I've been noticing an interesting trend since the "thumbs up, thumbs down" option had been installed in the forums. And that is how someone would retaliate against a person who had given them a negative rating by finding one of their posts and doing likewise.

Here's my take on the reputation options: it can be a valuable tool. When used right, it will give the poster a sense (for the most part) of taking a mature responsibility to their posting as no one wants a ugly negative under their name. This also helps the moderators immensely because people "should" be not as quick to post something offense lest they bare that negative number.

However, I have seen it abused. I've had it done to me twice.

When I give someone a positive score it is always because their posts were well thought out, intriguing, thought provoking or conveyed a general sense of wonder.

When I give someone a negative score it is always because they publicly humiliate or put down another poster or some other immature action that is usually against the rules of conduct. I never give out a negative score simply because I disagree. It's always when they personally attack another.

Now, with the rating issue, I have noticed with me is this:

Whenever I give out a negative rating it is always warranted and the proof lies in a moderator responding shortly thereafter to the offending poster to "stop it." When I give out these negative ratings, each and every single time, the offending poster will seek out on of my posts and just give it a thumbs down without any rhyme or reason.

Now, this can be problematic for the moderators as they go into my rating and take the negative rating off. This isn't cool because it is more work for them over such a childish act of aggression.

So my opinion is this: Do not blindly give out positive ratings because someone gave you a positive rating (professional courtesy) and do not blindly give out a negative rating because that person gave you a negative rating.

If you feel that the rating you were given was unjustified, do not be immature and attack back. Approach a moderator in private and let them know and have them review the case for themselves. For those who got a negative rating who really deserved it, do not act like a child and give that person a negative rating because they made you mad.

If you rightfully deserved a negative rating, let it be a learning experience for you and realize that if your rating is like -5 and your positive is like 1, you may have a repeated pattern of behavior you should reflect upon.

Thank you, Annah!

May I also please remind everyone that retaliatory rep practices are against the forum policies written by Susan herself:

Quote
Reputation should only be given to reward exceptional posts, and I mean posts which are really above and beyond the fold. Smites should not be used unless a post clearly violates the rules, policies of the site, or the spirit of the community at Susan's Place. Being awarded reputation should be a relatively rare event, and something to treasure. All reputation is reviewed, and any reputation that was given for inappropriate reasons will be removed. Inappropriate smites will result in warnings and other penalties being given.

From https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,18960.0.html

If anyone has a problem with rep they've received, please submit a report for the mods to evaluate the issue rather than smiting the smiter.

If everyone took the time to read Susans rules, then follow them, the site would be better served. I have a question that mybe a moderator could look into. I recently got my third reputation point, but no notification who gave it to me, or why. Thank you, whoever you are! And thanks in advance to the staff, I'm sure someone will check this for me. Hugs, Tracey

Personally, I would prefer that the reputation feature of the software be disabled again...it rends to reek of high school cliquishness, especially when you get the abuses like annah describes...

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 13, 2011, 07:22:52 AM
Personally, I would prefer that the reputation feature of the software be disabled again...it rends to reek of high school cliquishness, especially when you get the abuses like annah describes...

I finally found something we agree on!!!

I was about to give up on this site when they reinstated the rep feature. It is not a good idea and it is my opinion that there is no valid reason to have it, even if it somehow makes life easier on the staff.

smiting the smiter

That's the built in feature.  Skip the middleman/middlewoman.

I was saving mine for an avocado toaster oven before they wiped them all out.

About the only time I pay attention to reputation is when its exceptionally high or exceptionally low.  At least for me, it helps put things in context (to consider the source), though I do "show reputation" to get at least an idea of whether its courtesy, smite or legitimate.

The simple truth is we could avoid alot of the negative reputations if we simply thought about it before we shot off some angry post and clicked on the "post" button.  I'm not the only one here's who's written far more then she's posted, since after reading it, it just didn't make sense or didn't end up sounding the way I intended it, or just plain sounded mean (regardless of my intentions).

That's the internet for you though, no one HAS to be nice.  Some people take this to an extreme.

Smiting is used by ONE other person's opinion, yes? (Ok, one at a time to be fair)

This persons may have a very different mindset, background, expectations, AND life experience.

Also due to all the above have a different sense of what be considered "moral values".

I may say something in joking (not talking any sort of attack here) and someone MAY take it the wrong way. Hey, let's be very serious --- no humour please, to be real save!

This is an INTERNATIONAL crowd (site), and sometimes it feels like being school-mastered by a senses of Puritanism, whether US or otherwise. Simply a case of difference in culture IMHO.

If somebody smites me for who I am in honesty and NOT nastiness --- I of course will look into it.
And as a result a smiting back may result, so as to tell this person MY point of view on THERE behaviour. Fair and square?

As the saying goes: EVERY ONE HAS AN OPINION, AS EVERY ON HAS AN... you sure can fill in the rest.

