychology that I am aware of. Really, until we develop some in-house expertise on dealing with emotional crises, maybe we better be careful.

[Gnu Ordure]

If someone believes her smites are all coming from one or two people but it turns out that there are 6 or 8 or 10 people who find her posts arrogant, ill-thought out, or silly, what will that do for her self-esteem?

Don't worry Maggie, I'm sure your self-esteem would remain unscathed.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Nope, Maggie, not going into psychiatry.

I edited my first post in this thread to translate all the settings into plainer English so you guys can hopefully tell what does what.  And I've tested all the settings, so I can answer questions about what each one does.

[Gnu Ordure]

Like I said, there are some (more like one person) people who simply dislike me strongly for disagreeing with them. I remember one day getting 4 negative smites on the same comment every two hours on the hour. <snip>

I just want to get rid of that repeated smite behavior. I think we do at least need some rules about repeated smites from one person.

I agree with this. Repeatedly and frequently smiting the same person is indeed silly and childish. Like Diogenes.

It wouldn't be too hard to define this kind of smiting and outlaw it.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

If someone believes her smites are all coming from one or two people but it turns out that there are 6 or 8 or 10 people who find her posts arrogant, ill-thought out, or silly, what will that do for her self-esteem?

Don't worry Maggie, I'm sure your self-esteem would remain unscathed.

Indeed it has. Yes, it certainly has.

[Jay]

Like I said, there are some (more like one person) people who simply dislike me strongly for disagreeing with them. I remember one day getting 4 negative smites on the same comment every two hours on the hour. <snip>

I just want to get rid of that repeated smite behavior. I think we do at least need some rules about repeated smites from one person.

I agree with this. Repeatedly and frequently smiting the same person is indeed silly and childish. Like Diogenes.

It wouldn't be too hard to define this kind of smiting and outlaw it.

Well, I guess it could be currently covered under the harassment rule.  As some have claimed Diogenes actions could be covered by the spam rule.  But I think such situations should be saved for extreme, obvious and vexatious abuse.  I do not think we really want the mods getting involved to heavily in monitoring the karma system.

[Ghost]

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.

A nasty comment is not required in the religious forum to get hounded with smites Jay. I know I have discussed politics with you and if you were to make the same posts that you make in the political forum in the religious forum you would get smite hounded also. Merely disagreeing with the wrong person in the religious forum can cost you double digit smites in a hurry. Some of us like to discuss religion and different beliefs, I mean that is the true meaning of this forum is it not? I suspect you may see this matter in a different light if you were to get hounded for awhile by one of these childish smiters for merely having a different opinion than them. There are also plenty of insults that do fly around in there as you have stated, but it is not necessarily why the vindictive smiting occurs.

Sure it would be nice if the mods or admin who see who does this would put a stop to it. But it has apparently been going on long before I came here so I don't see it stopping anytime soon. There is only a couple individuals doing this and I know the mods know who they are. Why they haven't attempted to stop it is beyond me because it is not productive for the whole forum in general.

I guess I still have a hard time understanding why it shouldn't be opened. In an adult forum as this is supposed to be I expect accountability for actions. And I guess I view those who oppose the open system as people who do not like accountability and do not want people to see who they really are. Just my opinion though.

[Tish]

There is only a couple individuals doing this and I know the mods know who they are. Why they haven't attempted to stop it is beyond me because it is not productive for the whole forum in general.

As has been said numerous times - mods DON'T have access to the karma logs AT ALL.  A couple of the admins know how to check the logs, but they don't look at them unless there's moaning from the forum that smites are being racked up.

The same goes for 'knowing' who is smiting you.  You don't.  You can surmise, based on your interaction with people, but you can't know it.  If you're getting slammed with smites, perhaps you might want to take a look at your posting style, rather than pushing the blame onto people who simply disagree with you?

You're probably getting a tone that should also be directed at a few more people, but it's early morning and yours was the first irritating post I came to.  Sorry.

[Luigi]

So people don't like my idea of adding comments to karma. Fair enough, I can see why. Perhaps they aren't the best idea for a forum such as this. I can live with that. 

*votes*

[Gnu Ordure]

Jay:

But I think such situations should be saved for extreme, obvious and vexatious abuse.  I do not think we really want the mods getting involved to heavily in monitoring the karma system.

