Reputations

[Legolas]

Amen, sir. Amen. Some people...

[HerenIstarion]

Well, we do take hints, Messrs.

So question about reputations in general:

We are not likely to see a development in other direction - the only person not to have green sqaure has a blue one and is merely 'slipping'. It's good to have it so - for one, it shows we do not have particularly bad posters (i.e. 'trolls') around. Secondly, it shows we ourselves are not that wicked - we tend to give positive rating or nothing rather than rate someone down. But, with dying cats swinging to and fro inside my mind, I, showing my purely scholastic curiosity, would be glad to learn what titles go in opposite direction. Suppose we had someone with seven red squares, what would be his titulage? So and so is Morgoth's buddy? I'm asking for that kind of knowledge only as I hope (and I'm almost 100% sure) we have no chance of ever seeing it happening with our own eyes. So, what's there in store for those going in other direction?

thanks and cheers

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Yes, it's good to be once again at davem's heights.

(Gimme that chair!)

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 Barrow-Wight]

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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 ... ?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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 ... ?

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."

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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."

I called it, way back in post 284.

I think that should earn me some positive rep, despite my appalling absence of late.

Congrats davem!

[Boromir88]

I called it, way back in post 284.

I think that should earn me some positive rep, despite my appalling absence of late.

Well, I don't know about a positive rep Fordhim (unless I benefit in some way ), but it will earn you a congrats.

[HerenIstarion]

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Saucie

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.

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.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by The Barrow-Wight

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

11-25-2004, page 8 (if you view threads in linear mode, 40 per page), post #282

[the phantom]

I was here when the little twerp went on his binge, and I immediately hopped over to the chat room to see if any admins were lurking there. I didn't have any luck, so I came back to the forum and proceeded to...

...give him a positive rep!

The message I sent him was obviously one that should accompany a negative rep, but since I hardly ever give out a negative rep (I think I've done it twice), I completely forgot to switch my thing over to negative.

I realized what I had done the instant I did it, but it didn't really upset me. I thought it was pretty darn funny, and I knew that he'd get more than enough negatives from other people to balance out my positive.

[Mithalwen]

I always miss out on the " fun" - could someone enlighten me by PM on what exactly went on?

[Boromir88]

I always miss out on the " fun" - could someone enlighten me by PM on what exactly went on?

And once you got it, kindly relay it to me. I'm dying to find out, ahhh the suspense is killing me. Well not really, I guess I'll live.

[Bêthberry]

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

Aragorn likes to have his women embroidering, not cooking and cleaning, Saucy!

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

[HerenIstarion]

"Why on earth has ***** given me points for that nothing post?"

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I also mark for perceptive observations, and demonstrated improvement.

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).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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.

[Lalwendë]

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'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I don't set parameters for where I give points, as for me it would defeat the object;

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.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

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.