Peer systems in such a cross-cultural environment ARE problematic, never mind open to be abused.

Maybe time to re-think it?

My 2 cents,
Axelle
EDIT: And as I just learned you can get smited plenty times over for the same item.
Folks are taking it on to themselves telling you if one is a "lady"?!? Never said I was BTW.
Is it in the rules to be "lady-like"? If it was I should have plenty more smites. Girl - girl talk is hardly EVER lady like... hello!

I never knew how this reputation stuff worked until reading this thread.  For myself, I know that there will always be others that have different opinions from myself.  And, in hearing the difference of opinion, I can pause and question my perceptions.  Do I feel right in my opinion, or do I need to readjust my thinking.  To give a thumbs up or down, just because I don't agree with someone, makes no sense to me.  Isn't that what society at large, does to all of us? To question myself....do I agree or disagree....that is how I grow in my understanding of myself and my understanding of others.  To act as judge and jury....I have been trying my whole life to get away from that. 

Anyone smiting another member in retaliation for another smite will have that smite removed from the target and added to their own rep. If you feel a smite given to you was unjustified, report it. If it is found to be unjustified, it will be removed. Do not retaliate. Any rep given must relate to the post in question.  If you are abusing the rep system by giving unjustified smites, you will lose ability to give reputation.

If you were rude or what you said could cause offense (within reason), accept that you said something messed up and someone called you on it, and move on. Everyone says the wrong thing now and then.

Quote from: Valeriedances on August 13, 2011, 09:24:27 AM
If you delete your account you lose all your reputation, including the smites. That'll show those smiters. See mine are all gone!

An alternative is to not smite, but only either give applauds or move on. People take smites very personal as a long lasting recorded insult, and not generally as constructive criticism.

I can't imagine anybody smiting you Val.

The Reputation system rewards group thinking and promotes a group mentality.    I like to go against most of the prevailing thought regarding transsexuality.  So far, I haven't been penalised for this through the reputation system but it can only be a matter of time.    I have members who are influential with me and they don't all have high reputation scores.    It could be argued that a person that never risks offence never says anything worth reading.   

If you're not offending some of the people here, you're really not trying at all.

Quote from: Princess of Hearts on August 13, 2011, 11:32:35 PM
The Reputation system rewards group thinking and promotes a group mentality.    I like to go against most of the prevailing thought regarding transsexuality.  So far, I haven't been penalised for this through the reputation system but it can only be a matter of time.    I have members who are influential with me and they don't all have high reputation scores.    It could be argued that a person that never risks offence never says anything worth reading.   

So you play "devils advocate" for the sake of voicing the opposite opinion?

If someone's "moral learning" does not concur yours, you get checked -1
If the next person feels the same you get again checked -1 for the item (my experience).

Reporting to the moderator did not change a thing --- is that how it works too?

In fact I was never offensive but being facetious.
Some folks don't appreciate or know the difference.

So yes, some here surely will play I quite save IMHO.

Axelle
PS: The work around to being nasty is to get send really nasty PMs.
Reporting that to moderator --- no change either.
There is always HOW THE SYSTEM *SHOULD* WORK, and then there is how the system *really* works.
And saying just that now, may sound again 'bad' enough to get another -1 by some differently feeling soul. Eish.
My 2 cents.

So you play "devils advocate" for the sake of voicing the opposite opinion?

There is a reason that such a position exists, and was given to one of the smartest people they could find.  It's because in an echo chamber - like the internet can be, and like an organized religion always is - it's easy to get lost in ' the believing' and lose sight of the fact that other people might well have very valid arguments.  Arguments that you are 100% totally and utterly unprepared to face, argue or win.

tekla,
16 555 post... must have some reason, and then not one tinie winie -1... hello!

In any case once again I never could have said it better.
Good to have you on board, at least IMHO.

It saves me a lot of time thinking how to phrase some of my own contradictory arguments.

Thank you,
Axelle

Oh no, I had 60-70 easy before they erased them.  I wanted to be the leader in smites, and I was winning.  (and hell, I wasn't even trying).

The plus deal was nice, but the smites told me I was writing very well that day.

Quote from: tekla on August 14, 2011, 10:36:11 AM
So you play "devils advocate" for the sake of voicing the opposite opinion?

There is a reason that such a position exists, and was given to one of the smartest people they could find.  It's because in an echo chamber - like the internet can be, and like an organized religion always is - it's easy to get lost in ' the believing' and lose sight of the fact that other people might well have very valid arguments.  Arguments that you are 100% totally and utterly unprepared to face, argue or win.

If I wasn't clear, I think that's an important role.  Someone else already mentioned "group think", yeah I think that exists here (actually in a mega dose).  It's important that we have people who voice a differing opinion lest we think the dominant opinion is the only one.