P'raps it has a competition with us, Precious.....

(Though I admit having this thing on a chain round my neck is a bit tiring).

The Negative Titles
 

Since it seems that no one plans to earn those dastardly negative titles (and would we really allow anyone to sink that low?), I guess I can go ahead and reveal what I chose for each one. But first I will remark how the designers of the reputation system must have been aware that few people would end up on the disreputable side of the line, because in the default titles that came with vBulletin, there were only a few levels beneath 0 and several on the positive side. Assuming the software developers had chosen these setting intentionally, I decided I would not add any levels. I did change the number of posts needed to ascend (or descend) a notch, and, of course, I changed the titles. The original titles were all non-Middle-earthish and terribly uninteresting.

Here are the realms of rottenness that none of our member have managed to fall to.

10 This is where everyone "has started the path to adventure."
0 This person "is slipping."
-10 This guy "has been acting like Ted Sandyman."
-50 This girl "is as unpopular as Bill Ferny."
-150 This creep "makes more trouble than Gollum."
-500 This loser "ruins every discussion like Wormtongue."

And now you know the rest of the story.

P.S. Please don't ask how many positive levels there are or what their titles are. You'll have to find out when you get there :)

There were a few Ted Sandymans (Sandymen?) around at one time.

Anyone care to speculate as to the next levels up from Aragorn's Court? Do we move to Numenor? Beleriand? Gondolin perhaps? And thence over the Sundering Sea to the Undying Land?

Perhaps we should open a book on who will reach the next level next - Doctor Davem or Professor Hedgethistle ... ? :D

Put me down for 5 quid on davem.

I think we might have to wait a while to find out the next level, though, as those brighter jewelly thing-gummies require an additional 200 points to get rather than 100. I can only assume that this means the next level is a ways off (perhaps as high as 1000 points!).

I'm pretty sure, however, that the next level will have something to do with the Elves -- either "an Elf-friend of Rivendell/Elrond" or "worthy of a gift from Galadriel."

Actually, Bill Ferny is No Fool of a Took at this very moment. He does not show up for a while, that'd be a pity.

But back to the topic:

For one, thanks, BW.

For two - are there any news of further development of the software? I mean the option of seeing not only what repute one got, but also what one has given out. It's not that important, but would be helpful (to help eliminate occassional occurences of the 'you can't give reputation to the same post twice' kind)

cheers

Today I was awarded rep points for a post which was no more than three lines, comprising six words (and symbols), and which did nothing more than clarify a query which had been asked by another Downer.

"Why on earth has ***** given me points for that nothing post?" I thought to myself. "It only took me a few seconds to knock up, compared to the hour or more that I normally take carefully crafting a detailed post on one of the Chapter-by-Chapter threads or similar."

Then, after thinking about it for a while, it hit me: why shouldn't it deserve rep points? Perhaps I have got myself into a mind-set that others have not but, recently, I have been tending to award rep points only to those posts which I find incredibly witty or highly insightful. Why should I be so restrictive in my criteria? A post can surely contribute to the forum in a manner deserving of recognition without having to be lengthy and/or highly complex and/or astoundingly intelligent. My post was none of these. It was simply helpful, and that of itself was of value (to one member, at least). And there are, I am sure, other ways in which posts can be of value without being any of these things.

This ties in with another point that occurred to me some time ago in consequence of the earlier discussion on whether rep points are appropriate to RPGs. Although I am not (with one exception) an RPG'er myself, my view is that they are. Surely creative writing should be rewarded just as much as witty and insightful posts. And why should the rep point system not apply to other areas of the board? It is rare, I should imagine, for rep points to be awarded in response to posts in the Quiz and Quotes Rooms. But it is an active area of the forum in which many members spend a lot of their time. Why should they not receive appreciation when they come up with a particularly good question, or solve a particularly difficult clue? Of course, this should apply only to those posts which are in some way 'above average', and since the standard in the Quiz and Quotes Rooms is high, these will be rare. But there are, I think, occasionally times when it will be appropriate. I have myself awarded rep points to Quiz/Quotes posts on a few occasions, but probably not consistently enough - perhaps because I am not in the habit of considering such posts in terms of whether they are deserving of reputation.

