Reputation - Where Did It Go?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Aye, I was concerned about the possibility of that sort of thing rearing its ugly head come winter- thinking of the times when there's a potent northerly shown on the GFS and some members preach caution saying "it looks like the kind of northerly that will downgrade to a 36 hour thing", and it often does in the event.

The above misses the main point of the reputation system, which is to reward those who had put particularly positive contributions in, and on occasion award deductions to those who put very poor quality posts in. The "group support" thing is far from "harmless" as it would result in some members having very high reputation scores purely because their opinions agree with those of other members of the "group"- even if their posts contribute little or nothing to the discussion. Similarly, the issue of some of those making excellent posts and getting no reputation points because their views differ from those of the "group".

Nope, if something is the norm across society it doesn't make it right, nor does it make it unavoidable. The quality of a discussion is helped greatly by the ability of its constituent members to have open minds and take on board the points others make (even if they don't agree) instead of letting prejudices influence all of their judgements. Cliques in such discussions result in people who have a particular opinion dominating the discussion and others feeling afraid to disagree with them for fear of being shot down in flames- take the mild vs cold arguments in winter, and then spring when it turns on its head, for example.

Supporting others as part of community spirit has its advantages but not when it turns in to an "us vs them" fight.

Getting rid of reputation points won't stop the cliques from happening though- the concern was more that the cliques were affecting the apportioning of points.

Nope - it doesn't miss the point of the reputation system at all. Whoever said anything about ignoring the need for rewarding points for positive contributions?? I am perfectly aware of the need for that and am perfectly aware that it it is/was a prime objective of the whole system. So don't jump to premature conclusions and put words in my mouth yet again please.

What I was doing was responding to the point about 'groups' and attemting to differentiate between well intentioned one's and less well intentioned one's. Even if you do not think so, the point is perfectly valid and doesn't automatically mean in any shape or form that the main objective of the reputations system is overlooked just because of that.

Sorry, again I disagree - it has been perfectly clear to me that the people who are recognised as reliable and constructive and knowledgeable people were getting deserved reputation points anyway for their posts. E.g Glacier Point on the model thread or Brickfilder on the convective thread. I don't see that the system was suffering because of any 'support groups' of which you are clearly so 'anti'. I suggest the reason you are so 'anti' them is more based on your own aversion to the poster(s) involved than anything else.

People should indeed have open minds, but being open minded comes freely and in people's own time and neither flourishes nor comes in leaps and bounds by being subjected to the 'thought police'. Most people with a modicum of intelligence can make their own balanced judgements and don't need to be subjected to a bombardment of tests, exercises in 'rebuttals' and requests to back up their ideas purely to satisfy the ideals of another. Also taking on 'board' others views doesn't involve having them imposed on you just because someone like you thinks they need to be more open minded (when in fact they already are). That can and does come across as very arrogant and condescending. It is the surest way to make people run off in the opposite direction and become more entrenched. Perhaps indeed it is those very endeavours to try and control people's mindsets that further hardens the secular groups of which you so despise? What point is there, exactly, in adopting another viewpoint if you don't agree with it - just for the sake of keeping the 'thought police' happy?

People will change their minds about subject matter when material is presented to them in such a way that they can see for themselves that it changes the perspective regarding that given subject matter - not when someone else judges they should adopt the view because they think you are not being open minded enough

[Mondy]

Is it likely the reputation system will make a comeback?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Nope - it doesn't miss the point of the reputation system at all. Whoever said anything about ignoring the need for rewarding points for positive contributions?? I am perfectly aware of the need for that and am perfectly aware that it it is/was a prime objective of the whole system. So don't jump to premature conclusions and put words in my mouth yet again please.

What I was doing was responding to the point about 'groups' and attemting to differentiate between well intentioned one's and less well intentioned one's. Even if you do not think so, the point is perfectly valid and doesn't automatically mean in any shape or form that the main objective of the reputations system is overlooked just because of that.

Nope, you're the one putting words into my mouth I'm afraid, because I never said a word about ignoring the need for rewarding points for positive contributions. The problem is that if cliques form where groups of people award plus scores to each other because they agree with each others' opinions, and refrain from giving positive contributions to anyone who disagrees with said groups, it makes reputation scores heavily influenced by the personal opinions one holds, as opposed to the contributions of one's posts.

Sorry, again I disagree - it has been perfectly clear to me that the people who are recognised as reliable and constructive and knowledgeable people were getting deserved reputation points anyway for their posts. E.g Glacier Point on the model thread or Brickfilder on the convective thread. I don't see that the system was suffering because of any 'support groups' of which you are clearly so 'anti'. I suggest the reason you are so 'anti' them is more based on your own aversion to the poster(s) involved than anything else.

