LOL, acun oan srae

giblet wrote:I know that it can be a bit intimidating to give someone karma demerits, but I think we shouldn't be afraid to use this feature as it's our only way of letting people know that they are crossing a line (and hopefully is a way to avoid needing to ban people). If someone takes karma away from you, instead of getting angry, try and see where they are coming from. And if someone helps you out or argues with you in a respectful way, give them karma. It's a way of rewarding the posters that contribute something positive to the site.

Personally, given your community based approach here (which for the most part has worked), it might be better if you just ban religious and other sensitive topics totally rather than give an individual a soapbox to post hateful stuff unchallenged.

I am actually half serious. If people here cannot handle topical discussions or just want unchallenged POVs you might be better of waxing sensitive topics entirely so that you might have more social cohesion.

I regret that I have been a source of disharmony here in my challenges to another poster, but I am not going to let obvious bigotry go unchallenged. I have, as other posters have noted, tried to keep my arguments on topic rather than ad hominem --- but things can still get heated.

Although originally skeptical about the Karma function, I have grown to appreciate it as a useful platform and feedback that certain posts have been read and appreciated. I do not think encouraging "Karma Wars" is a good idea --- where cliques develop and people ding each other on negative points simply based on personal relationships, or because they don't like each other, or disagree with the POV presented. I think this would destroy the usefulness of the function and serve to cause even more ill will (Karma Feuds) etc.

My 2 cents / spare 100 riel note.

Rain Dog wrote:Although originally skeptical about the Karma function, I have grown to appreciate it as a useful platform and feedback that certain posts have been read and appreciated. I do not think encouraging "Karma Wars" is a good idea --- where cliques develop and people ding each other on negative points simply based on personal relationships, or because they don't like each other, or disagree with the POV presented. I think this would destroy the usefulness of the function and serve to cause even more ill will (Karma Feuds) etc.

I agree. Do you have any ideas how to prevent Karma wars? Part of the reason I posted this is because on the few occasions that I gave negative karma I felt really bad about it, and other times when I think I should have given negative karma, I was afraid that the person would hold a grudge against me forever and make a big stink about it. I don't think it needs to be so personal, it should be more like the +/- votes on Reddit. When you say something moronic there, you know it pretty quickly.

When someone posts.......

They are contributing. Contributing is never worthy of negative karma.

It should all be positive.

There is karma inflation. Look how much admin has gotten. Help
the new posters, and those who may be struggling. Inspire.

LTO wrote:

When thou goest to woman, take thy whip (Friedrich Nietzsche)

negative karma I felt really bad about it, and other times when I think I should have given negative karma, I was afraid that the person would hold a grudge against me forever and make a big stink about it. I don't think it needs to be so personal, it should be more like the +/- votes on Reddit.

i don't really care for this karma thing and find it kinda childish and can be abused and misused

I want to give credit to a Post that i read hence why i like a like button as it shows i like what that poster said ON THAT POST and it does not necessarily mean i like that poster all the time...

But it seems no one else agrees with me.

Dara wrote:When someone posts.......

They are contributing. Contributing is never worthy of negative karma.

Uh, I don't know about that... I think a lot of posts are worthy of negative karma, though I'm also highly reluctant to dish it out. I think I've only given negative karma twice or so. I also agree that it's a nice feature and I sometimes forget about it.

While I personally don't mind the "edge" of K440, I do understand what Giblet is trying to say. Each has its place. I love it when Lucky Lucan tells someone to fuck off, because he's usually straight on the money. Would he speak like that to someone in person? Of course not, but it makes for good entertainment. K440 is a toughen up to a minimum or leave kind of deal (though I never really found it "rough" to be honest).

However, I like the way CEO originally "branded" itself. I've been on some forums which were way more brutal than K440 ever was, but I've also been on regional/specific interest forums where people are amazingly helpful. The type of place where people always help each other out and there's virtually no fighting. Makes for a vastly different forum experience. Usually fewer posters as well. I think somewhere down the middle is nice. With KIR finally out of the picture (good job CEO) and Scobienz at the helm I intend to start contributing more on K440 than I did these past few months. Since CEO's inception, I've limited myself to sporadic questions and have avoiding being helpful or contributing in any meaningful way the way I used to. I think CEO's more communal approach definitely has its place. It's great to ask/answer questions without any puns or snarky comments and having a general friendlier vibe to it.

So yeah, avoiding getting personal over trivial things would be cool (I've probably been guilty of it myself). I also didn't follow the Christianity/Islam thread but it seems like you guys made a mountain out of a mole hill. I've noticed a certain level of nastiness rising these past two weeks or so, which I hope stops soon.

I gave Gen-Mack some negative karma and he didn't ban me so don't be shy giblet.
If you're providing constructive criticism then it's all for the good.

giblet wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:Although originally skeptical about the Karma function, I have grown to appreciate it as a useful platform and feedback that certain posts have been read and appreciated. I do not think encouraging "Karma Wars" is a good idea --- where cliques develop and people ding each other on negative points simply based on personal relationships, or because they don't like each other, or disagree with the POV presented. I think this would destroy the usefulness of the function and serve to cause even more ill will (Karma Feuds) etc.

I agree. Do you have any ideas how to prevent Karma wars? Part of the reason I posted this is because on the few occasions that I gave negative karma I felt really bad about it, and other times when I think I should have given negative karma, I was afraid that the person would hold a grudge against me forever and make a big stink about it. I don't think it needs to be so personal, it should be more like the +/- votes on Reddit. When you say something moronic there, you know it pretty quickly.

Dara makes a good point. There should be no negative Karma or if there is it should be left only to admin as a way of administering warnings. You need to keep focused on what you want to achieve with the Karma function. Positive Karma rewards people for thoughtful or helpful posts. Negative Karma just pisses people off more and adds fuel to the fire. Nobody likes to have their marbles taken away -- even if it is something as silly as Karma points. I have only deducted points once and that was for a poster who at the time I respected but made an awfully hateful post so I used the Karma function as that is what I thought it was intended for. All it did was cause him to to take it personally and increase the level of vitriol. In hindsight I should have just PMd him and told him he was out of line --- but taking away his marbles made it personal to him --- so I accomplished nothing.

In the recent flare up which pitted Dagenham and myself against Stroppy and OD as far as I know no Karma points were taken away by any party. We are big boys -- we can handle ourselves without silly Karma wars.

As to random trolls posting silly things I think that they are best left ignored. Taking away their marbles just encourages them to troll more. I reserve Karma for people I think are actually worth my attention.

I notice you did not include my original point in your reply perhaps out of fear of inflaming the previous Muslim Bashing thread. This is not my intention. If you value social cohesion more than spirited debate you might want to censor religious and political threads --- just as in real life Politics and Religion are topics best avoided in social situations. This is particularly true if racism or bigotry is involved.

I don't favor censorship but given this is a small forum and one prominent poster has rather aggressive religious views (to put it politely) there will always be heated discussions if those views are challenged. The question becomes is this forum already big enough and strong enough to handle such discussions. On larger forums such disputes are much less noticeable and have less of an impact on the whole of the forum.

Cheers,

RD

Username Taken wrote:

giblet wrote:If someone takes karma away from you, instead of getting angry, try and see where they are coming from.

Could you explain where this particular poster was coming from?

Poster posts asking where he can purchase 'X'.
I post a link which provided about 8 places, from an online guide, where he could buy 'X'.
Poster decreases my karma by 5 points because '3 of the places didn't have what he wanted'.

Tru dat.

Dat tru? Dat sucks.