I don't think the Admins would need to do any extra monitoring, they can be reactive i.e. the victim will have noticed the harassment (if they haven't even noticed it, it probably doesn't qualify as harassment!!), and they can ask an Admin to have a look at their log. The problem, if there is one, can then be easily fixed. 

[Jay]

Ghost....I used to spend more time in Religion.  As I said, I got bored with the same arguments all the time and the nastiness.  In fact, it was for that reason....not because I would get smites that I stopped going in to that part of the forum...and actually stopped posting on the board for awhile.

My resurgence in the political area and a complete disregard for the religious area is more of a recent occurrence.  I may venture back into there at some point(I still peak back in when I see an interesting thread title)...but getting smites or not will probably not be high in my mind of reasons to go back or not.

*shrug*

[Jay]

Jay:

But I think such situations should be saved for extreme, obvious and vexatious abuse.  I do not think we really want the mods getting involved to heavily in monitoring the karma system.

I don't think the Admins would need to do any extra monitoring, they can be reactive i.e. the victim of harassment will have noticed and they can ask an Admin to have a look at their log. The problem, if there is one, can then be easily fixed.

And that is fine.  If you  or anyone else here for that matter feel that they are being harassed, by all means notify the staff.  They will look into your concerns and take them seriously. 

[Ghost]

There is only a couple individuals doing this and I know the mods know who they are. Why they haven't attempted to stop it is beyond me because it is not productive for the whole forum in general.

As has been said numerous times - mods DON'T have access to the karma logs AT ALL.  A couple of the admins know how to check the logs, but they don't look at them unless there's moaning from the forum that smites are being racked up.

The same goes for 'knowing' who is smiting you.  You don't.  You can surmise, based on your interaction with people, but you can't know it.  If you're getting slammed with smites, perhaps you might want to take a look at your posting style, rather than pushing the blame onto people who simply disagree with you?

You're probably getting a tone that should also be directed at a few more people, but it's early morning and yours was the first irritating post I came to.  Sorry.

Admins, mods, staff? All basically the same thing to me. Don't take it so personal because I don't understand totally who has all the control of what in here  .

Are you saying I should take a page out of your posting style? Like this one?  I am glad to be your first irritant of the morning Tish.   

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

There is only a couple individuals doing this and I know the mods know who they are.

No, they do not.  Here are the people who have access:

Son Of Man - Hasn't logged on in 3 months.

Happy Evolute - Until recently didn't know we had a karma log.

JustMyron - Actively avoids the karma log for fear of seeing private info.

Mooby The Golden Sock - Doesn't really care about karma.

So, at any given time, there's a good chance that zero staff members know who's giving what.  If people start pissing and moaning, then I'll almost certainly be the first to check, and most times I won't even bother anyone else unless I think we are obligated to step in.  At that point, I'll link HE and JM, but not the mods.

Personally, I don't give a crap about karma at all, and think that those who do are being whiny.  The feature is here as a fun augment to posting, not as a d**k-measuring tool.  Up until recently I've been content to just smite people who piss and moan about getting a stupid smite.  Now my time is being wasted with multiple threads that I'm basically obligated to read because of my staff position, which is rather annoying because I don't even care about my own karma enough to turn notifications on.

The only reason I care about karma settings at all is because I like tweaking forum features, and these settings have a lot of boxes I can click.  I'm willing to discuss changing some settings if it'll make you all shut up for a little while, and have told you what's available so we don't waste time making up nonexistent features.  But beyond that, I couldn't care less who gives you what karma in the Religion board, or any other board for that matter.

As far as discussion goes, I'll openly oppose any change that will a) make extra work for me to give karma, or b) make extra work for the staff.  So basically any plan involving comments.  Other than that, knock yourselves out.  Honestly, I've been tempted just to open the whole log up and let our more sensitive members screech and cry about who's been smiting them lately.  Of course, then I'd have to deal with people crying that I didn't hide all their smites before doing it, not to mention that I'd get in trouble with the rest of the staff. 

See, here's the thing: nobody cares about your karma except you and the person smiting you.  Do you think the mods care?  No: I gave them the option to have access when I installed the mod, and they declined.  Do you think I care?  Nah, the only time I cared was when a new member was getting smited to the point where I was concerned about them leaving.  So don't expect anyone to stop you from getting smites on the Religion board.  Unless it's excessive to the point of forum catastrophe, no one's going to look.

