You are not connected. Please login or register

 » Alphabet soup + Anouncements! » Random Thoughts - NON Hockey talk » The State of discussions at GMHockey

The State of discussions at GMHockey

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 15 ... 26, 27, 28  Next

The State of discussions at GMHockey

The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_lcap215%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_rcap2 15% [ 3 ]
The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_lcap250%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_rcap2 50% [ 10 ]
The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_lcap215%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_rcap2 15% [ 3 ]
The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_lcap220%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Vote_rcap2 20% [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 20

Go down  Message [Page 27 of 28]

391The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:42 pm

SensHulk


All-Star
All-Star
Terrible....well I think that's disappointing actually. Hopefully they find a solution to the constant abusing of the rep system and apply it back on the site.

392The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:54 pm

Guest


Guest
rooneypoo wrote:
Michallica wrote:why didn't everyone else just '+' you? And maybe the mods should have authority to see who's +-ing and -ing each other. If someone is constantly repping someone up or down, then I think that individual should also be prepared to be questioned by the moderator. I would think that's a simple solution.

The answer these questions is in those last 3-4 pages of conversation on this thread.

I suggested the same thing that you did, and got the answer I'll pass on to you: it turns out the mods can't see who's repping who, or make any other changes to the system -- it's a computer programming thing that I don't understand, but there you have it.

Who cares about rep points. People in here know well enough who's reputable and who isn't. If rep points are going to cause problems just get rid of them.

393The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:05 pm

SensHulk


All-Star
All-Star
Kovalfie wrote:
rooneypoo wrote:
Michallica wrote:why didn't everyone else just '+' you? And maybe the mods should have authority to see who's +-ing and -ing each other. If someone is constantly repping someone up or down, then I think that individual should also be prepared to be questioned by the moderator. I would think that's a simple solution.

The answer these questions is in those last 3-4 pages of conversation on this thread.

I suggested the same thing that you did, and got the answer I'll pass on to you: it turns out the mods can't see who's repping who, or make any other changes to the system -- it's a computer programming thing that I don't understand, but there you have it.

Who cares about rep points. People in here know well enough who's reputable and who isn't. If rep points are going to cause problems just get rid of them.

I think it brought a unique element to the site. If anything, it made ppl research their info and have them strive to be a little more respected, resulting in less obnoxious posts. Right now, it seems like we know who's good and who's not. What happens when several newbies come along and start with the dingus approaches? Anyways, I liked the rep point idea, it was a niche. I'll still be here...

394The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:17 pm

Guest


Guest
having rep points isn't going to deter dingus posters. If anything, I think the opposite will happen. People will take advantage of the system and it will get out of hand... like it did. Personally, I don't need +'s and -'s to sway my opinion of who I think is reputable and who isn't. It should be subjective; people should believe what they want, support the decisions they believe in, etc. If I believe someone is reputable and give him +'s and you disagree and give him -'s it defeats the purpose of the system and of having discussions.

395The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:15 pm

SensHulk

SensHulk
All-Star
All-Star
its kind of a grey area. I wouldn't give someone a minus, ever, based on me disagreeing with someone. In fact, I always only gave minuses based on people bashing the site or other posters personally (Or absurd things like 'alfie is a bum, trade him already!'). With that regard, yes its a nuisance if someone gives a minus to a post saying 'source?'.

396The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:02 pm

TheAvatar

TheAvatar
Veteran
Veteran
Michallica wrote:its kind of a grey area. I wouldn't give someone a minus, ever, based on me disagreeing with someone. In fact, I always only gave minuses based on people bashing the site or other posters personally (Or absurd things like 'alfie is a bum, trade him already!'). With that regard, yes its a nuisance if someone gives a minus to a post saying 'source?'.

I don't think I minused any of those "source" emails but the fluffing certainly annoyed me at times. Just one man's opinion though.

397The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:03 pm

TheAvatar

TheAvatar
Veteran
Veteran
TheAvatar wrote:
Michallica wrote:its kind of a grey area. I wouldn't give someone a minus, ever, based on me disagreeing with someone. In fact, I always only gave minuses based on people bashing the site or other posters personally (Or absurd things like 'alfie is a bum, trade him already!'). With that regard, yes its a nuisance if someone gives a minus to a post saying 'source?'.

I don't think I minused any of those "source" posts but the fluffing certainly annoyed me at times. Just one man's opinion though.

EDIT : Actually, I often associated the "source" to the HB "First" posts and those really, really annoyed me.

398The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:18 pm

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
Michallica wrote:its kind of a grey area. I wouldn't give someone a minus, ever, based on me disagreeing with someone. In fact, I always only gave minuses based on people bashing the site or other posters personally (Or absurd things like 'alfie is a bum, trade him already!'). With that regard, yes its a nuisance if someone gives a minus to a post saying 'source?'.

Yeah, well, I think I showed pretty conclusively that people (well, at least one certain person / one group of persons) can and do just that.

13 or 14 mystery minuses in one week, which were above and beyond any pluses or minuses I received on posts for the week. Paints a pretty clear picture.

399The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:30 pm

Tuk Tuk

Tuk Tuk
Veteran
Veteran
Am I the only one who's really annoyed by the "The most intelligent Hockey discussions on the Web!" tagline?

400The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:34 pm

SensHulk

SensHulk
All-Star
All-Star
Tuk Tuk wrote:Am I the only one who's really annoyed by the "The most intelligent Hockey discussions on the Web!" tagline?

Probably?

401The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:41 pm

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
Michallica wrote:
Tuk Tuk wrote:Am I the only one who's really annoyed by the "The most intelligent Hockey discussions on the Web!" tagline?

Probably?

It has stuck out with me a few times, but whatever. We usually do have some of the best hockey talk, after all, so why not brag about it? Razz

402The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:51 pm

Tuk Tuk

Tuk Tuk
Veteran
Veteran
rooneypoo wrote:
Michallica wrote:
Tuk Tuk wrote:Am I the only one who's really annoyed by the "The most intelligent Hockey discussions on the Web!" tagline?

Probably?

It has stuck out with me a few times, but whatever. We usually do have some of the best hockey talk, after all, so why not brag about it? Razz

Seems a little conceited, no?

403The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:08 pm

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
Tuk Tuk wrote:
rooneypoo wrote:
Michallica wrote:
Tuk Tuk wrote:Am I the only one who's really annoyed by the "The most intelligent Hockey discussions on the Web!" tagline?

Probably?

It has stuck out with me a few times, but whatever. We usually do have some of the best hockey talk, after all, so why not brag about it? Razz

Seems a little conceited, no?

It's a big claim, that's for sure, and I know that I take flack every time I talk about my credentials around here...

Still, aim high, and take pride. No harm in that.

404The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:40 pm

LeCaptain

LeCaptain
All-Star
All-Star
I haven't had time to read everything, but I just wanted to say I like this topic, it's a step in the right direction on improving the site.

405The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:53 pm

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
I said I wouldn't post in here, but there are definitely good issues being discussed.

The rep points thing was something that I was very wary about from the beginning. I thought it was a great chance for people to minus people for reasons other than the hockey chat. It's not a secret that people on here have had issues with others, it's probably gonna happen 90% of the time on a chat board. I didn't want to see anyone get their feelings hurt by being given minuses all the time.

A lot of the time I would see someone get a minus and I would plus them, I can't take that kind of negativity as a rule. I think there's much better ways to resolve whatever conflict you might have with someone through posts instead of being able to sneak around and make them look silly with a -20 point total.

But then it seemed to work for a while and different people were given many of the rep points for doing what some would consider the best GDTs for the Sens. Others for good threads or really good posts. It was a nice thing to get from time to time. I wanted to keep it.

Then this BS starts. What can you do? I'd rather take the feature away than to try to 'smooth' the issue over. Now if people want to 'minus' and opinion, they're forced to talk it out or sit there fuming. I don't mind that personally. Smile

406The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:53 am

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
I'm ok with the rep points being removed. It was fun while it lasted, but it's also one of those things that if you weren't "reputable" you might feel left out. It may have become a popularity thing rather than a gauge for good deeds or astute observations.

At least now everyone is equal, and all judgments will be held to quality and not quantity.

407The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:30 am

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
marakh wrote:I haven't had time to read everything, but I just wanted to say I like this topic, it's a step in the right direction on improving the site.

Thanks, marak. I'm glad to see our efforts here aren't being wasting, and that we can begin to think about constructive criticism as part of a strategy to make the site better instead of empty Wing Dang Doodle and moaning.

408The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 27 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:40 am

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
SpezDispenser wrote:I said I wouldn't post in here, but there are definitely good issues being discussed.

The rep points thing was something that I was very wary about from the beginning. I thought it was a great chance for people to minus people for reasons other than the hockey chat. It's not a secret that people on here have had issues with others, it's probably gonna happen 90% of the time on a chat board. I didn't want to see anyone get their feelings hurt by being given minuses all the time.

A lot of the time I would see someone get a minus and I would plus them, I can't take that kind of negativity as a rule. I think there's much better ways to resolve whatever conflict you might have with someone through posts instead of being able to sneak around and make them look silly with a -20 point total.

But then it seemed to work for a while and different people were given many of the rep points for doing what some would consider the best GDTs for the Sens. Others for good threads or really good posts. It was a nice thing to get from time to time. I wanted to keep it.

Then this BS starts. What can you do? I'd rather take the feature away than to try to 'smooth' the issue over. Now if people want to 'minus' and opinion, they're forced to talk it out or sit there fuming. I don't mind that personally. Smile

Of course there are. Smile Good to see you come around.

For me, the rep points themselves don't mean much. The problem was that they could be abused to create an impression of a consensus that wasn't there. I wake up to a -14 on the week, and I think, wow, how is this sensible opinion received with so much negativity? And then it looks like everybody's on me, and other people here just assume that that's the case. Well, then you add up the numbers and you see that there are more people with me than against me, and what's going on is one guy / one set of guys with a vendetta.

Abusing the rep points allowed some person / people to manipulate the reputation of select posters (presumably in an effort to silence them), to create the impression that that negative opinion was reflective of the site at large (when it clearly wasn't), and to built false consensus on select issues. Until we can find a way to prevent those things, we're better off without the rep points.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 27 of 28]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 15 ... 26, 27, 28  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum