The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Share

    Poll

    The State of discussions at GMHockey

    [ 3 ]
    15% [15%] 
    [ 10 ]
    50% [50%] 
    [ 3 ]
    15% [15%] 
    [ 4 ]
    20% [20%] 

    Total Votes: 20

    Riprock
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 11867
    Registration date : 2008-08-05

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by Riprock on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:53 am

    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.

    rooneypoo
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 7429
    Registration date : 2008-08-11

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by rooneypoo on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:30 am

    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.

    rooneypoo
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 7429
    Registration date : 2008-08-11

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by rooneypoo on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:40 am

    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.
    avatar
    shabbs
    Hall of Famer
    Hall of Famer

    Number of posts : 31416
    Location : I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-12

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by shabbs on Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:40 am

    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
    It's all about trial and error and learning what works and what does not for GMHockey. It is all part of the growth this site will go through over time. Unfortunately, in public forums, often the lowest common denominator prevails.
    avatar
    Hoff-Machine
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 8461
    Age : 32
    Location : Orange County, CA
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-06-22

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by Hoff-Machine on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:03 am

    Dash wrote: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.

    That's a good point about being 'equal', but at the same time, maybe ppl are looking too much into the rep system? If ppl can claim that everyone around here would know who's reputable and who's not, then it's not really equality either. Besides, I never really felt like the rep system intimidated anyone from discussing or responding to quotes, and it personally made me want to post more knowledgeable things. Each person has their opinion though, and if this system causes anyone problems, then yeah I can see it not needed here.

    Btw, I would have +'d you but....
    avatar
    PTFlea
    Co-Founder
    Co-Founder

    Number of posts : 54588
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-07-31

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by PTFlea on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:10 am

    I'll tell you another thing I'd like to do with this site, I'd like to have new members sponsored by an existing member here. Neely said he smelled two rats on this site - and he's an old friend of mine, so it's hard not to take his word seriously. At the same time we couldn't get enough info to do anything about it.

    The easiest solution is to keep an eye on those parties and close down how 'easy' it is to become a member here. I want to protect the body of members who I think is truly the best for Sens chat on the web - and I can't think of a way other than this.

    If someone wants to become a member and they don't know anyone, they can be given a trial membership I guess, but my aim is for the membership to be a little more exclusive than it was. Is that an issue in the growing of the site? I'm not sure, probably, but it'll create a safer environment to post - and it might even get a guy like Neely to come back at some point.

    I never really liked that every Tom, D and Harry could come on as easily as they do. We tried a concept where we as Admins. would have to okay a new member, but that didn't really work because it's hard to impossible to differentiate between someone who actually really wants to be a member and someone who wants to come on here and cause some issues.

    Anyway, that's the latest that's on my mind - and I've forwarded the concerns to Clutch, Cronie and Prager for their thoughts.

    What are the members of GMHockey thinking about this kind of thing?
    avatar
    Cap'n Clutch
    Co-Founder
    Co-Founder

    Number of posts : 13620
    Age : 44
    Location : Ottawa
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-07-31

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by Cap'n Clutch on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:25 am

    I'm personally fine with a sponsored member approach. You also should be a regular member for a specified period before you can sponsor someone IMO.


    _________________
    "A child with Autism is not ignoring you, they are waiting for you to enter their world."

    - Unknown Author
    avatar
    shabbs
    Hall of Famer
    Hall of Famer

    Number of posts : 31416
    Location : I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-12

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by shabbs on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:28 am

    Cap'n Clutch wrote:I'm personally fine with a sponsored member approach. You also should be a regular member for a specified period before you can sponsor someone IMO.
    Are you able to do something similar with voting plus/minus? ie: be an established member before you can issue any plus' and minus' to posts.
    avatar
    Cap'n Clutch
    Co-Founder
    Co-Founder

    Number of posts : 13620
    Age : 44
    Location : Ottawa
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-07-31

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by Cap'n Clutch on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:33 am

    shabbs wrote:
    Cap'n Clutch wrote:I'm personally fine with a sponsored member approach. You also should be a regular member for a specified period before you can sponsor someone IMO.
    Are you able to do something similar with voting plus/minus? ie: be an established member before you can issue any plus' and minus' to posts.

    The only thing you can do is set a reputation level before you're allowed to vote and set a number of posts before you're allowed to vote.

    I don't like using either of those since there are a large number of GMHockey regulars that don't post a lot and therefore won't have the minimum posts or Reputation.


    _________________
    "A child with Autism is not ignoring you, they are waiting for you to enter their world."

    - Unknown Author
    avatar
    Cap'n Clutch
    Co-Founder
    Co-Founder

    Number of posts : 13620
    Age : 44
    Location : Ottawa
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-07-31

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by Cap'n Clutch on Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:06 am

    Just an update on the poll. 19 votes in. 62% say great site or needs a little work.


    _________________
    "A child with Autism is not ignoring you, they are waiting for you to enter their world."

    - Unknown Author
    avatar
    shabbs
    Hall of Famer
    Hall of Famer

    Number of posts : 31416
    Location : I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-12

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by shabbs on Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51 am

    I haven't voted... as none of the categories fit what I felt was going on. I was thinking more along the lines of:

    There is a minor problem but nothing the community/mods/owners can't fix.
    avatar
    Cap'n Clutch
    Co-Founder
    Co-Founder

    Number of posts : 13620
    Age : 44
    Location : Ottawa
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-07-31

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by Cap'n Clutch on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:11 pm

    Doesn't that sort of fit under they need a little work?


    _________________
    "A child with Autism is not ignoring you, they are waiting for you to enter their world."

    - Unknown Author
    avatar
    shabbs
    Hall of Famer
    Hall of Famer

    Number of posts : 31416
    Location : I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-12

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by shabbs on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:41 pm

    Cap'n Clutch wrote:Doesn't that sort of fit under they need a little work?
    I guess...
    avatar
    SeawaySensFan
    Franchise Player
    Franchise Player

    Number of posts : 24783
    Age : 45
    Location : Cornwall, ON
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-12-02

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by SeawaySensFan on Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:43 pm

    STATE OF DISCUSSIONS?? I\'m a little fluffer short and stout ...!!
    avatar
    rooneypoo
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 7429
    Age : 38
    Location : Ottawa
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-11

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by rooneypoo on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:16 pm

    SpezDispenser wrote:I'll tell you another thing I'd like to do with this site, I'd like to have new members sponsored by an existing member here. Neely said he smelled two rats on this site - and he's an old friend of mine, so it's hard not to take his word seriously. At the same time we couldn't get enough info to do anything about it.

    The easiest solution is to keep an eye on those parties and close down how 'easy' it is to become a member here. I want to protect the body of members who I think is truly the best for Sens chat on the web - and I can't think of a way other than this.

    If someone wants to become a member and they don't know anyone, they can be given a trial membership I guess, but my aim is for the membership to be a little more exclusive than it was. Is that an issue in the growing of the site? I'm not sure, probably, but it'll create a safer environment to post - and it might even get a guy like Neely to come back at some point.

    I never really liked that every Tom, D and Harry could come on as easily as they do. We tried a concept where we as Admins. would have to okay a new member, but that didn't really work because it's hard to impossible to differentiate between someone who actually really wants to be a member and someone who wants to come on here and cause some issues.

    Anyway, that's the latest that's on my mind - and I've forwarded the concerns to Clutch, Cronie and Prager for their thoughts.

    What are the members of GMHockey thinking about this kind of thing?

    I think sponsored membership would be a great idea, and would go a long way toward cutting down on problems.
    avatar
    rooneypoo
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 7429
    Age : 38
    Location : Ottawa
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-11

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by rooneypoo on Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:11 pm

    Cap'n Clutch wrote:Doesn't that sort of fit under they need a little work?

    I voted for #1 or #4, for the record, can't remember which. #4, I think. Either way, the point is that the problem is manageable, for sure. This thread is proof enough that people care and are willing to take steps for the future.

    Sponsored content

    Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:42 pm