Upvotes and Downvotes

[Kobold King he/him]

Thank you Mark, but Brandon Sanderson would have responded with at least twenty thousand words, the last five thousand of which would have been dedicated to a sudden twist in his opinion that leaves us all gasping and theorizing about his true intent for the next year.

 

 

I also trust our wonderful staff, but I feel the admins are placing too much emphasis on the "value" of rep points when rep points have no value outside of their basic communicative purpose. The reputation system is not a currency; talk of inflating or devaluing it does not make logical sense. The reputation system is not a competition; it has no need of rules to keep it fair or arbitrarily small.

 

The reputation system is a smile, or a nod, or in the case of downvotes a frown or a stern shaking of the head. It's a form of communication that's meant to be applied post by post, not member by member. Keeping up with rep and rep titles is good fun, but I feel like these newest measures are meant to moderate the system solely for the sake of that fun, at the expense of the system's actual function.

 

The game of rep is tangential to the system. The new quota is like outlawing smiles to prevent the "devaluing" of mirth. I feel what we had before was perfect; a quota of ten, or Domi forbid, getting rid of the system altogether, doesn't sit well with me.

[tobar14 he/him]

I guess I don't understand this 10 upvote cap. Does that mean I only have 10 upvotes to give ever, or 10 upvotes to give per post, or per person?

[ChickenPlague he/him]

I think it's per day.

[Voidus]

Quota is reset daily yeah.

[Meg]

IMHO the reputation system is out of any balance and I'd be glad to see it deleted without substitution (because -- as far as I remember -- it's not able to restrict it on certain sub-forums. IIRC it was meant for 'praise and admonition' for very good or agreeable or wrong or not agreeable posts in regard to the subject/topics of this forums which are BS's books. When the RP-forums and the General Discussion were flooded the twist of the reputation system went along with this change the emphasizes.

Around one year ago, prior to WoR, when I saw a member with a good ratio (reputation points/posts) I could imagine them as being highly involved in BS's cosmere. Now? There is no way to see who might be *good at BS* (so to say) aside from a most intensive study of each thread. I do find that disappointing, though.

.

So if there would be a possibility to put on two systems (one for pure BS-relevance and one for off-topic) I'd also be glad. Or one system only for BS-relevance.

.

I know and I stand by it, that I am inconvenient at times, but that's just me.

[Kobold King he/him]

IMHO the reputation system is out of any balance and I'd be glad to see it deleted without substitution (because -- as far as I remember -- it's not able to restrict it on certain sub-forums. IIRC it was meant for 'praise and admonition' for very good or agreeable or wrong or not agreeable posts in regard to the subject/topics of this forums which are BS's books. When the RP-forums and the General Discussion were flooded the twist of the reputation system went along with this change the emphasizes.

Around one year ago, prior to WoR, when I saw a member with a good ratio (reputation points/posts) I could imagine them as being highly involved in BS's cosmere. Now? There is no way to see who might be *good at BS* (so to say) aside from a most intensive study of each thread. I do find that disappointing, though.

.

So if there would be a possibility to put on two systems (one for pure BS-relevance and one for off-topic) I'd also be glad. Or one system only for BS-relevance.

.

I know and I stand by it, that I am inconvenient at times, but that's just me.

 

 

Judging people by how many points they have will always be a bad idea. The reputation system is not for judging the overall quality of a member; perhaps thinking that is where it all went wrong in the first place.

 

In any case, this is not solely a BS discussion board. It is a community, and getting rid of an entire system solely because it's being used for purposes that aren't strictly related to Brandon Sanderson seems needless and harsh to me. What good would getting rid of it be? How would you ever ensure that only strictly Sanderson-related posts get upvoted? What good would come of deleting the reputation system just because people use it on off-topic threads?

Edited January 8, 2016 by Kobold King

[STINK he/him]

People are allowed to think what they want about Rep. You can't just say 'you're wrong', or can I say that to you? 

 

This thread should probably be moved to 17th Shard Discussion. 

 

Oh, and you seem to have missed some of what Meg said, Kobold.

Edited January 8, 2016 by IrulelikeSTINK

[Chaos he/him]

The quota amount will be tinkered with, but I want to see how this works in practice for a bit.

Even if we increase the quota, however, certain power users on the board will probably hit that cap. Though the number will be tinkered, don't expect it to go back to the previous quota which was effectively infinite.

Some of this is experimental and as is plainly obvious no system will be without its detractors. We do read the feedback, though.

