This site , unfortunately , went down a bad route, rating in my opinion is a stupid thing, moderators rate beetween themselves,
they skyroctek, normal users rate down beetween themselves, they sin , gdnet users are a little bit above the 'mass' maybe because a normal user thinks that gdnet members belong to an elite so rating them up is not so horrible ( they 've paid after all ).
This i s a kind of 'fascist' burocracy.
I think that the rating should be cancelled.
Note that i've not logged int to post .
Disallow moderators from viewing those who rated them down
Author
I updated the original post with a clarification to more accurately present my suggestions.
Ratings have, admittedly, caused problems. Although I've criticized some of Adraeus' points, I want to make it quite clear that I agree with his fundamental argument, that moderators should not be able to see their OWN negative ratings. It opens up holes for all sorts of abuse.
You can call this paranoia, but it's already happened, to me. If you want details, PM me (mods only). Questions of mod trust, fairness, etc. aside, my point is that this has happened before and it's an altogether reasonable limitation on moderator power.
You can call this paranoia, but it's already happened, to me. If you want details, PM me (mods only). Questions of mod trust, fairness, etc. aside, my point is that this has happened before and it's an altogether reasonable limitation on moderator power.
Quote:Original post by Adraeus
The problem is that they can see who rated themselves down.
One piece of advice: Don't rate moderators.
Quote:Original post by Sneftel
Personally, I guess I wouldn't mind this limitation, but I don't think it's at all necessary. Obviously GameDev trusts moderators to use their powers for good, not for evil, or they wouldn't have them in the first place. And ratings are hardly the only way we can figure out when someone doesn't like us. Yet it's very, very rare to hear of moderators going after someone purely because they don't like them, or even treating them significantly more harshly. So it seems that moderators have, on the whole, already proven themselves to be above abuse of their powers.
All true, but I think there's another reason for this.
Simply to allow ordinary members to rate down a moderator without fear of retribution.
If you think someone deserves to be rated down, then you should do it, no matter if he's a moderator or common member. That's what the rating system is *for*.
But if he's a moderator, you know that he can see you did it, and that might stop you from rating him down. And *that* isn't fair. No one will think twice about rating down a normal user, if he's being an idiot, but with a mod, you have to either trust the mod (which you probably don't, if you think he's earned a rating--), or be prepared for some serious backlash.
Personally, I haven't seen anything from the mods that required a down-rating, but I still think it'd be a good idea to make this modification. *If* something happened, that made me not trust a mod, then I'd like to rate him down. And I'd have to be suicidal to do so under the current system. ;)
Quote:Original post by Spoonster
All true, but I think there's another reason for this.
Simply to allow ordinary members to rate down a moderator without fear of retribution.
If you think someone deserves to be rated down, then you should do it, no matter if he's a moderator or common member. That's what the rating system is *for*.
But if he's a moderator, you know that he can see you did it, and that might stop you from rating him down. And *that* isn't fair. No one will think twice about rating down a normal user, if he's being an idiot, but with a mod, you have to either trust the mod (which you probably don't, if you think he's earned a rating--), or be prepared for some serious backlash.
Personally, I haven't seen anything from the mods that required a down-rating, but I still think it'd be a good idea to make this modification. *If* something happened, that made me not trust a mod, then I'd like to rate him down. And I'd have to be suicidal to do so under the current system. ;)
If a mod were so shallow as to rate you down for rating them down, then they wouldn't be a mod. I've got all sorts of negative ratings on my page, and most of them I've never rated, let alone rated down. As far as I can tell, most people aren't affraid to rate us down, so I see no grounds for your excuse. While I'm not opposed to disallowing moderators from viewing their negative ratings, I'm also not really for it. It would sure make it harder to catch ratings abusers (as most of us find them due to the fact that they have a penchant for rating moderators down.)
You people don't get it. Not everybody is corrupted. The moderators are trustworthy as far as their powers go. I definitely don't like some moderators, but I do trust them not to abuse the extra privelages on gamedev.net go. On gdnet, it doesn't matter if they are horrible people with bad attitudes, lethal habbits, breaking all the rules of every religion as long as they don't abuse their gdnet powers, and in that reguard I trust all the moderators I've seen despite the fact that I have no respect for certain mods in any other reguard.
Author
No, Extrarius, it is you who does not "get it." The individual moderator's ability to see personal negative ratings leaves room for corruption. Corruption is a loaded term but within the thread's context it is used, think of corruption in the way you perceive hard drive corruption. If you discovered that one of your hard drives, which holds sensitive data, is also sensitive to data corruption, would you a) take preventative measures to hinder the transition to corruption or b) take no action, wait until the hard drive fails, and find out that your sensitive data is unrecoverable? From those two options, I choose the former.
I use the word transition because corruption is also a process (not just a result). When humans in power are given powers beyond what they need to successfully perform their duties, their susceptibility to ethical corrosion increases. The adage "power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies.
Moderators do not need to see their own negative ratings to perform their duties successfully just as the rest of us do not need to see our own negative ratings to use the system appropriately. There have been several public examples of what happens when people, including moderators, find out who is behind ratings loss. One example includes a moderator publicly inquiring of a specific user, "Why did you rate me down?" Thus, a moderator saw his rating plummet, found out who caused the effect, and demanded justification.
Trustworthiness is not the issue.
Trustworthiness is not the issue.
Trustworthiness is not the issue.
Trust is subjective. Trust depends on an individual's perception. Reality extends beyond the single mind in a manner of speaking; therefore, the trustworthiness of certain individuals is irrelevant as one person trusted by Person A may not be trusted by Person B.
What is the issue then? The issue is the process of ethical corrosion and related preventative measures with intent to hinder the aforementioned process. That is, the issue is "how do we prevent moderators from viewing their own individual negative ratings without disturbing their job function?" The suggestion I proposed in the beginning of this thread would not only accomplish a preventative goal but also enhance the system through the inclusion of a checks and balances system.
I use the word transition because corruption is also a process (not just a result). When humans in power are given powers beyond what they need to successfully perform their duties, their susceptibility to ethical corrosion increases. The adage "power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies.
Moderators do not need to see their own negative ratings to perform their duties successfully just as the rest of us do not need to see our own negative ratings to use the system appropriately. There have been several public examples of what happens when people, including moderators, find out who is behind ratings loss. One example includes a moderator publicly inquiring of a specific user, "Why did you rate me down?" Thus, a moderator saw his rating plummet, found out who caused the effect, and demanded justification.
Trustworthiness is not the issue.
Trustworthiness is not the issue.
Trustworthiness is not the issue.
Trust is subjective. Trust depends on an individual's perception. Reality extends beyond the single mind in a manner of speaking; therefore, the trustworthiness of certain individuals is irrelevant as one person trusted by Person A may not be trusted by Person B.
What is the issue then? The issue is the process of ethical corrosion and related preventative measures with intent to hinder the aforementioned process. That is, the issue is "how do we prevent moderators from viewing their own individual negative ratings without disturbing their job function?" The suggestion I proposed in the beginning of this thread would not only accomplish a preventative goal but also enhance the system through the inclusion of a checks and balances system.
Quote:Original post by Spoonster
All true, but I think there's another reason for this.
Simply to allow ordinary members to rate down a moderator without fear of retribution.
If you think someone deserves to be rated down, then you should do it, no matter if he's a moderator or common member. That's what the rating system is *for*.
But if he's a moderator, you know that he can see you did it, and that might stop you from rating him down. And *that* isn't fair. No one will think twice about rating down a normal user, if he's being an idiot, but with a mod, you have to either trust the mod (which you probably don't, if you think he's earned a rating--), or be prepared for some serious backlash.
This is a very good point. While I have complete trust in the mods not to strike me down for rating them down, I do agree that they should be able to see who rated them down. Not because they aren't trustworthy, but because the mere fact that they *could* seek retribution can influence someones decision to rate a mod down. If someone believes a mod should be rated down then they should be able to do so without any fear of *potential* backlash, regardless of whether it would actually happen.
Quote:Original post by Adraeus
One example includes a moderator publicly inquiring of a specific user, "Why did you rate me down?" Thus, a moderator saw his rating plummet, found out who caused the effect, and demanded justification.
To be honest I don't think that's an unfair question. If I was rated down I'd love to know why as well. The problem is more that mods by their very nature are seen as far more intimidating than a normal user (regardless of whether its justified) and that can influence the perceived tone of the question. You see the question as demanding justification, but I see it as nothing more than someone wanting to know what they did wrong so they can correct it (which IMHO is a sign of a good moderator).
Having said that, asking this sort of question really should be something left left to PMing rather than in a thread and should also provide more hints as to the intent of the question (I don't know the full context of the question, so those hints may have already been there).
Perhaps a solution would be to allow an optional reason to be specified when rating mods (while not allowing the mod to see who made the rating). It's unlikely this would lead to abuse (since you can only provide a reason to mods) and will allow moderators to 'better themselves'. It's true that the reason itself could give away who the user is, but I'm sure most situations could be worded generically enough if they're really worried about it (or if they are *really* worried just don't specify a reason and contact staff regarding the matter).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement