Nothing to apologise for, it's not your fault that the forum doesn't warn you that the post you are replying to has changed since you started replying!

I was mainly concerned that I had replied to something before your additions which clarified a bunch of things and you may have taken my post wrongly. Cue misunderstanding, more drama and arguments.. not a nice situation.

Luckily, all was well and it appears that our opinions on this matter are very aligned (which would have made a misunderstanding even more unfortunate!), even down to the "rep doesn't matter, but it is still a jerk move to reduce it for those it does matter to" which, I admit, I thought I didn't share with anyone else.

Okay caught up and not much to add really. I am interested in what you think of what I posted next after that though.

Another forum I like to visit is MacRumors which covers all things Apple, not just Macs and in particular I enjoy visiting the gaming forum there. On that forum they used to have minus and plus buttons too but it was before my time began there. Apparently from what I understand, that did not go very well (surprise, surprise) and they opted to remove the minus button but they left the plus button, actually it is an up arrow and it appears with a number within each post. So there is no accumulated total of pluses for anyone, just pluses per individual post.

I think I like that system or something similar where it is kept positive. For example, it is more than just a little nice of you to give away so many games each year. So it would be nice for people to be able to send a little extra thank you your way aside of hopefully saying so in posts anyway.

I just wish they'd remove the option for negativity because there will always be some who just cannot manage that well or worse.

Got the message as well:
Could you do me a favour and post this *entire* PM in the RepLog topic when I ask you to (which should be when jamotide replies after post #274)? If you don't want to be involved, that's fine, please just let me know :)

Continuing my response to Lifthrasil in #274:

"..trusted pretty firmly. Just watch him suddenly 'get it', say he misunderstood me and admit he is wrong now, just to prove me wrong! :)"

Agreed

Well maybe you should have only posted that if I actually did do what he expected?

Like I would pay that much attention to you or any other individual in this forum.

Since I mentioned that this could be used with regard to the rep attacks (or whatever) and the ensuing argument about that, a misconception has formed that this is RepLog's aim.

RepLog was made so people had a record of their rep. Any studying done on the data was just going to be general statistics like "who gained the most rep in a month", "what was the total rep gained by all the participants" and "are there particular times when rep changes", "how many rep do you need to get 3 stars", not specifically "who might be the target of a rep attack".

Obviously, someone who was under such attack would likely stick out like a sore thumb and I would likely go and see if it was an attack (seeing what kind of posts they make that get low-rated), but more out of curiosity than a campaign.

It's unclear if you mean "the removal of rep" or the "removal of the post rating system". I'm going to go with the rep system entirely because otherwise, rep would just show roughly how much you posted and/or that you selected as the answer to question topics (which is inaccurate for other reasons).

I would personally be unhappy with the outright removal of rep because as I mentioned, I see my rep as something the community has given me. I'm proud of it. It is my little "badge of honour". Like with Namur.. while I have been testing the rating system on his rep, I've read a fair amount of his posts and he has, without question, earned that rep by being extremely helpful and it would make me sad to see him lose it through no wrong-doing of his own.

I suppose I see the removal of it as "punishing the majority of people for the misbehaviour of the few" which may actually even be GOGs reason for not removing it. They may see the abuse of the ratings system as much as a given of having a system that mostly works as they do seeing piracy as a given when you distribute games. Of course, I'm just guessing here but it is a plausible stance.

There is, of course, another solution which would be to remove the rep system and give those who have earned a high rep some other indicator of their positive contribution. A little medal where the rep is now perhaps. Or just use the existing stars. Then the question would become how do newer users earn stars? Nomination and chosen by GOG (with a badass site announcement, that would be awesome!). Nominations and voting?

We would indeed get along just fine. Those that only voice their opinion because they can do so anonymously would lose their power/voice and those that only did it that way because it was easier will confront the entire community with their disapproval, to be chewed out if warranted.

A possible problem is we don't know how much drama gets avoided by allowing people to be passive-aggressive, as you say, instead of forcing them into public confrontation to voice their disapproval. I think it is worth considering that in our efforts to stop rep drama, we may unleash other drama.

Unfortunately, those that earn that "little ego boost" may tend to post less due to making considered, deliberated posts. Just compare my posts against jamotides. Some (most?) of mine took a chunk of time to write as I write and rewrite to try and make myself clear, try to avoid coming across badly, making sure the forum won't freak out because of a missed quote tag or something, changing the order of my sentences, changing formatting.. the list goes on. Luckily, I know I am not alone in doing this! :)

His on the other hand? A handful of sentences.

It's funny because I was actually proving my point that someone would waste their time making 100 accounts by "wasting my time" arguing with him. I have learned that he wouldn't understand the subtlety of that though.

Unfortunately, people would just instead use the rep system to uprate all their own posts, undermining the system that way. There is no way to tell the difference between a post that a bunch of people liked and a post that one person with several accounts liked.. except by reading it, at which point, you've made your own mind up anyway.

So that path leads to the "you may as well just remove the entire thing then", in my opinion.

All too true :)

I personally hold that stance that you should leave "low hanging fruit" such as the downrate system around. Those who are going to abuse something will choose the easiest way.. which happens to be an extremely monitor-able way and thus, you can easily identify those people who you don't want in your community.

GOG doesn't have the manpower to watch over the forums, but it doesn't take much manpower to curbstomp someone abusing a system when the computer can figure out that they are :)
Well.. that proves you didn't read the PM I sent him.

I'm sure the same cookie that saves login info could be used to manage this situation. I presume that is how it would be done but I have never done web development. In any case, I thought I'd go take a look at how MacRumors forums handle this scenario.

I tried to uprate one of my own posts - no can do. Only someone else can uprate a post I write.