[Kobold King he/him]

People are allowed to think what they want about Rep. You can't just say 'you're wrong', or can I say that to you? 

 

This thread should probably be moved to 17th Shard Discussion. 

 

Oh, and you seem to have missed some of what Meg said, Kobold.

 

 

I took pains to say "to me." I apologize if I sounded harsh or argumentative, but my point remains; Meg says that she would like to see the rep system go, and states her rationale as being because the context of upvotes has changed over time.

 

There are many people who adore the rep system as it is now. It brings joy to people. If someone advocates removing it from the forum, I strongly believe there should be a stronger reason than an anti-off-topic bias. Deleting the reputation system solely because it isn't always used for on-topic discussions would serve no practical purpose to anyone. I believe that if the system is removed, it should be for a reason that actually benefits members of the community.

[STINK he/him]

So if you read Meg's post, she also suggests having 2 types of rep for BS stuff and off-topic stuff, which to me sounds like a nice compromise. She never actually says that she wants to see the whole reputation system deleted. 

 

EDIT: Posted this just before Meg posted, it seems. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by IrulelikeSTINK

[Meg]

Judging people by how many points they have will always be a bad idea. The reputation system is not for judging the overall quality of a member; perhaps thinking that is where it all went wrong in the first place.

 

In any case, this is not solely a BS discussion board. It is a community, and getting rid of an entire system solely because it's being used for purposes that aren't strictly related to Brandon Sanderson seems needless and harsh to me. What good would getting rid of it be? How would you ever ensure that only strictly Sanderson-related posts get upvoted? What good would come of deleting the reputation system just because people use it on off-topic threads?

I didn't say that I "judge" anybody but I got an inkling about the users from the reputation points. That is a huge difference. Also I don't want to express that I am against off topic stuff. It's only about the balance, that is, and this is off.

[Kobold King he/him]

So if you read Meg's post, she also suggests having 2 types of rep for BS stuff and off-topic stuff, which to me sounds like a nice compromise. She never actually says that she wants to see the whole reputation system deleted. 

 

 

It is actually the first thing she says.

 

 

IMHO the reputation system is out of any balance and I'd be glad to see it deleted without substitution...

 

 

Emphasis added. I did in fact read the post, and responded directly to the phrasing that was offered.

 

 

Off-topic: I have downvoted users on this thread. Realizing this is not a way to ensure civility, I formally apologize for having done so and request that from here on out we attempt to respect one another's opinions to a greater degree than we've thus far done.

[STINK he/him]

Okay then, you at least read the first paragraph. I'm still left wondering why you only responded to that sentence and not the sentence about how later on she overrides that thought with the one about having 2 different rep counts...

[Chaos he/him]

The rep system may be removed for all sorts of reasons. One might be downvote abuse (I'd rather have no system than removing the balancing that downvotes provide). Another might be that everyone feels so strongly about their imaginary internet points that it becomes increasingly difficult for staff to spend time developing a system that can please everyone. There's a ton of good for such a system but it does tax on me. "Rep system needs to be changed!" "Rep system is good. Don't change it." "Change the reputation system to be exactly how my usage pattern desires it to be." I don't want such a thing to go away, but it does grate on me. It makes me have the thought that maybe the imaginary internet points are not good overall. It is a fleeting thought of mine and not a very serious one, but the thought is on our minds.

Not everyone will be pleased and we will see how well we can balance all the different desires here.

[Kobold King he/him]

Okay then, you at least read the first paragraph. I'm still left wondering why you only responded to that sentence and not the sentence about how later on she overrides that thought with the one about having 2 different rep counts...

 

 

Because she suggested the 2 opposing reputation accounts as a compromise that was secondary to what appears to be her ideal agenda, which is deleting the reputation system altogether. I was not arguing against the compromise; I was arguing against what appeared to be her main argument.

 

In addition, I did address it, albeit briefly and unclearly:

 

 

How would you ever ensure that only strictly Sanderson-related posts get upvoted?

 

 

It would be nigh impossible to ensure that a dual rep system is at all times followed and respected, at least given my limited knowledge. In any case, be assured that I am reading all of your posts thoroughly.

[Chaos he/him]

It is actually the first thing she says.

Emphasis added. I did in fact read the post, and responded directly to the phrasing that was offered.

Off-topic: I have downvoted users on this thread. Realizing this is not a way to ensure civility, I formally apologize for having done so and request that from here on out we attempt to respect one another's opinions to a greater degree than we've thus far done.

I am double posting, because I'm on my phone, and I'm in a hurry.

This is another attitude that will be discouraged: moralizing over downvotes. There is nothing wrong with it. This will be made crystalline clear in a future post about reputation and its usage, coming very soon.

I know some people do feel morally opposed to them, but we are not going to have a thing where people should feel shamed into not using that.

It is totally fine to downvote things. You have a ridiculously low quota on those anyway, and you can use them (basically) however you wish. Clear guidelines on the matter of downvotes will be coming very soon.

[STINK he/him]

Chaos posted about downvotes and such (which I agree with) but this is mostly a response to KK.

 

 

http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/52208-upvotes-and-downvotes/page-2#entry384583

^ Kobold's post

 

1. I don't see how it would be 'nigh impossible' for a dual rep system to be followed and respected, as even if locking one type of rep to one subforum isn't possible (though if it is then that is a solution) then people can still downvote what they feel might have been upvoted for a reason that isn't good enough. 

2. If the dual rep system is hard to make respected and followed, then how hard is it for one rep system for many different people?

3. If I was to post about how I like Ice cream the most and why, then talk about why Chocolate is my second favourite food, I'm pretty sure people would also respond about the chocolate and not just the Ice cream. (It's a metaphor)

4. And that's what I mean, you responded to the second idea with a brief sentence while the other idea was very much a 'no'. Thanks for responding to all of my points though

[Eerongal he/him]

I propose a rep system that requires a user to file, in triplicate, the proper documentation for "intentions to award and up/down vote" for every vote.

 

These documents will then be forwarded to the 17th shard offices, misplaced, refaxed, digitized, filed away, forgotten, referenced in the future in a bulk votes submission, and finally buried in an undisclosed location.

 

The lead time for submitting a document is 6 months.

 

We can all only dream of such a perfect world, though...

[Kaymyth she/her]

I propose a rep system that requires a user to file, in triplicate, the proper documentation for "intentions to award and up/down vote" for every vote.

 

These documents will then be forwarded to the 17th shard offices, misplaced, refaxed, digitized, filed away, forgotten, referenced in the future in a bulk votes submission, and finally buried in an undisclosed location.

 

The lead time for submitting a document is 6 months.

 

We can all only dream of such a perfect world, though...

 

...are you one of my workplace's executives?   Ye gods, the paperwork that Redacted, Inc goes through.

[Chaos he/him]

I propose a rep system that requires a user to file, in triplicate, the proper documentation for "intentions to award and up/down vote" for every vote.

These documents will then be forwarded to the 17th shard offices, misplaced, refaxed, digitized, filed away, forgotten, referenced in the future in a bulk votes submission, and finally buried in an undisclosed location.

The lead time for submitting a document is 6 months.

We can all only dream of such a perfect world, though...

Great. You can be in charge of it

[Kurkistan he/him]

Taking off my moderator hat for a moment here and sharing my own thoughts on the subject. There won't be any smiting for those who disagree.

 

I'd like to say that I support Meg's general sentiment, and thank her for voicing it.

 

Yes, things evolve over time. Rep as I have experienced it is different from how it is today or as it was a year ago. Despite this, I feel that the community as a whole was better served by how rep was generally used up until ~2 years ago versus what it's morphed into now. Just as Meg did, I myself, to some extent, used post:rep ratio as a quick measure of the quality of a member. While we'd all like to award our full undivided attention to every post and theory, the truth is time and attention must be rationed, and it's unreasonable to expect most users to have their own opinions of the expected quality of any given member's input if they have to choose between reading thread A and thread B. Such rules are thumb and shortcuts aren't really possible now.

 

If we're to say now that +1'ing a post was like smiling at someone, it could be said that it used to be the case that hitting that green arrow was like firmly shaking their hand for a job well done. It was done sparingly, but sincerely. Part of this was that there was a general sentiment towards the total number of rep a post had being important: if that post has 2 rep (which already indicates a very good post), then it's not really necessary to give it a third—the post already had an appropriate amount of praise.

 

EDIT: To be clear, beyond the utility of being able to do quick post:rep judgments, I found this more sparing, more weighty view of rep to be better than what we have now, and more fulfilling to interact with.

