How do the reasons people rate for matter? How can one claim he was rated down for a wrong reason? It's stupid, there are no rules for rating and even if they were they could never be enforced (anyone should figure that out).
Forum Ratings: What would happen if...?
Quote:Original post by ace_lovegroveQuote:Original post by IliciQuote:Original post by Kevinator
ratings-- for all of you.
In soviet Russia, all of you rating-- Kevinator [smile]
sarcasm of course
In Soviet Russia, Forum Rates You!
Family guy by any chance?
ace
The Simpsons, actually.
Author
Its in Family Guy as well. Peter gets a new car from the mob and it has a russian for the sat nav.
ace
ace
I'm going to admit something here, and I hope it won't get me rated down...
I recently rated a fairly popular forum member down for his response in a political thread. Not for his beliefs mind you, but for his response to another poster.
In the thread, someone posted their beliefs on America and fascism - this poster replied, that if he really felt that way, that he must be close-minded, brainwashed, or still a child who hasn't seen enough of life, the world, blah blah blah.
Basically, he acted like a closed-minded brainwashed idiot while calling someone else a close-minded brainwashed idiot. So I rated that assclown down.
It really is more about how you post your opinion in the lounge, then what your opinion is.
I recently rated a fairly popular forum member down for his response in a political thread. Not for his beliefs mind you, but for his response to another poster.
In the thread, someone posted their beliefs on America and fascism - this poster replied, that if he really felt that way, that he must be close-minded, brainwashed, or still a child who hasn't seen enough of life, the world, blah blah blah.
Basically, he acted like a closed-minded brainwashed idiot while calling someone else a close-minded brainwashed idiot. So I rated that assclown down.
It really is more about how you post your opinion in the lounge, then what your opinion is.
Quote:Original post by RaduprvQuote:Original post by cowsarenotevil
I don't remember kSquared being liberal, but it seems to me his rating is rather high. I could be wrong, though.
His rating is high because he skillfully avoids taking a stance in most of the debates, unless he determines that most of the people in that debate agree with him. He also posts well formated posts, which always helps increasing the rating. There are many other tricks he uses, and it's fascinating to see how he manages to increase his rating all the time. That doesn't mean I like his methods, but it's fascinating nevertheless.
Raduprv's just jealous of my roguish charm, rapier wit, and ne'er-do-well good looks. [wink] And there's a difference between "skillfully avoiding a thread" and "not wasting your time on crap". Anyone who's been in any of these forums for even a teensy bit of time knows how many {Bush/Kerry, IE/Firefox, Darth Vader/Emperor, caek/pi} threads there have been over the eons. Why beat a dead horse?
Unfortunately, moderators don't get this luxury in their own forums. You have to wade through all the crap. It takes a certain mental fortitude to not scream and break things after seeing the umpteenth zany thread of the day, of which people like Fruny and SiCrane are especially possessed. (For Beginners is the war-zone trenches of GameDev.)
Since so many people seem to think that the rating system is abused in The Lounge, why not disable it in this forum (The Lounge) only? Perhaps some sort of a voting method would be better for the Lounge. Example, someone posts a crap post; X people vote for him to be rated down. After X posts (perhaps determined by rating, so that people who have a history of being rated down are easier to rate down) the person is rated down based upon the average rating of those who vote to rate him down.
Of course, this presents the issue of people just going to another forum, finding a post there, and rating them down for that; but I still think it may be better than the current system.
[more-on-topic]I know for a fact that you can be rated down simply for voicing your opinion. It's a shame that that happens, really. Nobody should be persecuted for their opinions.
EDIT: Unless that opinion falls under "unfriendly/unhelpful".[/more-on-topic]
Of course, this presents the issue of people just going to another forum, finding a post there, and rating them down for that; but I still think it may be better than the current system.
[more-on-topic]I know for a fact that you can be rated down simply for voicing your opinion. It's a shame that that happens, really. Nobody should be persecuted for their opinions.
EDIT: Unless that opinion falls under "unfriendly/unhelpful".[/more-on-topic]
Why not just make it so that when you rate someone, no matter if its up or down, you must provide a 50 character explanation as to why. Anyone can view this explanation, the rating given, and the people involved. Anyone can click a button to alert a moderator that the rating system is being abused. As a rule, mods should throw out ratings without a human-readable explanation, such as random characters or if no explanation is given. I imagine that moderators do not want too much extra work for themselves, so they should be allowed, as a rule, to let through anything that sounds rational, or at least sane. But, other rules, like a "No politics in ratings" rule could be implemented at any time in the future as Staff sees fit.
or hows about: changing any rating will cost you a rating point yourself? that way it might actually mean something.
or: negative ratings towards people that rated you relatively positive should carry less weight than positive ratings towards people that rated you relatively negative.
or: negative ratings towards people that rated you relatively positive should carry less weight than positive ratings towards people that rated you relatively negative.
Quote:Original post by Foxostro
Why not just make it so that when you rate someone, no matter if its up or down, you must provide a 50 character explanation as to why. Anyone can view this explanation, the rating given, and the people involved. Anyone can click a button to alert a moderator that the rating system is being abused. As a rule, mods should throw out ratings without a human-readable explanation, such as random characters or if no explanation is given. I imagine that moderators do not want too much extra work for themselves, so they should be allowed, as a rule, to let through anything that sounds rational, or at least sane. But, other rules, like a "No politics in ratings" rule could be implemented at any time in the future as Staff sees fit.
Yes, that's what I and many others proposed, and Dave said that there is no time (at the moment) to implement it and other various improvements.
A note would make the rating system much harder to abuse, because if you'd use as a note: "Because he sucks!11!" or "Because he is antiamerican" the mods could delete it.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
