Poll: Should the reputation option on the forum be deleted, or should it remain as it is?
Delete rep system
Allow the rep system to remain
I don't care either way
[Show Results]
 
Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
(23-10-2013 11:08 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  You still are an amateur. Tongue

You're an amateur in bed. Drinking Beverage

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
(23-10-2013 11:13 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 11:08 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  You still are an amateur. Tongue

You're an amateur in bed. Drinking Beverage

WTF Tartarus I told you no freebies. Damn give a ho an inch and they take a mile.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
23-10-2013, 11:29 PM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
(23-10-2013 11:13 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 11:08 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  You still are an amateur. Tongue

You're an amateur in bed. Drinking Beverage

I know, but we are amateurs together. Heart

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 07:19 AM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
Waiting Tart... waiting.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
(23-10-2013 11:14 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 11:13 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  You're an amateur in bed. Drinking Beverage

WTF Tartarus I told you no freebies. Damn give a ho an inch and they take a mile.

Well, in your case, give a ho an inch, and they'll take the other one. Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 01:40 AM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
It just a popularity contest. If you say something many like, they will reward you with positive points. It not,..they reward you with negative points.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
(03-12-2011 06:08 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  This could be an addition to the "requirements" thread but then again it's a little bit abstract and also doesn't fit other threads on the subject in the same way, thus a new thread. I also don't want the disturb the good naturedness of the "requirements" one.

I have to give full support for the fact that this forum has a strong base for free speech and free thought that is very hard to find on the Internet. Saying whatever you like is important to both mental and social growth. I have learned a great deal from participation in this forum through trial and error. This is important and a big thanks for that.

On the other hand....

Reputations are another thing. This is a control mechanism that weeds out social inadequacies or establishes socially acceptable individuals. It is used both to give pats to some and reprimand others rarely in useful ways. The socially acceptable answers of the power group become the dogma that rules. Not exactly what I call a free speech environment. Are the emotionally stable, politically correct or the gut tough ones the only people who have a right to speak? Is there an agenda that underlies the reputation system that says "getting tough is the key to participation, otherwise shut up."? I call this "forum grooming" myself and I have written about it in other venues. It doesn't take long before the forum becomes a closed club. Personally, I don't think there are any ideas or ways of communicating that are unacceptable whether reasonable or not. Weeding out through social "INs" and social "OUTs" doesn't add to free thought. The free ability to comment and debate that this forum espouses will take care of reasonable or unreasonable interaction. Reputations are a major restriction.

Anyone who says, "it's just a game" is fooling themselves. It IS a power mechanism; it IS a restriction. Some people have things to say that are legitimate and are unable because of this type of ... I'm going to say it... social bullying, and many people DO get hurt by it. If you think I am wussing out or being overly sensitive, that would put you in a category of those who "groom" your surroundings to fit your social agenda; you don't want to accept the fact that people should be allowed to disagree or be different from your thought patterns. I have watched this forum for about a year now, watching this phenomena develop and it is becoming the way of things here.

Back to my being a wuss... I'm a person with certain mental/emotional issues like many others here. I would like to continue to participate because it is good for me. Psychologically speaking, "getting over it" isn't done by being spanked or shunned. It's in finding a way to participate, argue, being argued against, winning, failing, getting or giving reprimand on point when necessary, and still being accepted. I hope I don't need to give case in point concerning the outcome of forced toughness vs. nurturing. It's a fairly well determined psychological study.

I know others that are in a similar position who won't come near this place. But then, maybe this is the point. Maybe weeding out the unacceptable personalities thus limiting the learning field is what people would rather have. I don't know. I certainly do not. There are a lot of smart open and closed minded people here. Some of us have weak social skills while others have strong ones. Some are overbearing and controlling, others are passive or passive aggressive. I have PTSD and ADHD. There are others who have substance abuse issues and others who are being medicated for many other emotional disorders. There are many different ideological backgrounds, nationalities and different customs.

How do we get along? As it is with teh "reps" determining our social caste, the outspoken, or passive aggressive among us subdue the less so even within our group of non-theists. Do we want this?

There is a certain authority here that is reasonable, necessary and gives position to trustworthy appointed keepers of the forum: the moderators. This is understood and reasonable...

I say continue the free speech open forum... But, get rid of the reputation caste system. There is no usefulness to it that positively affects the whole of the constituency. There is more to it that affects us in the negative.

It helps me decide whether someone's a troll, an experienced user, etc.

I and I has -27 rep last I checked, and Revenant has 69. That should tell you right there one use for it. But, sadly, it's true that it inhibits free speech as people discount someone with a negative rep's post as a troll, as with KillKillKilltoTheThird. I, unlike the others, don't believe he's a troll but just an abrasive personality, like Chas. But with his -5 rep, even if he changes he'll never be taken seriously again. I still say that it should be kept, it does far more good than harm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
(17-11-2013 02:53 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  
(03-12-2011 06:08 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  This could be an addition to the "requirements" thread but then again it's a little bit abstract and also doesn't fit other threads on the subject in the same way, thus a new thread. I also don't want the disturb the good naturedness of the "requirements" one.

I have to give full support for the fact that this forum has a strong base for free speech and free thought that is very hard to find on the Internet. Saying whatever you like is important to both mental and social growth. I have learned a great deal from participation in this forum through trial and error. This is important and a big thanks for that.

On the other hand....

Reputations are another thing. This is a control mechanism that weeds out social inadequacies or establishes socially acceptable individuals. It is used both to give pats to some and reprimand others rarely in useful ways. The socially acceptable answers of the power group become the dogma that rules. Not exactly what I call a free speech environment. Are the emotionally stable, politically correct or the gut tough ones the only people who have a right to speak? Is there an agenda that underlies the reputation system that says "getting tough is the key to participation, otherwise shut up."? I call this "forum grooming" myself and I have written about it in other venues. It doesn't take long before the forum becomes a closed club. Personally, I don't think there are any ideas or ways of communicating that are unacceptable whether reasonable or not. Weeding out through social "INs" and social "OUTs" doesn't add to free thought. The free ability to comment and debate that this forum espouses will take care of reasonable or unreasonable interaction. Reputations are a major restriction.

Anyone who says, "it's just a game" is fooling themselves. It IS a power mechanism; it IS a restriction. Some people have things to say that are legitimate and are unable because of this type of ... I'm going to say it... social bullying, and many people DO get hurt by it. If you think I am wussing out or being overly sensitive, that would put you in a category of those who "groom" your surroundings to fit your social agenda; you don't want to accept the fact that people should be allowed to disagree or be different from your thought patterns. I have watched this forum for about a year now, watching this phenomena develop and it is becoming the way of things here.

Back to my being a wuss... I'm a person with certain mental/emotional issues like many others here. I would like to continue to participate because it is good for me. Psychologically speaking, "getting over it" isn't done by being spanked or shunned. It's in finding a way to participate, argue, being argued against, winning, failing, getting or giving reprimand on point when necessary, and still being accepted. I hope I don't need to give case in point concerning the outcome of forced toughness vs. nurturing. It's a fairly well determined psychological study.

I know others that are in a similar position who won't come near this place. But then, maybe this is the point. Maybe weeding out the unacceptable personalities thus limiting the learning field is what people would rather have. I don't know. I certainly do not. There are a lot of smart open and closed minded people here. Some of us have weak social skills while others have strong ones. Some are overbearing and controlling, others are passive or passive aggressive. I have PTSD and ADHD. There are others who have substance abuse issues and others who are being medicated for many other emotional disorders. There are many different ideological backgrounds, nationalities and different customs.

How do we get along? As it is with teh "reps" determining our social caste, the outspoken, or passive aggressive among us subdue the less so even within our group of non-theists. Do we want this?

There is a certain authority here that is reasonable, necessary and gives position to trustworthy appointed keepers of the forum: the moderators. This is understood and reasonable...

I say continue the free speech open forum... But, get rid of the reputation caste system. There is no usefulness to it that positively affects the whole of the constituency. There is more to it that affects us in the negative.

It helps me decide whether someone's a troll, an experienced user, etc.

I and I has -27 rep last I checked, and Revenant has 69. That should tell you right there one use for it. But, sadly, it's true that it inhibits free speech as people discount someone with a negative rep's post as a troll, as with KillKillKilltoTheThird. I, unlike the others, don't believe he's a troll but just an abrasive personality, like Chas. But with his -5 rep, even if he changes he'll never be taken seriously again. I still say that it should be kept, it does far more good than harm.

Reps are not indelible and some people have gone from net neg to net pos (Chippy I believe was neg at one point and there have been others) Some people are lightning rods and can rub people the wrong way but generally speaking to get a net negative rep around here you have to work at being an ass.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 06:00 PM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
Well of course it's an aggregate opinion, representing general forum attitude towards a certain person.

That's literally what it's supposed to be.

So, yeah.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-11-2013, 06:14 PM
RE: Reputation arguments... AKA Reputations as Social Caste
(17-11-2013 01:40 AM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  It just a popularity contest. If you say something many like, they will reward you with positive points. It not,..they reward you with negative points.

Oh how badly I want to give you a negative rep just for the hell of it. Instead, I rewarded you with positive points. You can spend them freely anywhere they're accepted. Your mileage may vary, some restrictions apply, void where prohibited.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Regular_Joe's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: