x 2SSJVegita0609 wrote:AD, discussion, like almost everything, is a relative term.AbsoluteDestiny wrote:I don't recall OT being used for discussion. If it had existed purely as a forum for discussions it would have probably stayed.
Let's try to keep this from becoming another massive OT people vs non-OT people thread.
Karma
- Flint the Dwarf
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:58 pm
- Location: Ashland, WI
Kusoyaro: We don't need a leader. We need to SHUT UP. Make what you want to make, don't make you what you don't want to make. If neither of those applies to you, then you need to SHUT UP MORE.
- downwithpants
- BIG PICTURE person
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:28 am
- Status: out of service
- Location: storrs, ct
the closing of the off topic forums wasn't a restriction on the "openness" of the forums, but rather a restriction on the direction or relevance of the forums.
to explain the difference between openness and relevance, lets say you were writing an essay for an application. the question allows you to be open (no right or wrong answers), but the reviewers are looking for relevance (among other things). -- this isn't to say the forums are like an application essay, this is just to demonstrate the difference between openness and relevance.
basically, the user shouldn't feel pressured into censoring what he or she wants to say, but the user should realize that there is no point in posting off topic threads, since it will likely be locked or deleted.
to explain the difference between openness and relevance, lets say you were writing an essay for an application. the question allows you to be open (no right or wrong answers), but the reviewers are looking for relevance (among other things). -- this isn't to say the forums are like an application essay, this is just to demonstrate the difference between openness and relevance.
basically, the user shouldn't feel pressured into censoring what he or she wants to say, but the user should realize that there is no point in posting off topic threads, since it will likely be locked or deleted.
maskandlayer()|My Guide to WMM 2.x
a-m-v.org Last.fm|<a href="http://www.frappr.com/animemusicvideosdotorg">Animemusicvideos.org Frappr</a>|<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2lryta"> Editors and fans against the misattribution of AMVs</a>
a-m-v.org Last.fm|<a href="http://www.frappr.com/animemusicvideosdotorg">Animemusicvideos.org Frappr</a>|<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2lryta"> Editors and fans against the misattribution of AMVs</a>
- mckeed
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 1:02 pm
- Location: Troy, NY
- Contact:
- Flint the Dwarf
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:58 pm
- Location: Ashland, WI
- Arigatomina
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 3:04 am
- Contact:
On the forum, or the main site? The impression I got was also that the 'karma' was to be namely a way to grade/rank reviewers and those people who make guides/etc. If that's the case, then you don't want people to be able to give negative scores. It would *have* to be a positive-only score because otherwise you'd get every person who disagrees with a review giving out low scores - whether the review was legitimate or not. You would (of course) have people giving friends extra points just for the heck of it, but that wouldn't *hurt* anyone just out of spite.mckeed wrote:ok....so assuming there is a karma system, what would make a perfect one?
If it's for the forum...hard to say. You could do the silent version, but there's no need to ask us about that. What the mods do or do not do is up to them - we've never had a say in it to begin with, so why ask us now? It's Phade's site and he can delete a section or slow down the posting speed for certain members based on his own opinion of them. He does it already by giving hidden power to the mods and admin who delete/lock/ban members and posts based on their opinions (and his wishes). That's it - don't ask us, just do it.
The alternative would be to have everyone get the ability to give out points - in this case I'll disagree with the 'positive-only' approach. New members who make a few great posts may not get any points and have low scores while new members who start out flaming will have equally low scores - no difference. If it's positive or negative (you can add one point or subtract one point to each post you read) then majority opinion would rank every post. And those with negative scores would have to raise them before they can rank others - an incentive to 'behaving' well.
Unless there are certain people the forum (community) hates without just cause (or a legitimate reason - popularity contest type groupings), then the scores should reflect the general opinion in a visible manner that lets new members know who they can talk to without the risk of being flamed out of hand.
Isn't that the best reason to have a karma system in the first place? Or the 'most useful' list of reviewers? So new members know who to go to for help?
If it's just to inflate egos, then make them private - only the poster knows what others are giving him and he can either clean up his act because he cares, or ignore it because he's a flamer who *likes* being hated. Those who want to be considered useful or good members will know whether they're achieving their goals without having to flaunt those scores, and those who get the bum rush can lick their wounded egos in private. Not much would come out of it in the long run (unless we had a list that makes them public - like the private-turn-public star ratings for videos). But you could feed or slash egos to your hearts' content without any problem.