Of course, the silly smiters love it when you guys get in a tizzy.  With our last silly smiter, I sat in Who's Online and watched them repeatedly go into the "Real Old Threads Getting Karma" thread.  I haven't checked lately, but I bet our smiter is spooging at this thread.

I'm sure some of my fellow staff members wouldn't mind just closing karma completely.  Personally, I like the karma system.  I think it's a nice, effortless way to indicate I've read and enjoyed or disliked a post without having to post a reply.  As long as there's no actual work involved (comments, multiple reports, etc.) I'd like to keep the feature.  But not if people are just going to keep whining about it forever.

Maybe I should just turn off notifications so the OCDers have to go running through their entire post history every time their smite count changes.  Perhaps then they'd be too busy to start threads on karma.

Tish said I should be a d**k.

[Jay]

Mooby likes flicking boxes.  It is true.   

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I sure do!  I'll settle with flicking your coin purse, though.

[JadedPulse]

Isn't ANY change that's made from the way it currently is, going to make more work for the staff?

[Jay]

I sure do!  I'll settle with flicking your coin purse, though.

[Happy Evolute]

But beyond that, I couldn't care less who gives you what karma in the Religion board, or any other board for that matter.

+1

[Jezzebelle]

  Do you think the mods care?  No: I gave them the option to have access when I installed the mod, and they declined. 

or were outvoted 

[Tish]

  Do you think the mods care?  No: I gave them the option to have access when I installed the mod, and they declined. 

or were outvoted 

   *declines*

[catwixen]

C'mon moobs, open up. Tell us how you really feel man. 

[Ghost]

Not going to lie Mooby, that sounded like another one of our condescending assholish posters on here 

[Shawna]

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.

That was something Assy hand-coded, and was lost in the upgrades.  This is what will happen with anything JM hand codes.  Compounding this is that Assy was more experienced with hand-coding for this forum than JM is, and JM is more focused on other aspects of keeping the forum running, so we shouldn't rely on hand-coding as an option.

No, don't do any hand-coding.  It was a nice feature, but not worth the hassle of hand-codes.

There are so many more important things than karma, for Myron to think about.........

------

"d**k-measuring tool" .....    ....  you are a very funny sock!

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Not going to lie Mooby, that sounded like another one of our condescending assholish posters on here 

Posts, not posters.  If you say I sound like an assholish poster, it's an insult. 

Shawna gets my humor. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I thought we had established that one is not allowed to insult unnamed posters? It just isn't all about you, Mooby! 

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

It's all about me, Maggie.  If you rearrange the letters of "isgodimaginary.com" and spin the d, it makes "Mooby is a magic ring."  This is no coincidence.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

 

[Ghost]

Not going to lie Mooby, that sounded like another one of our condescending assholish posters on here 

Posts, not posters.  If you say I sound like an assholish poster, it's an insult. 

Shawna gets my humor. 

Actually I was referencing to myself, or are we not allowed to insult ourselves either? 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

It is possible. There appear to be a set of rules hidden from our sight... 

[Jay]

It's all about me, Maggie.  If you rearrange the letters of "isgodimaginary.com" and spin the d, it makes "Mooby is a magic ring."  This is no coincidence.

So how do you like being worn on Bilbo's finger?






Damn....I am having way too much fun with gifs in this thread.   

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

It's not as fun as flicking your purse, jay.

You know you want me to turn into

[Jay]

Ummm....no.  *gulp*

[JudoChop]

In order to achieve board peace and ultimate knowledge, the sacred karma log (aka pandora's log) must be opened.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Judging by the vote tally as it currently stands, it looks like peace is more assured by not doing anything to the current situation.

Pandora's log. That's a good one! And probably painfully accurate.

[JudoChop]

If they don't change it I'll stamp my feet and hold my breath.

[FGOH]

Until your testicles turn blue?

*rigs vote in mod box to make sure no changes are made*

[JudoChop]

That's it!

*writes "do not resuscitate" on forehead with permanent marker*

*holds breath*

[Jay]

*nudges Judo with shoe*

[Hemingway]

But beyond that, I couldn't care less who gives you what karma in the Religion board, or any other board for that matter.

