Forums @ Prydwen.net

Lairiodd wrote:Yes, it is assumed that the mod will rate fairly.

In this thread we've had both Xest and Satyn state that they're unlikely to be rating posts. I know there are other (apparently silent) mods but it's looking more and more like the rating systems is really a game of WWLD (What Would Lairiodd Do - click hereif you don't get the joke).

If you want to keep the ratings system, that's fine, but you really need to change the text in the drop down menu from "Rate Post" to "Guess How Mods Will Fairly Rate This Post".

Moderators would only step in if people are acting childish over it such as rating a post as a flame post just cause they dont like the person.
In the old rating we used to vote positive on posts that had been rated negative for no good reason so i dont see the problem.

Banana wrote:Moderators would only step in if people are acting childish over it such as rating a post as a flame post just cause they dont like the person.
In the old rating we used to vote positive on posts that had been rated negative for no good reason so i dont see the problem.

Now mods can read minds and determine what people are thinking when they rate posts? From earlier in the thread, I saw that they are the final arbiters of what was right and correct (agree with them and be rewarded), but I didn't realize they are telepathic as well.

As for mods voting on posts, I'm assuming you mean mods were able to vote multiple times? I'll get back to that in the second to last paragraph.

Lairiodd wrote: It is a reward for correctly betting how the mods would rate the post. This effectively increases the moderator coverage.

Or effectively institutes "Moderation based on a moderators (sic) personal judgement" which if the poll is to be believed, was only what 13.46% of those responding wanted.

My sense is that you'd like for the community as a whole to be self-moderating: for inappropriate posts to be given low ratings and for useful posts to be rated highly. As a goal, I think that is a good one. However, I really don't think this is the way to go about reaching it.

With the old system there was the illusion that ratings were something of a gauge of what the community thought of a particular post. I didn't realize that mods were fiddling with the ratings behind the scenes, rather than just casting a single vote like everyone else. As such, I don't think that makes sense, in the same way that I don't like the formalized notion that mods know best as to how a post should be rated which is embodied in the system that's just been rolled out. Having mods involved in post rating is moving in the direction of more moderation, while I think and the poll suggests that people want light moderation.

I think if you're going to have a ratings system (and at this point I'm not convinced it's a good thing) I think it should be a reflection of what the community thinks of a post or member, not what the mods think. Giving people the opportunity to rate a post is great. But then retaining mod control of the final rating disincentivizes people from voting as it undermines the notion that their rating matters.

Finolin

I agree with Fert.

/Ankh

I agree with Ankh

I propose we drop the rating system in favour of a better game.

Finolin=1st bit wrote:Now mods can read minds and determine what people are thinking when they rate posts? From earlier in the thread, I saw that they are the final arbiters of what was right and correct (agree with them and be rewarded), but I didn't realize they are telepathic as well.

Did i say that the mods would claim to be telepathic?
all i am saying is if somone makes a thread saying
'ml5 meeting stygia' and this thread then gets rated as a FLAME post that the mods would then change the rating to a normal one.
Unless of cause the community feels that making such a post should be regarded as a flame post?

finolin=2ndbit wrote: As for mods voting on posts, I'm assuming you mean mods were able to vote multiple times? I'll get back to that in the second to last paragraph.



Or effectively institutes "Moderation based on a moderators (sic) personal judgement" which if the poll is to be believed, was only what 13.46% of those responding wanted.

My sense is that you'd like for the community as a whole to be self-moderating: for inappropriate posts to be given low ratings and for useful posts to be rated highly. As a goal, I think that is a good one. However, I really don't think this is the way to go about reaching it.

With the old system there was the illusion that ratings were something of a gauge of what the community thought of a particular post. I didn't realize that mods were fiddling with the ratings behind the scenes, rather than just casting a single vote like everyone else. As such, I don't think that makes sense, in the same way that I don't like the formalized notion that mods know best as to how a post should be rated which is embodied in the system that's just been rolled out. Having mods involved in post rating is moving in the direction of more moderation, while I think and the poll suggests that people want light moderation.

I think if you're going to have a ratings system (and at this point I'm not convinced it's a good thing) I think it should be a reflection of what the community thinks of a post or member, not what the mods think. Giving people the opportunity to rate a post is great. But then retaining mod control of the final rating disincentivizes people from voting as it undermines the notion that their rating matters.

Finolin

The whole reason the old ones were removed was members of the forum only had to make one post (wether it being to make a thread like in the above example or to ask a question) for them to be rated negativly. Poor Gandelf went through a stage where he only had to make a post for it to be rated negativly. Simply because the person voting were voting on the person behind the post (i.e they didnt like him). There was nothing wrong with the post. It was simply biasedness.
I AM NOT saying this was a representation of the whole forum as i like to believe that most of the people here are adults and it was only a few ding this for 'laughs' or general bad feelings against the poster.

The system lairiodd has installed in this version makes it clear that you are voting REGARDING THE POST and not the person. If however the votes are still being cast against the person and not the post then and only then the mods get to vote.

Any futher questions?

This is the best way to implement some kind of reputation system, i'll quote myself again:

Tare wrote:To be honest, best system is the one used on Freddyshouse:

-only able to rate posts positive
-after rating a person you have to rate other people to avoid PLing someone
-Each rating gives one point to the poster
-At a certain amount of points the poster is given different titles
-Rep farmers (who, for example put "give me rep!" in their post) get their rep points reset.

The way it's implemented on FH, it doesn't interfere with the posts and it can't be used for personal vendettas, but you can still let someone know you approve of their way of posting.

It's easy, it doesn't require much moderation and u can still show your appreciation for good posts.

fin wrote:As for mods voting on posts, I'm assuming you mean mods were able to vote multiple times?

the normal mods (me,Xest,Quin and taki) had limitit mana just like everyone else. We could vote only once on a specific post. Like everyone else.

fin wrote:With the old system there was the illusion that ratings were something of a gauge of what the community thought of a particular post. I didn't realize that mods were fiddling with the ratings behind the scenes, rather than just casting a single vote like everyone else. As such, I don't think that makes sense, in the same way that I don't like the formalized notion that mods know best as to how a post should be rated which is embodied in the system that's just been rolled out. Having mods involved in post rating is moving in the direction of more moderation, while I think and the poll suggests that people want light moderation.

This discussion we've had before.

Banana wrote:The whole reason the old ones were removed was members of the forum only had to make one post (wether it being to make a thread like in the above example or to ask a question) for them to be rated negativly. Poor Gandelf went through a stage where he only had to make a post for it to be rated negativly. Simply because the person voting were voting on the person behind the post (i.e they didnt like him). There was nothing wrong with the post. It was simply biasedness.
I AM NOT saying this was a representation of the whole forum as i like to believe that most of the people here are adults and it was only a few ding this for 'laughs' or general bad feelings against the poster.

You said it yourself - Poor Gandelf went through a stage where he only had to make a post for it to be rated negativly. - & I bet it was relatively near the beginning of the rating system. He survived, & probably came out more popular than before.

Some mods seemed quite worried about Requiel often getting a negative rating, but I'm sure both he & almost everyone else realised that a LOT of Reqs negative ratings weren't directed at him personally, but were a very useful expression of peoples dissatisfaction with GOA, & TBH, some of his negative ratings were also absolutely earned.

IMO the old rating system improved the general quality of posting-behaviour dramatically, especially in certain cases. The new rating system is a waste of space (IMHO ofc).