One last plea for allowing downvoting

[cherdano]

I would like to make the case for allowing a small number of minus votes just one more time. I promise I will shut up on this after this post (ok, after this thread).

 

What now has happened several times, is that

- person X makes an insulting or otherwise inappropriate post,

- I call out person X on their idiotic behaviour,

- people upvote my post calling out person X.

(Here X is a variable, not a specific person.)

 

So maybe my posts calling out people are so witty and insightful on their own merit that they deserve all the glory they are getting, and are worthy of being remembered for all times as one of the marvelous contributions to BBF. Yeah right. More likely, those voting are just trying to express their displeasure with X. But instead of discouraging insulting or inappropriate posts, the reputation system rewards at least some of the participants in the flamewar.

 

I hold that allowing downvotes will stop more of these flamewars quietly, and make BBF a friendlier place.

[Phil]

If I upvote this post am I disagreeing with Cherdano? :huh:

[cherdano]

Of course, I don't really care about downvotes, I just wanted to get the reputation point from Phil's upvote :D

[Phil]

I'll give you two upvotes in exchange for one upvote with the understanding that you don't ever downvote me. Oh, you have to buy me a beer at the next NABC too.

 

I was actually going to suggest to Rain that we can 'redeem' our upvotes for BB$. No reason why we can't start our own little economy right? Hell, on Full Tilt Poker, you get FTP (Full Tilt Points) when you play that can be used like green stamps (i.e., you can buy things) or even enter tournaments where you gamble with FTP's. Its kind of hilarious really.

[pooltuna]

I suspect you might get this passed if you are required to state why a down vote is warranted subject to moderation as well as you may not remain anonymous. The moderation point is a problem, a real stickler as none of the yellows want to take much time with this kind of moderation.

[mtvesuvius]

I call your 5 Reputation, and raise an additional 30!

[Rain]

I'll give you two upvotes in exchange for one upvote with the understanding that you don't ever downvote me. Oh, you have to buy me a beer at the next NABC too.

 

I was actually going to suggest to Rain that we can 'redeem' our upvotes for BB$. No reason why we can't start our own little economy right? Hell, on Full Tilt Poker, you get FTP (Full Tilt Points) when you play that can be used like green stamps (i.e., you can buy things) or even enter tournaments where you gamble with FTP's. Its kind of hilarious really.

 

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say you would ever be able to redeem for BBO$, but it could be fun to have a BBF economy someday. I was in a forum that had points that you gain from posting, from being upvoted, and from the economy. You could use points to do silly things like upgrade avatars, add your own title, "gamble", "attack" someone else's posts (and based on luck, either win or lose points) etc. If we ever do this, it's unlikely that the points will be based on "upvotes" only.

 

Anyway, downvoting:

We can consider. Probably not immediately, but sometime soon. So not a "no" to downvoting, actually probably a "yes", but in due time.

 

If I have to put it in a few words, I think I would like to see BBF have a friendlier overall tone for beginners (to BBO or Bridge) before implementing downvoting. It's the idea that newbies trying to dip a toe in and start participating could be intimidated, that I hope to try and prevent. It's not like there is an objective measure for this, though if someone of you smart ones want to try and come up with a way to gauge "niceness" feel please share.

 

We could implement downvoting, but with a "honor" rule, that nobody with <X posts get downvoted, or get "spoken" roughly with....

[jillybean]

Very sad, I hope you feel better soon.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/43925-bridgetopics/

 

This is why imo, the forum voting system is hopelessly flawed.

If the aim of the voting system is to identify forum members who are most qualified to reply to posts and give advice, I think we could find a more reliable and accurate method.

[655321]

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/43925-bridgetopics/

 

This is why imo, the forum voting system is hopelessly flawed.

If the aim of the voting system is to identify forum members who are most qualified to reply to posts and give advice, I think we could find a more reliable and accurate method.

 

Don't understand this post at all, it seems to me that you are demonstrating cherdano's exact point (or perhaps that was your intent?). In your link, Cascade reacted in a naive and way over the top manner to having received an unsolicited email "Given their immoral and antisocial business practices I would recommend steering well clear of anything to do with that site." With downvoting, when reading such a foolish post people could just register a down vote and move on. Without downvoting, if anyone wants to express disapproval, they need to post to do it, and possibly start a flame war.

 

Although that introduces another issue, if yellows are to be immune from upvotes and downvotes, should they be held to a correspondingly higher standard as regards to making deliberately provocative posts, else risk losing their yellow status?

[gwnn]

You would definitely not be allowed to downvote yellow people anyway :)

[Rain]

Although that introduces another issue, if yellows are to be immune from upvotes and downvotes, should they be held to a correspondingly higher standard as regards to making deliberately provocative posts, else risk losing their yellow status?

 

 

We didn't set out deliberately to make yellows immune. (Are you sure? Maybe moderators only?) It just happened, due to lack of understanding about how the new stuff works. I'm not complaining, and it's not a priority to change this. :)

 

That being said, staff yellows should, and have always been held to a higher standard. I wouldn't go so far as to include non staff yellows, or say that yellow status may be lost due to BBF behavior. This is BBF, yellows are generally unpaid volunteers, and their stated mission is to help guide players in BBO. In addition, very few of the non staff yellows, or even staff yellows, contribute actively in BBF anyway. BBF participation is mainly for people who enjoy the interaction and to and fro, and yellows are not forced to do this. Moderators are the yellows in BBF. Some non mods have also established themselves as de factor "yellows of BBF" in my mind.

 

Finally, anyone can have a bad day. So it wouldn't make sense to determine yellow/mod status based on a few BBF posts when everything else is great.

[jillybean]

Don't understand this post at all, it seems to me that you are demonstrating cherdano's exact point (or perhaps that was your intent?). In your link, Cascade reacted in a naive and way over the top manner to having received an unsolicited email "Given their immoral and antisocial business practices I would recommend steering well clear of anything to do with that site." With downvoting, when reading such a foolish post people could just register a down vote and move on. Without downvoting, if anyone wants to express disapproval, they need to post to do it, and possibly start a flame war.

 

Although that introduces another issue, if yellows are to be immune from upvotes and downvotes, should they be held to a correspondingly higher standard as regards to making deliberately provocative posts, else risk losing their yellow status?

 

When someone posts a sarcastic repsonse to another bbf members contribution rather than simply pointing out why they don't agree with the post, and they receive multiple up votes for the contribution, the rating system is not working!

I think this is a little different to Arend's post where he is talking about insulting or otherwise inappropriate posts although it does have the same effect on the rating system.

 

We already have a down voting option via the 'report' button so that the moderators can take action against inappropriate posts. If we allow down voting for posts we disagree with, or up votes for sarcastic responses to the same then we are creating more opportunity for abuse and encouraging bbf cliques.

 

If we want to indentify who the best bbf contributors are, we need a better method. If voting is just for fun, I think it will provide fun for a few and many more flame wars and problems for everyone else

[Cascade]

Don't understand this post at all, it seems to me that you are demonstrating cherdano's exact point (or perhaps that was your intent?). In your link, Cascade reacted in a naive and way over the top manner to having received an unsolicited email "Given their immoral and antisocial business practices I would recommend steering well clear of anything to do with that site." With downvoting, when reading such a foolish post people could just register a down vote and move on. Without downvoting, if anyone wants to express disapproval, they need to post to do it, and possibly start a flame war.

 

Although that introduces another issue, if yellows are to be immune from upvotes and downvotes, should they be held to a correspondingly higher standard as regards to making deliberately provocative posts, else risk losing their yellow status?

 

Clearly you have not read and understood my posts. My reaction is not merely to the unsolicited email but to their continued lack of response to my emails.

 

In that regard I sent them a further two emails yesterday one through the form on their website and one directly to editor@ or whatever the address I found quoted on their website.

 

These people still continue to ignore my questions. Questions which I think are entirely reasonable given that they chose initially to contact me.

 

I will repeat that in my experience this business acts immorally and antisocially and quite possibly illegally in the way that it tries to attract customers and further they have shown no sign of acknowledging that their business practices are improper by continuing to ignore questions that are sent to them on this matter.

[gwnn]

When someone posts a sarcastic repsonse to another bbf members contribution rather than simply pointing out why they don't agree with the post, and they receive multiple up votes for the contribution, the rating system is not working!

I think this is a little different to Arend's post where he is talking about insulting or otherwise inappropriate posts although it does have the same effect on the rating system.

 

We already have a down voting option via the 'report' button so that the moderators can take action against inappropriate posts. If we allow down voting for posts we disagree with, or up votes for sarcastic responses to the same then we are creating more opportunity for abuse and encouraging bbf cliques.

 

If we want to indentify who the best bbf contributors are, we need a better method. If voting is just for fun, I think it will provide fun for a few and many more flame wars and problems for everyone else

You seem to believe that sarcastic responses are inherently impossible to be good bbf contributions. I don't know why that is, I think there's a time and place for everything, it all depends on context. I don't think that upvoting sarcastic posts should be made illegal. I mean, your opinion about sarcasm is fine, like any other opinion, but there are other opinions out there, apparently other people liked that response and wanted to upvote it.

[mtvesuvius]

If upvoting for Sarcasm wasn't allowed, I would only have about 15 or 20 reputation :)

[jillybean]

You seem to believe that sarcastic responses are inherently impossible to be good bbf contributions. I don't know why that is, I think there's a time and place for everything, it all depends on context. I don't think that upvoting sarcastic posts should be made illegal. I mean, your opinion about sarcasm is fine, like any other opinion, but there are other opinions out there, apparently other people liked that response and wanted to upvote it.

You make an interesting point that I hadnt thought about. Can sarcastic responses also be good bbf contributions? I assume by good you mean good bridge advice. Yes, people could be up voting the response based on the veiled message contained in the sarcasm. However, I doubt that this is the true reason for the upvote. The top (imo) posters make excellent and sometimes difficult responses without using sarcasm. The reader is left with no doubt about their view which is unlike a sarcastic response where, if there is an underlying message, it could be misunderstood or missed completely.

 

There have been many discussions about making forums a more tolerant and welcoming place and sarcasm is not going to encourage this. In dictionary.com sarcasm is defined as;

 

In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes"

 

Sarcasm is another form of bullying which is unacceptable anywhere and completely out of place in a bridge forum. I would go as far to say that those people who upvote sarcastic responses to posts are akin to the boys who give the school bully a high five after he has tripped up the school nerd.

 

A question for you

We have moderators who have the responsibility to edit and remove unacceptable posts and to remove a member, if it comes to that. I assume moderation is done based on the forums terms of service and guidelines given from up top.

 

Do you think the voting system will in effect give the general membership moderating powers to anonymously and without reason indicate that other bbfers contributions are unacceptable, and do you think that is a good thing?

[gwnn]

I don't see that definition on dictionary.com, I think you mean wikipedia or wiktionary. I don't think I agree with it, I don't think "destructive purposes" is a very clear concept. Does it aim to destroy (counter beyond defence) someone's arguments? Destroy order and civilisation on the forums? It's unclear to me.

 

I think it's a good thing if there is a difference made between

*a post that nobody minds, but nobody expressly likes and

*a post that is annoying to several posters on the forums.

 

It does not mean that the post is unacceptable. There are other grounds to dislike a post than personal insult, spam, what not. For example I dislike posts by the opening poster that make it clear that his or her mind has been made up before asking the question - I find them intellectually dishonest and sometimes patronising. I dislike some posts in the Advanced/Expert section with hidden text (does it mean they think they're superexperts?). Other people might have other dislikes and they might like to be able to downvote based on their dislikes.

[jillybean]

I don't see that definition on dictionary.com, I think you mean wikipedia or wiktionary. I don't think I agree with it, I don't think "destructive purposes" is a very clear concept. Does it aim to destroy (counter beyond defence) someone's arguments? Destroy order and civilisation on the forums? It's unclear to me.

 

I think it's a good thing if there is a difference made between

*a post that nobody minds, but nobody expressly likes and

*a post that is annoying to several posters on the forums.

 

It does not mean that the post is unacceptable. There are other grounds to dislike a post than personal insult, spam, what not. For example I dislike posts by the opening poster that make it clear that his or her mind has been made up before asking the question - I find them intellectually dishonest and sometimes patronising. I dislike some posts in the Advanced/Expert section with hidden text (does it mean they think they're superexperts?). Other people might have other dislikes and they might like to be able to downvote based on their dislikes.

 

I'm not concerned with people liking or disliking contributions, although it seems rather pointless to down vote an opinion or posting style without offering a reason or alternative.

Isn't that the fundmental purpose of a discussion forum?

 

What I find concerning is the intolerance, the use of sarcasm and the up voting the sarcasm.

[hrothgar]

I have mixed feelings regarding “Downvoting”.

 

I participate in some online communities with elaborate reputation based systems. (Stack Overflow is a great example).

 

Reputation is integral to the Stack Overflow user experience. Your privileges on the forum are integrally tied to your reputation (and ultimately derived from the quality of your answers). For example, if you have a low reputation you can’t post Images, Hyperlinks, new threads. In many cases, entire topics will be invisible to you. Alternatively, if you have an extremely high reputation you can add delete posts, edit tags, see fewer ads…, even post "Bounties", where you trade reputations for answers to pressing questions.

 

I think that this type of Reputation System adds a lot to the user experience.

 

It’s unclear to me whether a naive up-vote down-vote system in isolation – absent the supporting infrastructure - necessarily adds anything.

 

It feels like complexity for complexities sake.

[TimG]

I don't think "destructive purposes" is a very clear concept.

One level openings that may, by partnership agreement, be made with a King less than an average hand; weak openings at the two level which may be based upon 44 shape.

[655321]

What I find concerning is the intolerance

 

:unsure:

[TylerE]

The system on StackOverflow works supremely well. The thing that imo makes it work is that downvotes cost. Roughly speaking, a downvote costs the voter about 1/10th the rep they receive for an upvote, so people can't just go around mass down-voting people they mildly disagree with.

[hotShot]

Our Board Statistics

 

Total Posts521,190

Total Members9,393

There are almost 9400 members, but about 20% of the total posts are made by the Top 10 active poster.

We have 6 posters with more than 10000 posts.

If you order the members by total posts, you can see at the end of page 5, that the forum member at position 100 by total posts has written 1,156 posts.

The poster at position 50 has 2,482 posts on his account.

I would guess that about 80% of the posts are made by about 100 people.

(In fact some have more than 1 ID in the top 100...)

 

So I guess it would also be the same 100 persons up and down voting posts.

I guess they will often give the same preferences and dislikes again and again.

[the hog]

The fact that one very rude and objectionable reply to Cascade's complaint about spamming has received 5 upvotes is evidence enough of the tribal posting that is evident amongst some on this board.

[jillybean]

:unsure:

:)

 

Let me rephrase that

What I find concerning is the intolerance shown by rude or sarcastic replies to those who have different views.