I'm with HE.....+1 for this Mooby! 

[Alkan]

So, why do we still record people's karma by their names if it is a meaningless number?

[Luigi]

It's all about me, Maggie.  If you rearrange the letters of "isgodimaginary.com" and spin the d, it makes "Mooby is a magic ring."  This is no coincidence.

Hmmm....one Mooby to rule them all.

And to think someone took the time to figure that out. 

[Gnu Ordure]

Greetings voters.

In the light of what people have said on this thread, I'm going to amend the Poll to get some more data.

The reason is that it seems that some people are reluctant to vote for amending the system, because they think the changes may go too far.

So I'm changing option 3 to be the most minimal amendment in the direction of openness, for a trial period of a month. Which means simply opening the Karma log.

So please change your vote, if you want to.

The log shows who gave karma to who, and on which post. Also, the Karma count on individual posts would be clickable to show who applauded or smote it.

(If the whole log is opened, we might as well allow individual logs to be accessible as well, since that isn't extra information, it's simply a selection from the whole log).

No comments. No change to the Karma-giving process, no extra clicks. Nothing extra required from the Admins/Mods*.

The only difference is the removal of anonymity.

Advantages:

1. Smiting someone because you don't like them i.e silly smiting, will decrease. Because everyone will see that you're being an idiot.
2. "Harassment", repeatedly smiting the same person, will decrease, for the same reason.
3. Attacks by trolls e.g. Diogenes, will be nipped in the bud.
4. You find out who liked your posts, who laughed at your jokes. Generalizing somewhat, you find out who likes you.
5. You find out who doesn't like your posts. This is useful information; if a friend of yours gives you negative karma, and if it bothers you, you can PM them and ask them why. A good friend will tell you. And maybe you learn something. 

Disadvantages:

1. Some people will refrain from smiting some members or posts, because they feel that it's too confrontational.
2. I can't think of any more disadvantages. But I'm sure others can, so please post them.

Gnu.

PS For the record, the vote right now, before I change the poll, is:

Leave it : 18
Remove it: 2
Amend it in some way: 11


* Mooby, I'm sure you agree that opening the log can't apply retrospectively i.e previous karma should remain anonymous. Does that mean that our current totals have to be set to zero?

And, if we tried this experiment for a month, and if we decided not to continue with it, could you easily re-set everyone's totals to where they are now? By backing up the relevant file now?

[Jay]

It wont let me change my vote.  Because I was going to remove my vote from 'no changes' just so I could apply my vote for 'no changes' again. 


Can we just move on now?

[Gnu Ordure]

It wont let me change my vote.

It won't let me change mine either.

What happened?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

The other disadvantage is that one ill-conceived smite could turn into a 6 month feud.

And you probably unchecked a box.  Try editing your poll again.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Looking at the results so far, it seems clear that they are consistent with the results of all the discussions of this subject in the last year. I think the interested basically understand what the options are. So I don't think adding one or more options to the poll will change anything significantly.

[Jay]

The other disadvantage is that one ill-conceived smite could turn into a 6 month feud.

Yes, it goes even beyond that.  I smite you....your friends take exception to the fact that I smited you and smite me...my friends take exception to me getting 'picked on' and smite them back. etc etc etc etc

I see that poster X smites poster Y with regularity.....I like poster Y more, I smite poster X.  Blah blah blah blah.

I wonder why my friend applauds another friend but never applauds me. 

  I am tired of talking about karma.  Maybe I WILL change my vote....to remove it completely.

[Gnu Ordure]

And you probably unchecked a box.  Try editing your poll again

Just done that. There's no option concerning Removing Votes, as far as I can see?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Yes, it goes even beyond that.  I smite you....your friends take exception to the fact that I smited you and smite me...my friends take exception to me getting 'picked on' and smite them back. etc etc etc etc

Sort of like assassinating the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

[Jay]

Yes, it goes even beyond that.  I smite you....your friends take exception to the fact that I smited you and smite me...my friends take exception to me getting 'picked on' and smite them back. etc etc etc etc

Sort of like assassinating the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

HAHA.  Yes.  Kind of.  +1

[Ghost]

 Removing it totally sounds like a great idea 

[Gnu Ordure]

Just done that. There's no option concerning Removing Votes, as far as I can see?

