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

The State of discussions at GMHockey

The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_lcap215%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_rcap2 15% [ 3 ]
The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_lcap250%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_rcap2 50% [ 10 ]
The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_lcap215%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_rcap2 15% [ 3 ]
The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_lcap220%The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Vote_rcap2 20% [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 20

Go down  Message [Page 28 of 28]

406The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:53 am

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 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:30 am

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 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:40 am

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.

409The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:40 am

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
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.

410The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:03 am

SensHulk

SensHulk
All-Star
All-Star
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....

411The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:10 am

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
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?

412The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:25 am

Cap'n Clutch

Cap'n Clutch
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
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

413The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:28 am

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
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.

414The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:33 am

Cap'n Clutch

Cap'n Clutch
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
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

415The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:06 am

Cap'n Clutch

Cap'n Clutch
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
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

416The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51 am

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
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.

417The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:11 pm

Cap'n Clutch

Cap'n Clutch
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
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

418The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:41 pm

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Cap'n Clutch wrote:Doesn't that sort of fit under they need a little work?
I guess...

419The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:43 pm

SeawaySensFan

SeawaySensFan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
STATE OF DISCUSSIONS?? I\'m a little fluffer short and stout ...!!

420The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:16 pm

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
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.

421The State of discussions at GMHockey - Page 28 Empty Re: The State of discussions at GMHockey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:11 pm

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
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


Back to top  Message [Page 28 of 28]

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

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