The Reputation system

[Alexandra]

I thought I'd bring up the Reputation system in use here for discussion.

While it may seem to have many positive attributes, I'm suggesting here that the system is counterproductive.

Some people may hestitate to bring up (or make) valid topics/issues/commentary due to fear of getting a smite point (like this one for example!   ). Indeed, the Reputation system may discourage one from being a "devil's advocate" -- its a flaw in humans that the bearer of bad news often get blamed for things that have nothing to do with. Then there is the ostrich syndrome -- those that prefer some things never surface.

I suggest that we do without the system and have threads/posts live or die based on contents, not fear of being smittened!

Posters violating actual forum rules are better dealt with by moderators.

What say you?

[Cassandra]

While I can appreciate the, shall we say, fear factor element I would like to point out that users being smitted by other users is a rare occurance. As a moderator we do look at these things and if someone is just being spiteful they can be reversed. Thats why folks have to say why they are applauding or smitting.

Most people either applaud or just comment. Unless someone is just being really obnoxious people hardly ever smite. I can only think of one person, who shall remain nameless(those who've been around since just before the end of 2005 know who I mean) who seemed to collect smite points like some guys collect baseball cards.

Other than that it seems to be a pretty good system. Of course no system is perfect. Anyway just my perspective on it. You may smite if you wish. And please no applause just throw money. 

Cassie

[stephanie_craxford]

Some people may hestitate to bring up (or make) valid topics/issues/commentary due to fear of getting a smite point (like this one for example! Shocked  ). Indeed, the Reputation system may discourage one from being a "devil's advocate" -- its a flaw in humans that the bearer of bad news often get blamed for things that have nothing to do with. Then there is the ostrich syndrome -- those that prefer some things never surface.

This is a point that should be made perfectly clear to all members:

No member should ever fear bringing up any valid topic, issue, or commentary for any reason unless doing so would break the rules.  There are no consequences for doing this.  If anyone feels that they have been unjustly treated by anyone at Susan's then they should report the incident immediately.

I've mentioned this before, we are all fallible.  I have made a couple of mistakes here myself (Take that smile off your face Cassie)   and Susan has taken me aside and set me straight just as she would anyone else.

Hope this help Alexandra,

Steph

[HelenW]

I just figured out yesterday how the reputation thing works.  I think applause is a good way of thanking people for whatever they may have written, especially if it has a personal impact.  I think that a public thank you is more effective and I like to combine both methods.

As far as smiting a post (I almost wrote, "person") is concerned, I've told myself,  "better stay out of that one .  .   ."  I'd rather say nothing and let the thread evolve than smite someone.  (Of course, no one has challenged any of my opinions yet.)  I guess it could be viewed as a way of communicating displeasure without it being too specific or personal. Of sourse, some people take everything personally.  The sad truth, I believe, is that many people carry quite a bit of anger around, transgendered people especially (who can blame them?), and that colors the way they see things.

I try to avoid being judgemental, I guess, and the whole reputation process is a way of recording your judgement of a person's post.  I assume that it's a feature that the software came with so I'm not sure if it could be done away with no matter what I think about it.  I plan to use applause sparingly because I don't want to judge (lest ...^{biblical reference here}) and to smite, even when smitten, even more rarely.

helen

[Cassandra]

and to smite, even when smitten,

Actually smiting someone because they smote you would be considered an abuse of the system and those would be reversed. Also you would probably receive an admonition for doing it. Susan has stated a specific remedy for such a situation(although I can't remember were that is right now) and I don't think you want to go there.

The reputation system can be turned off but that would be up to Susan. And I was not smiling Steph. Well maybe a little. 

Cassie

[Kimberly]

I know for certain that the fear of being smited does not stop me from playing the so-called devil's advocate, or posting in general. (Now on another board I used to frequent that's a different story, but to be honest it was the quality of the people's behavior more than anything that has driven me from there.)

As far as fear of smiting goes, there has been 3 smites since we've started keeping track. ... Don't fear the reaper I guess would be the best advice

[Leigh]

And don't applaund someone just to balance out the smite that they have been given.

[Alexandra]

. . . folks have to say why they are applauding or smitting.

I wasn't aware of that . . . that is a good policy!

[Cassandra]

Alexandra,

If you look in your profile you will see two links Given Reputaion and Received Reputation. Susan just turned this function on in December. If you have received any applaudes or smites since then you will see them listed there, who gave them and why. Like wise if you give an applaude or smite you will have to enter a reason before it can be submitted. You can only applaud or smite a person once in a 24 hour period and only once per topic or post.

Cassie