No, I am anti support groups for the reasons I stated earlier. Such support groups tend to form the mindset "I'm allowed my opinion and so is everyone else, but only as long as they agree", and it puts those with differing views and perspectives off from contributing to the discussion.

People should indeed have open minds, but being open minded comes freely and in people's own time and neither flourishes nor comes in leaps and bounds by being subjected to the 'thought police'. Most people with a modicum of intelligence can make their own balanced judgements and don't need to be subjected to a bombardment of tests, exercises in 'rebuttals' and requests to back up their ideas purely to satisfy the ideals of another. Also taking on 'board' others views doesn't involve having them imposed on you just because someone like you thinks they need to be more open minded (when in fact they already are). That can and does come across as very arrogant and condescending. It is the surest way to make people run off in the opposite direction and become more entrenched. Perhaps indeed it is those very endeavours to try and control people's mindsets that further hardens the secular groups of which you so despise? What point is there, exactly, in adopting another viewpoint if you don't agree with it - just for the sake of keeping the 'thought police' happy?

There is an old saying, "treat others as you would like to be treated yourself". I would advise that if you want people to give you as much leeway with your views as you demand, that you consider giving those with views that differ from yours a similar amount of leeway- because in recent times you emphatically haven't. There are a large number of hyporcritical posts where you accuse people who believe in AGW of dismissing sceptics in certain ways (often making pretty good points in the process) yet proceed to dismiss those who believe in AGW in exactly the same way. One thing we always need with rules is some degree of consistency.

People will change their minds about subject matter when material is presented to them in such a way that they can see for themselves that it changes the perspective regarding that given subject matter - not when someone else judges they should adopt the view because they think you are not being open minded enough

The key part of the clause is "that they can see for themselves". Those with relatively open minds will be able to see that for themselves, but those with closed minds will tend to cling onto the premise that they are right, and dismiss all contrary evidence purely because it disagrees with, or challenges, their current view, meaning that they never change their minds. And again, such cliques tend to support a lot of that kind of closed-mindedness which scuppers discussion.

[Phil UK]

AJPoolshark :

The forum worked well before the 'reputation' system was implemented, so why change a record that isnt broken...The reputation system was a good idea on paper, but IMO was always going to be subject to abuse..I've been a member on this forum for over 4 years and have been well aware of 'cliques'

As said before when I ran a couple of Birmingham City FC forums, up until 2006. There was this 'cliqué that many a member recognized and I took the stick for allowing it to happen. I was actually accused of being the solemaster of this so-called 'clique'.

Fact : I never did, never have, never will. I believe in free speech.

So what happened after that?

I'll tell you. I got more stick than I've ever received before (November 2004 springs to mind) because in no uncertain terms, and no pess me off thread said in simple terms... "I'm not having it. You are guests on MY forum, and as said, treat unto others as you expect to be treated yourself. Love it, or LEAVE IT!! SIMPLE AS!"

The silence afterwards was deafening.

If I abuse Net weather, then yep, I would expect to be banned or rejected wholly. I won't do that, simple reason, because like many of us, I enjoy talking about the weather. I have hopefully made many a friend over the years that I've been online here.

Just had another daft idea... How about a individual post score after reply that goes like..

+1 for reply.

-1 for if I thought the response was crap?

What have I started.

TWS and NSSC... -1 each for arguing a trivial cause.

Phil.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Phil UK

[I remember Atlantic 252]

As said before when I ran a couple of Birmingham City FC forums, up until 2006. There was this 'cliqué that many a member recognized and I took the stick for allowing it to happen. I was actually accused of being the solemaster of this so-called 'clique'.

Fact : I never did, never have, never will. I believe in free speech.

So what happened after that?

I'll tell you. I got more stick than I've ever received before (November 2004 springs to mind) because in no uncertain terms, and no pess me off thread said in simple terms... "I'm not having it. You are guests on MY forum, and as said, treat unto others as you expect to be treated yourself. Love it, or LEAVE IT!! SIMPLE AS!"

The silence afterwards was deafening.

If I abuse Net weather, then yep, I would expect to be banned or rejected wholly. I won't do that, simple reason, because like many of us, I enjoy talking about the weather. I have hopefully made many a friend over the years that I've been online here.

Just had another daft idea... How about a individual post score after reply that goes like..

+1 for reply.

-1 for if I thought the response was crap?

What have I started.

TWS and NSSC... -1 each for arguing a trivial cause.

Phil.

what does the weather data thing mean? 29th December 2004 was wednesday

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Nights are turning in - nice out tonight if you've had the chance

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Arise Sir DN3A.