Thanks for fixing that, Mooby. Weird little bug there...

So you can all amend your vote now, if you want to.

If there is inadequate support for even this minimal change, then the status quo obviously prevails, and those of us that wanted more openness will just have to shut up about it.




Until the next time .... 

dum-dum... dum-dum...

(horror-movie-sequel-type music... )

[Jay]

*makes sock puppet just to vote in poll*

[Ghost]

 Problem that your going to have Gnu is that a lot of people probably voted and will never look at this thread again so they may not even see the change or be aware of it.

And Jay I am in the process of creating 10 sock puppets to counter your 1 

[Jay]

Problem that your going to have Gnu is that a lot of people probably voted and will never look at this thread again so they may not even see the change or be aware of it.

And Jay I am in the process of creating 10 sock puppets to counter your 1 

I do not see too many people changing their vote.  What Gnu is asking for has already been discussed.

As far as 1 sock....that is just what I said.  I dont want to the mods to catch on to my nefarious plans to easily....now do I??  MUWAHAHAHAHA 

[Gnu Ordure]

Problem that your going to have Gnu is that a lot of people probably voted and will never look at this thread again

Maybe, Ghost. No harm in asking the question though.

(I changed the thread title to alert people to the proposal. See the edit in the first post, people).

As I said, if people aren't interested in even the most minimal change, then the issue is settled, and we can all move on.

[Ghost]

 This was all rigged anyway by the mods and admin  Its a damn conspiracy 

[Meat]

Don't change it. I've managed to hang out here for darn near 1000 posts so it must be working. 

[Luigi]

This was all rigged anyway by the mods and admin  Its a damn conspiracy 

[FGOH]

I don't think opening the log will bring benefits to the membership as a whole so I am leaving my vote to stand

[IrishMauddib]

Ah I love how this forum sometimes makes me feel right at home :)

And nothing makes an Irishman feel more at home than having a vote on something then the people holding the vote changing slightly the words of the vote and asking you to vote again on essentially the same thing only worded minutely differently.

Usually over and over until the people get bored and the Public just give them the vote they want. 

They got the Lisbon and Nice treaties past the Irish Public like that, it was great fun all around.

[davdi]

It comes in several varieties, sure to satisfy the distinguishing palates of the most discriminating of persons.

[Luigi]

It comes in several varieties, sure to satisfy the distinguishing palates of the most discriminating of persons.

Urgh. I hate that stuff, it makes me sicker than I was before I took it.

[Alkan]

I feel sick looking at the bottles. Why? Because when I take it I f**king puke again almost immediately if I've already been throwing up.

[Jay]

I feel sick looking at the bottles. Why? Because when I take it I f**king puke again almost immediately if I've already been throwing up.

You all are wusses.  I chug that stuff before going to bed after a heavy night of partying.  I could gargle with the stuff if I wanted.

[Ratman]

Something just occurred to me (yes, Ratty uses his brain sometimes) that if people really want to comment about giving a + or - on certain things, they can start a thread called Karma comments on so-and-so thread.  Sort of like a commentary thread like Tish has started.

[JadedPulse]

So we are going to start NEW threads for all or most of the current/future threads--just for karma purposes??

[Traveler]

Something just occurred to me (yes, Ratty uses his brain sometimes) that if people really want to comment about giving a + or - on certain things, they can start a thread called Karma comments on so-and-so thread.  Sort of like a commentary thread like Tish has started.

I think if someone really wants to comment on their karma they should just say it in that thread. It's very hard to keep having to cross reference threads and I think it wouldn't work well at all. I suppose there might be a rare exception if a thread totally blows up on the community, but in general I think it should remain a part of the flow of the original conversation.

You know, "+1 Ratty for a brilliant comment!" or "-1 Ratty for absurdity!" ... that sort of thing.  Hopefully we won't get in the habit of commenting on every single karma we give out, or threads would get even longer than they do now.

[Ghost]

 36 votes have been cast? I didn't know there were 36 members total here?  Who is double voting or using sock puppets?!?! Jay?