Maybe I am wrong in suspecting that the criteria generally applied by people in awarding rep is unduly restrictive. But I tend to think not (and this is where I have to choose my wording very carefully). The majority of those on the first page of the Reputation List, and certainly all in the current top 10, are the older members of the Downs. And us 'oldies' tend to have greater experience of putting forward structured arguments and to have accumulated more knowledge and 'life experience'. I appreciate and acknowledge that this is a generalisation and it is not meant to denigrate anyone here in any way. The general intellience of this forum's membership, of whatever age, impresses me on a regular basis. But it is, I think, true on balance simply by virtue of the fact that we have been around longer. And this suggests to me that posts which are written with the benefit of greater experience and accumulated knowledge (although not necessarily greater intelligence) are seen to be more deserving in the reputation stakes. There is also an element, I think, of those who write these types of posts appreciating and responding more readily to posts of a similar nature. And as this group accumulates a greater number of reputation points and awards 'higher value' rep those to others within the group on a regular basis, they will tend to 'pull away' from the chasing pack. This has, in fact, been occuring for some time now - just look at the current top ten.

My concern is that this risks making the system exclusive rather than inclusive. There is a danger that those lower down the rep table will look to the top of the table, see the seemingly insurmountable levels of rep being accumulated there, and simply opt out of the system, thus perpetuating the effect.

Which takes me back to my initial point. Perhaps we should be thinking of awarding rep in a greater number of situations than seems currently to be the case, and therefore rewarding more readily those who are not (yet, at least) in the habit of making complex philosophical or analytical posts. Would that not even up the field a bit more? And perhaps, for similar reasons, we should be taking into account (as far as we are able) the relative age and/or inexeperience of the individual poster when considering his or her posts. That is not meant to be patronising at all, but simply a product of my thoughts above concerning age, experience and accumulated knowledge. I am not suggesting rewarding posts which are undeserving. Nor am I recommending any kind of positive discrimination (something to which I am very much opposed). I am merely proposing that we take into account all of the relevant factors, and perhaps widen our criteria, when awarding rep posts.

Perhaps you think my concerns are groundless, or that the rep system is working perfectly well as it is thank you very much. Or perhaps you already approach the rep system on the basis that I am suggesting. If so, please feel free to say so. I am simply raising a issue which I thought might merit some consideration, with a view to ensuring that we have a rep system which is (as far as it can be) fair, just and inclusive, and one with which we can all feel comfortable.

Standard Ops for me, Saucie. I also mark for perceptive observations, and demonstrated improvement. If I *only* marked sophisticated and erudite posts, I'd mark a lot less.

Just so you know, Sauce, I repped this post the other day. I'm sure you recognise it.

Brief, witty, on-Tolkien-topic. It doesn't get any better than that.

to SpM
 

Probably because the post in question, though short, was, as you yourself observed, helpful. Besides, it might have been counted by the rater as courteous, maybe promptness of reaction deserved commending as well. Or maybe, the rater thought that it might have came out more along 'for dorks who don't know' lines and, surprised at friendly return in place s/he expected scorn for his/her ignorance felt happy and wanted to share happiness ;)

Also it is possible the rater simply wanted to please you. If s/he were after some 'worked an hour on it' post of yours, the choice would have been hard, as many posts of yours do deserve positive feedback, and it is impossible for one person to hunt them all down. Sort of general acknowledgement of good deserts, if you follow my meaning, kind sir.

As for criteria stated in your post whence original qutation came is already in operation down our way ;) + we, my precious, tend to rate humorous posts as well.

Sometimes I rate newbies for their first post - without merit, of course - the idea behind it is just to show that board they came to is a friendly place. Disclaimer - under this category fall newbie posts which are, in general, better than average (i.e. - sort of hey dudes i came here tis a happy hour 4 u ol stands no chance of getting a 'welcome rating' from yours truly)

Sometimes I go seek old posts I remember with the purpose to rate them (by members no longer frequenting the board). Grounds - old posts are good, even if they are old. + if ever the author comes back, it would please him/her to know s/he was remembered, even if absent.