 

--

 

This is a sign of nothing better than vanity on my part, but I used to take the time to bookmark (in my rat's nest of bookmarked WoBs) any post of mine that got 10+ rep and became "Popular" (something which would only happen to any post maybe half a dozen times a year). I don't bother anymore, and I doubt such a concept would even cross the mind of someone who regularly sees 20+ rep for memes.

 

I understand that, as things stand now, this is not how rep is seen. Someone sees a post with 20 rep that makes them chuckle, there's another for 21. A page with only one or two upvotes is seen as a "field of gray apathy" rather than being an average lively discussion. And so on. But at the very least it is worthwhile to acknowledge that this is not always how it's been on this forum, and perhaps ask whether it would be worthwhile to try and shift back.

 

P.S. And yes, to clarify, this is all me talking about how much I value internet points. It is all rather silly when one takes the long view. But what we place value in tends to have value by that very belief, so I suppose I value my internet points.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Kurkistan

[Eerongal he/him]

As such, I would consider abolishment of the rep system to be a bit extreme. Instead, I would advocate starting with a post that makes 17S’s stance towards what a proper attitude about reputation should be. I am aware that staff has made sporadic addresses to this issue in various boards, but something more widely visible might serve to have a site-wide impact. If the problems you observe continue, something else might need to be done. For now, though, I think such an announcement would be a good place to start.

 

This is already in the works. I would expect something soon (actual soon, not "17th shard chaos-speak soon")

[Stormgate he/him]

Judging people by how many points they have will always be a bad idea. The reputation system is not for judging the overall quality of a member; perhaps thinking that is where it all went wrong in the first place.

 

In any case, this is not solely a BS discussion board. It is a community, and getting rid of an entire system solely because it's being used for purposes that aren't strictly related to Brandon Sanderson seems needless and harsh to me. What good would getting rid of it be? How would you ever ensure that only strictly Sanderson-related posts get upvoted? What good would come of deleting the reputation system just because people use it on off-topic threads?

I think that the suggestion is that upvotes in RPs and other nonrelated subforums be given their own, independent upvote system, while the theory boards have another.

[Voidus]

 

So if you read Meg's post, she also suggests having 2 types of rep for BS stuff and off-topic stuff, which to me sounds like a nice compromise. She never actually says that she wants to see the whole reputation system deleted. 

 

EDIT: Posted this just before Meg posted, it seems. 

 

On that point I was in another discussion where it was brought up and it is apparently impossible. Also in light of it separating BS stuff from unrelated stuff I doubt it would be possible, the only way to do it would be to separate it by which subforum the post is in, but plenty of off-topic threads and posts appear in the Mistborn forums and plenty of legitimate theories are discussed in the general discussion forum.

 

Chaos posted about downvotes and such (which I agree with) but this is mostly a response to KK.

 

 

http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/52208-upvotes-and-downvotes/page-2#entry384583

^ Kobold's post

 

1. I don't see how it would be 'nigh impossible' for a dual rep system to be followed and respected, as even if locking one type of rep to one subforum isn't possible (though if it is then that is a solution) then people can still downvote what they feel might have been upvoted for a reason that isn't good enough. 

2. If the dual rep system is hard to make respected and followed, then how hard is it for one rep system for many different people?

3. If I was to post about how I like Ice cream the most and why, then talk about why Chocolate is my second favourite food, I'm pretty sure people would also respond about the chocolate and not just the Ice cream. (It's a metaphor)

4. And that's what I mean, you responded to the second idea with a brief sentence while the other idea was very much a 'no'. Thanks for responding to all of my points though

1. I'm aware that Chaos just posted about how people should feel free to use downvotes but even so the prevailing culture on 17s is that people really only downvote things that are offensive, rather than just wrong or overappreciated. I know plenty of cases where people have balanced a negative reputation out with upvotes but I don't know of anyone that downvotes posts just because they think it doesn't deserve as many upvotes as it got.
3. I don't think they would actually, most of the time people are only replying to one key point in your post, just because you made multiple points doesn't mean everyone else has a strong enough opinion about each point to voice it (case in point I have opinions about your first and third points and so am addressing them, I don't particularly have anything to say to 2, so I'm not.)

[little wilson she/her]

I don't know of anyone that downvotes posts just because they think it doesn't deserve as many upvotes as it got.

 

I will readily admit that I've done this, but it's usually just for jokes/memes that deserve maybe 10 rep but have 30-40+. As has already been said, you don't need to click the little up arrow just because you found something funny if 15 other people clicked it as well. Unless you think it's a joke that deserves that much rep, and if you think that, then carry on.