[FGOH]

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php?action=mlist

[Jay]

36 votes have been cast? I didn't know there were 36 members total here?  Who is double voting or using sock puppets?!?! Jay?

Yes....it is all me!!!


I like getting blamed for everything.  It boosts my ego.


And FYI, even if you had managed to eek out a squeaker, it would still not be a consensus. 

[Shawna]

I decided not to change my vote.  I am still thinking that leaving karma as is would be the best choice right now.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

36 votes have been cast? I didn't know there were 36 members total here?  Who is double voting or using sock puppets?!?! Jay?

We currently have 16 members online.

We probably have 30-50 online in any given day.  Forum Stats claims we have 100-200, but it counts the spam bots.  For instance, we currently have 63 guests online, of which 2/3 are probably bots.

[Luigi]

Speaking of bots, I'm always really happy to see "Discobot" on the forum.

Makes me picture something like this:

[Ratman]

So we are going to start NEW threads for all or most of the current/future threads--just for karma purposes??

Well I didn't say it was a good idea. 

[Gnu Ordure]

OK people, I think maybe we can wrap this thing up?

I'm not sure how meaningful it was to change the poll like I did; it would have been better to start a separate one. Sorry about that.

Anyway, 48 hours later, the scores stand at:

Leave it as it is: 21
Remove it completely: 2
Open the Karma Log for a trial period of a month - no comments allowed: 13

The poll hasn't moved all day, so I'm assuming it's over.


So that's pretty clear, isn't it?

We 13 revolutionaries concede defeat, and we will stop demanding changes. We've presented our case, and the people have spoken. Fair enough.

We reserve the right to moan about the system now and again.

But the issue is settled for the time being.

I hope this information is helpful to the mods, who can now produce their new karma rules in the knowledge that the current karma system is going to continue.

And thank you all for your participation.

Gnu.

[Tish]

Gnu, good on you for persevering!   

[Gnu Ordure]

Tish, this is all Shawna's doing.

The manipulative minx.

Last week I innocently suggested on another thread that you could have a quick poll to settle this karma issue, and she congratulated me for volunteering.

Like a fool, I bought it, and started this thread.

And as a direct result, four days later, my negative karma points have doubled, I've made several enemies, Luigi doesn't love me any more, my hair's falling out and I've been fired from my job.

Thanks, Shawna. Thanks a lot.



Sheesh, if I ever see that woman again, she's going to be smitten like she's never been smitten before.

And not in a good way.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

See? There really is a God. 

[nateswift]

It wuz a lousy job anyway, Gnu

[Tish]

LOLOLOLOL!!!  Yeah, thanks Shawna!   

[Shawna]

Tish, this is all Shawna's doing.

The manipulative minx.

Last week I innocently suggested on another thread that you could have a quick poll to settle this karma issue, and she congratulated me for volunteering.

Like a fool, I bought it, and started this thread.

And as a direct result, four days later, my negative karma points have doubled, I've made several enemies, Luigi doesn't love me any more, my hair's falling out and I've been fired from my job.

Thanks, Shawna. Thanks a lot.



Sheesh, if I ever see that woman again, she's going to be smitten like she's never been smitten before.

And not in a good way.

On the other hand, my opinion of you for being a good Do-Bee has risen geometrically. 

You have now earned the right to b***h and moan about anything on the forum that you like... because you is now a veteran of IGI.   

Sorry about your job.

[acctnt_shan]

We should trial some changes for a month and if it turns out to be a complete s**t sandwich then change it back. Jay doesn't want any changes because he knows I'll leave nasty comments about the way he smells.

^ This.

Side note:  I always liked how in the FV forums, the more "senior" of a poster you were, the more your karma actions were worth.  People couldn't just create an account and come in wreaking havoc on the karma system (*cough*Diogenes*cough*), because you had to have a certain amount of "experience" in the forum to pack the big karma punch.

(Also, I apologize if my post is totally out of sync with the flow of this thread... I haven't read all 9 pages because it just seems like a lot of work just to express my opinion on the karma system, haha)

[Dexter]

I think the karma system would work better if there was no applaud or smite function. A function that simply indicated that you cared would be good enough. Facebooks' "I like this post" does not cut it for the mix we get here.
Karma, by definition, is not a judgement but a result.
A "this post disturbed me enough to respond" button would be good enough.