RPGs is a one big black hole in my rating pattern, alas - but that due to lack of time - the posts there are too time-consuming to read and appreciate on regular basis.

'Quotes'n'quizzes' get rated for following qualities:

1. Promptness in guessing (in proportion to hardness of the question)
2. Hardness of the question (and wit in contriving it, o'course)


I will stand corrected, if I missed anything

Well perhaps I am the only one who rates too restrictively. Although I still suspect not, as I believe that the disparities in the rep table still bear my analysis out.

Nevertheless, thank you to mark12_30 and HerenIstarion for some very helpful 'repping guidelines', which are, I think, of general application.


Positively rating clear improvement in a member's posts seems to me to be a thoroughly worthy approach.

And HI's suggestions are eminently sensible. My only reservation would be rating 'Newbie' posts simply because they are 'Newbie' posts, although HI's qualification is well made. Certainly, I would advocate not negatively repping a Newbie's first few posts, simply because they are clumsily expressed (unless they are offensive or some such). Everyone deserves a bit of time to settle down and take on board the 'Barrow Downs approach', which I believe differs markedly from the approaches adopted on many other forums (and is one of the things that makes the Downs such a great place).


I thoroughly agree, Bb, but then Estelyn Telcontar is one of the 'oldies' (and before Esty clobbers me, I should make clear that, by this, I mean that she is older than the average age here, rather than that she is old). My original comments were not so much concerned with the length of posts (and perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear on that), but the content. I think that it is relatively common for people to rep 'one-liners' if they are particularly erudite or witty. I have been rated for humourous one-liners and rated them myself, in the 'Crazy Captions' thread for example. My central point on this is that we should not necessarily judge all posts by the same standard.

Thanks for the responses, and further thoughts on the approach to adopt when awarding reputation would, I think, be most hepful. :)

What SpM is saying can indeed be a danger when you get 'points' systems - you may spend many hours/brain cells in crafting a post which makes you sit back with satisfaction, and yet it does not get points. If you start thinking about the reasons then you could drive yourself up the wall! But, it isn't about points, it's about the simple joy of just making your point or telling your tale as well as you can! Of course, points are a good thing to get (and I always go 'ooh' in dleight when I get them), but you can't have them all of the time.

I just give them out when I like what someone has said, and as I write in the RPGs, give them out whenever I can there (sometimes the 'limit' thingie stops me giving them out as often as I'd like), as I know how much effort it takes to write those pieces. If someone makes me laugh aloud they'll often get a virtual 'pat on the back' too. I don't set parameters for where I give points, as for me it would defeat the object; sometimes, 'brevity is the soul of wit'. :)

Most true. But, since we have the system, it seems to me worthwhile giving some consideration as to how it might be applied in as consistent, fair and inclusive manner as is possible. Also, there is value in people striving to make the kinds of posts that others will find worth reading.


Oh, I'm not talking about setting 'hard and fast' rules. I just thought that it might be helpful to share our thoughts on what types of posts we find to be deserving of rep, other than those which are clearly (and justifiably) repped because they are very funny or highly educational and/or insightful.

Honest to goodness, my only criteria for repping posts has become the "out loud" test. If I make a noise in response to a post, it deserves repping.

For example, if a post is so funny that I laugh out loud. . .rep it.

If it's making so interesting a point that I hmmmmm thoughtfully. . .rep it.

If it's making a bizarre point, but doing so in such a compelling manner that I make an audible see-saw noise -- hmmmm-mummmmm . . .rep it.

Finally, if it's just so well written that I give a satisfied grunt -- hunmph (this happens primarily in RPGs). . .rep it.

The one exception is posts that make me click my tongue in disapproval. . .those I ignore.

Saucie,

I especially appreciate the dilemma you're facing in terms of the quiz room. Many of those responses, though only a few words, show a great deal of effort in searching out information or, alternately, in having an impressive amount of Middle-earth data stored away in someone's brain. My personal feeling is that, when a poster demonstrates real effort or expertise, it should be acknowledged, even though the particular post doesn't meet the exact "criteria" you might have set up in your mind for a typical post in Books.

Some time back, I brought up the problem of adapting the rep system to RPGs. So often, a person's contribution depends not on a single, scintillating post but a pattern of involvement: reliability, care with grammar, close attention to the story line. I try to acknowledge that with my rep points. And this certainly includes recognizing improvements by newbies or those just getting started with RPGs. This, to me, seems just as important for the quality of the site as well thought out posts in Books or relevent, one-line quips in other settings.

This type of thing is easier to do when you know a particular forum well. It would be difficult for me to recognize "improvement" in the quiz forums because I don't spend a lot of time there. In the Shire, I have a much better idea about people's writing and can see if someone's putting forth real effort and showing improvement.

Like you, I'm concerned that the system be inclusive and consciously try to think in those terms when I rep a post.

EDIT: BW - I'm certainly glad we have no one like Wormtongue. And I will definitely keep in mind Fordim's "out-loud" test when deciding what to rep!

Hm...is it really on-topic? It's a joke about the topic, but I wouldn't call it "on-topic." It gets plenty better than that. :cool:

Ah, but Sauce, some posts may seem nothing to us, but a lot to other people. I recall three examples from my experience, all from The Books, two from CbC. One has something to do with the Black Breath. Another was pointing out the similarity in the colors of the hairs of Galadriel and Celeborn to those of the Two Trees. Last is mentioning that Aragorn died on his birthday. These were either things I thought everyone knew, or were senseless to point out. But apparently I was wrong...most of the BDers involved in my examples were "big-timers"!

Repping postitively, I look for a well written "thesis." If they present their case well, they get a rep. If they present their case in an interesting way they get a rep. If the person has a point and people disagree with them yet the person sticks to his point and tries to make the others understand his point of view he gets a positive repping (if the person is just being pig headed I scoff at him) -- now, I'm not saying that this has happened...but if it happened, that's what I'd do. At the end of an RPG I give rep to people who have had good character developement, to those who have noticeably improved, and to those who have stuck through to the bitter end.

Now, for negative repping. Who deserves negative rep in my opinion? Well, people who have been on the boards a while and still act like a "newbie" and by the use of the word "newbie" I mean it in a...well, the other meaning of the word. The "insulting" meaning. The meaning that means incorrect grammar, chat speak, and other barbarous slaying of the English language (if they're from a non-English speaking language I will be duly impressed that they can write English like a native). The "veterans" who act "newbieish" I will rep negatively, and if they continue to do so I will continue to rep negatively. If someone is rude to another member I will rep them negatively. If someone is grievously off topic I will rep them negatively. If someone insults another person or thing they know in real life I will rep them negatively for rude behaviour.

I will immediately admit that I am much more liable to give out bad rep than I am good rep. Why? Because I don't want good rep to become inflated as it were. I like good rep and I want to keep it good rep. I want to squee everytime someone gives me good rep, instead of saying "Pfft, what does it matter? Who cares if I have four squares? Everybody else has over three anyway." (note, I'm not saying this is the case but I'm just trying to make a point.) But that is just my thinking.

Am I saying that we have a bunch of lousy people on the site? No...I am not. We have a lot of people on this site that are really great. If I would have to compare, I'd have to say that I nod to the semi-precious gems, neg-rep the rocks, and pos-rep the rubies and sapphires and diamonds.

My repping criteria is this: the post must fit into one or more of the following categories:

Except for us unquenchable ladder-climbers. :D *patpats her shiny rep points*


Ditto that. ^_^ If a post makes me laugh out loud, or just make a thoughtful sort of sound, it usually gets repped.

I also try to rep posts for newer members, on the same principle as Heren. We're a friendly board, aren't we? :p

~ Saphy ~

Having examined my control panel and my conscience, it occurs that should I reach such exalted levels, the designation should read that "Mithalwen would be jester at the court of Aragorn". While it may be extreme that 60% of the comments currently displayed relate to crazy captions, I feel rather a fraud because I am getting repped for entertainment value rather than erudition - especially in the light of some of the comments above. To much artistic impression and not enough technical merit?

I must say, whoever thought up of the idea that Davem will supplant Aragorn's throne (sorry I can't find the person who thought that up), was a good idea. I don't know where to go after that, but as a "final" repuatation title the person can be Eru's right hand man.
You can't get any higher in status then Eru himself, hmmm...does he/she then supplant Eru? Anway once we reach Eru I would have to say the reputations names/status/fame has to stop, lol.

That would raise some eyebrows.

Humour
 

Well it seems clear to me from the comments above (as well as from my own User CP) that people value being given the opportunity to laugh as much as they value being given the opportunity to think. Which is as it should be. It would be a very dry and crusty old board indeed were it not for the sparkling wit that permeates the forum.

And Tolkien himself was most certainly not averse to a sprinkling of humour amongst his many weighty words ... :)

I could ramble on here at length about the importance of humour but I won't because these people put it much better than I could:


So I think you have good reason to hold your head high, Mithalwen, and regard your rep points as rightfully earned. :)

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.

---Feste, Twelfth Night

:D :cool: :smokin:

Or for our canine pals -
 

Better a fitting woof, than a woofing fit.

~Rimbunctious

The reaction to receiving positive rep would highly depend on what you thought its value is. If I looked at positive rep as simply accumulating points, I'd say, "Pfft," too, because I'm not even close to 'gaining the lead.' But I look upon positive rep as a positive reaction to something I wrote, so my own reaction is not: "Ah! more points!" but rather, "Ah! someone appreciated my writing," or, "Ah! I wrote something worthy of appreciation," when someone gives me a good rep. The points don't really matter very much to me. Even if I was given a rep that was worth over ten points, I'd still feel some disappointment if the comment field was blank.

I'll confess I'm very liberal giving out reputation. I don't overdo it, and I only give someone a positive rep where the one seems deserving, but I do give out a lot of rep. I don't know if I've ever repped anything besides a post in an RPG, and if I have it was only once or twice, for I hardly go anywhere besides the RPing forums (what am I doing here?). Like others have mentioned, RPing depends very much on the commitment of the players, their ability to plough on even when things get a little dry, and make a wholesome contribution to the game as a player, so I try to remember to hand out a 'Thank you and good work' rep at the end of each game. But I feel that just because commitment is an important factor, it doesn't mean that one can't write an excellent individual post. When I read a post in an RPG I ask myself questions, such as: "Is it overall grammatically correct? Is the spelling correct aside from typos? Does it move the plot along? Is it interesting to read, and not a bog of weighty description? Does it present a scene and a mood, and not just give worthless, space-consuming dialogue between characters?" and other such questions. If most of the questions can be answered with a 'Yes,' then I'll give it a good rep.

I, too, give the 'confidence booster' rep out to newbies, when I'm prowling about the Green Dragon. If some character comes striding in and the writer has only a few posts, I'll be much more likely to rep them good, even if they're not all the way 'there' yet. If the writing is really rotten (grammatical and spelling errors; the character everyone turns to look at, so great is the beauty of her red hair and silver eyes), then I won't give any sort of rep, for I've made it a policy of mine to never give a newbie a bad rep (and most oldsters don't deserve one). But, aside from really horrible writing, most newbies trying out the Dragon get a good rep from me, with an encouraging comment.

My 'negative rep rule' is very much like Fea's. I, too, have yet to give out a bad rep, but I would if the family friendly atmosphere of the forum was threatened. I'd really hate to give a negative rep for bad spelling and grammar, because, for one thing, I don't know if English is the first or second language of the one at hand, and I don't know how old he is, and bad spelling and grammar does not, in my mind, deserve a bad rep. Ah, I remember back in the days when I couldn't spell worth tuppence, and my grammar was awful. My 'writing mentors' never said anything unkind to me because of these faults, because I wasn't doing anything wicked, even if it was bad writing. I got straightened out to good spelling and grammar because of kindly encouragement and advice, and, being the shy little creature I was, if someone had given to me in words the equivalent of a negative rep here, I would have been intimidated, sure they I couldn't write and sure that I never could, and I would have given up. Keeping in mind my near escapes of early childhood, I try not to even consider repping negatively for bad spelling and grammar. I don't, and never would, rep positively, but I certainly shouldn't give a negative rep. I prefer to give out bad rep for someone who is being bad and wicked, and not to discourage one who might be struggling very hard to improve their spelling and grammar.

Chat speak, on the other hand, I wouldn't be against negative repping, but only if it was one who should know better, like Imladris said. Newbies I excuse, for who knows where they've come from and what kind of rules about writing they had there.

Eru's ambidextrous perchild being the pc version? But surely that would be Manwe?

Just like Whose Line is it anyway...anyway...I see the reppings as an oppurtunity to get closer to being welcome in Aragorn's court....or even supplanting him...da da da da.

Though sorely tempted more than once, I have yet to give a negative rep. I think if I did, it would be for rudeness, meanness, cruelty or outright arrogance. In my opinion these things disrupt the Downs' atmosphere of respectful discussion more than anything else.

Same here mark, I've been tempted a couple time, maybe more so for revenge. And I think you are right, the rudeness....etc does have an effect on the forums.

I've recieved two negative reps (one probably deserved, the other just stupid) but that's another story.

and plagiarism - could not stand it - it was obvious the person in question either haven't read any of the posts of the thread, or was merely parroting what was said just three posts prior to his/her. And almost word for word, presenting it as original thinking. brr!

I've been tempted to give a negative rep to people that repeatedly spam a thread with silly and/or uninteresting off-topic commentary, and refuse to cease and desist after having been requested to do so nicely. That pretty much makes steam come out of my ears (and, if I'm at a computer cluster instead of my room, makes people around me give me weird looks). Not only is this a waste of space, it also shows a blatant disregard for those who are actually trying to have a discussion, and allows decent threads to disintegrate into... well, insert your choice words here.

But then again, the minute I point my cursor at the little scale, I start having second thoughts. I feel bad. I convince myself that they didn't mean it. That they won't do it again. That I've done this sort of thing too and am being a hypocrite.

So I don't do it.

I would make the worst dictator. I'm completely incapable of the whole iron fist thing.

This has really been a problem for me. It seems like all the threads I read are posted on by the same people so every time a try to rep someone the little thingummy pops up and tells me to spread the wealth (if I've ever repped you, chances are I've tried to do it many times but couldn't).

I guess I'm going to have to skim some other threads and go on a repping binge pretty soon.

You now have to rep only ten people before you rep the same person again.

Well, that's a little easier.

The only posts that I've considered giving a negative rating to have been posts by 'newbies' who disappear after a couple of days, so I'm not sure about the effect it would have. Especially the post that Fea knows all too well. :rolleyes: That guy disappeared immediately.

As for my new and wonderful third green block, I must say I am rather delighted. :D I have been helped greatly in this feat by HerenIstarion (who apparently finds me highly amusing). Strange guy.... ;)

And much like Mithalwen, most of them have been for Crazy Captions. That has the potential to be an extremely high quality thread, if it was cut down by about 60,000 posts.

Peace, and thanks to everyone who has made me so happy. *snuffle*

Congrats to ye, Eomer! *shakes Eomer's hand and gives a gold star*

I personally don't care if many of my rep points come from Crazy Captions or "Make Your Own Crazy Scene With Pics". I value a sense of humour as much as I value intelligence, so I take these reps as a great compliment.

Ditto that, Nurumaiel. :D

~ Saphy ~

its the meaning that counts...
 

eh... I sort of hate this reputation system but, i'm not one to complain too much. I haven't commented or given out reputation until recently so, I don't feel too bad. Even though they might not count for anything to the person's rep. , I still do because basically, I'm a nice person to those who deserve it. So, even though it won't help you to becoming any closer to a "super greener", at least you know you're opinion or knowledge, compassion and insight is noticed (hopefully positive in a way! :( ). I don't think i've given out a 'bad' rep. yet... I don't know or remember, those who do know will have to remind me ;) ...

But, that's only my opinion... i'm not here to judge. Too much...


~Ka~

That's the same with me...fortunately for me. ;)

Btw, is there a way you can view all of the reps given you, not just the 'latest reputations received'? Somehow I have the feeling that's its been touched on before somewhere in this thread, but I've run out of time tonight.

I value intelligent humour.