I tried to uprate someone else's post more than one time - no can do. Instead it does the logical thing by toggling your vote. If I upvote and click again, it reverses it and if I click again, it adds it back, etc.

The way it could be abused of course is someone making multiple accounts and voting themselves up I guess. That would sure be a hollow victory for some poor soul wouldn't it? It also really would not affect anyone else personally.

I'd still argue for stripping out the negativity and leaving the positivity after seeing how they do it. I feel like everybody wins in that scenario. Those who play nice get positive feedback and nobody gets hurt.

As for opening up a different Pandora's Box by taking away the minus button thus inviting more open confrontation I guess I have to say well, sometimes you just can't win. But it would eliminate passive aggressive attacks and force people to make arguments for the things they say. They would also not be able to make any lasting impact beyond any given discussion at hand. In other words, no rep number that follows someone.

I do like this idea a lot the more I think about it and I can understand why MacRumors forum administration made the choice they did. I wish GOG would make a similar choice and then we wouldn't need to even be discussing rep at all and there would be zero cases of people being upset by negative changes to their rep.

I do understand what you are saying about your rep and how you feel about it. Who doesn't like positive feedback from others in this life. It's good for the soul. And it should be possible to retain that here while stripping away the negative side of things which has been an ongoing problem that keeps rearing its ugly head over and over and over. I think it would help at least in some small way to make the forums a little more positive place overall and that would be a good thing.


Actually, I think I am all wrong about the cookie thing above. It's probably a matter of the site database which keeps such info as rep votes simply needing some code to manage what users can and cannot do.

That was adding even more fat to the bacon, right? :P


That`s what honeypots are for ;D

Anyway, most people here can agree that if a post has; spam, hateful and/or racist comment, or if someone asks for a game within the first weeks here, they deserves a minor spanking. And the "minus" also serves as a warning; telling others to watch out.

As with everything, a system or a thing can be abused. The rep can be an incentive to be more active, or give out free games (that`s the short version). But it can also be used to target people, and I know for a fact that within the last week I have come across this type of targeting of at least two US nicks, regardless of "offensive" post (but views can askew).

Well, call it crazy – for someone else it is, however, a perfectly justifiable behavior (and most likely they wouldn`t know the difference either). Like I`ve said before, we tend to fall back on some stone-age behavior and forget we all have different views and standing ground, and not attack the person. Verbally or otherwise.

I think we can give xyem some credit for bringing it up, and at least showing how many votes it takes to get it down (something GOG hasn`t talked about, to my knowledge) Now, if we were vote on getting the "minus" removed, we also should be better at telling people that we don`t condone certain comments, instead of just hiding behind a minus icon. We would still have the need to being able to remove/hide spam posts quickly. But I also agree with dirtyharry on keeping it positive.

Very healthy attitude!

No that just proves that you still didn't get the issue. I wasn't wrong about your crazy theory. It is still crazy to assume someone would spend hours to create accounts to downrep people.

I was just wrong to believe you in that it would require 100 accounts! Now that I know it only takes 5 to 10 I very much think its possible.

The fact that I still have to explain this is pretty sad, especially to all your sycophants who you apparently now mobilize through PMs. Very amusing at least, I like this thread.

For the record, I would've done the same for you if you had asked politely as well. Being incredibly bored without sleeping a wink last night has that effect on you.

Bleh, sorry, when I said "someone uprating their own posts" I did mean by using multiple accounts.

The number of accounts created is irrelevant, the point is that there are people who create sock puppet accounts to abuse the rating system. It has happened.

It is also possible to create a script that will autocreate accounts, hence why you sometimes need to enter a capta code before account creation can be made. There are also services like 10 minute mail that can be used as an email to those sock puppet account. It is also possible to generate a script that will take control of an account. This is called botting.

For the record, xyem has earned a lot of good will in the community. It doesn't take that long to copy and paste something. I was not going out of my way.

i am posting,cause i want to remember my level of rep,before i get downrepped by "someone"

"It is crazy to assume someone would spend hours to create accounts to downrep people" == "It is crazy to assume someone would spend hours to argue with someone who will not change their mind".

It is not crazy to assume someone would spend hours to create accounts to downrep people when you are the person who would do it.

You do not get this, do you? My arguing with you is also proof that your argument is wrong!

I have spent hours, wasting my time, arguing with you in this thread. If I am willing to waste hours arguing with someone who will clearly not change their mind then I would (if I were a less principled and less capable person) waste hours creating 100 accounts to downrep you.

Hell, from your point of view, you have wasted time arguing with someone who won't change their mind so your very own actions.. prove you wrong.

It really is that simple!

The only thing that is stopping me from creating 100 accounts and downrepping you is.. your permission to do so. If you want me to prove it, PM me permission. You won't, of course, because you know I can and would..

It's all well and good acting tough when your opponent has said that they won't hit you back unless you give them permission to, isn't it?

What is actually sad is that you don't understand why just repeating an assertion over and over has no swaying power in an argument.

Yeah, that is why it was 197 posts and 3 days into the topic before someone supported me against you and the person that did, I've never even sent a PM too. Dat PM lag.

The two people who have so far revealed they received that PM?
Well, Shaolin_sKunk I first spoke to July 7th with regards to the GOG wiki and haven't spoken to since.
Thunderstone, to my knowledge, I have never spoken to at all. I just clicked a random nick I didn't recognise that had posted something sensible.

So yeah, they are totally "a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.".

You do like throwing out those insulting accusations, don't you? Projecting much?

Of course you do, you're the star of it! :)

And, of course, you will ignore most, if not all, of what I have written! Good times.

They don't fuck, they make love!