As per my previous posts it seems that most of the karma problems are related to people abusing negative karma. The "Giving Karma" function is useful. For example on K440 I would sometimes type thoughtful posts and nobody would reply because they were too busy flaming each other or inside jokes or whatever --- so sometimes I would wonder if anyone even read my posts and if not, why bother in the first place?

Case in point -- nobody has replied yet to my Rain Dog rap thread (except a couple of trolls stalking me) but a few people have sent karma my way for the effort. I don't care much about the points but I appreciate the feedback that some people have read and reacted to it.

Likewise on the Islam bashing thread, I have received feedback by the way of karma from a few people who appreciate how I am dealing with a couple of people trolling me. The tool allows people to give feedback while at the same time not having to get personally involved in a thread that has turned so ugly.

The problem is a few people cannot be trusted to use negative karma in a constructive way, and even when it is used constructively it is usually received as a personal attack.

Positive karma helps build cohesion and interpersonal interactions and thus helps the forum where negative karma brings more divisiveness and hurts the forum.

Thus I think negative Karma should either be restricted to 1 point per hit or maybe restricted to admin as a form of warning before banning. Another option which I think Joon alluded to in her post is to have admin review negative karma awards for appropriateness but I think this could place more of a time burden on admin.

My 100 riel again.

one of the things that helps with that is the forced delay for karma. keeps one troll from being able to negatively impact you much. it could be smarter, sure... like not letting 1 person give another person negative karma twice in the same preset period/etc. but with any of it, it's going to be impossible in any user based ranking system to eliminate it.... without eliminating the ability to assign negative entirely (such as facebook does with "like" but no "dislike"). that much is actually possible, would the majority find this preferential?

OrangeDragon wrote:one of the things that helps with that is the forced delay for karma. keeps one troll from being able to negatively impact you much. it could be smarter, sure... like not letting 1 person give another person negative karma twice in the same preset period/etc. but with any of it, it's going to be impossible in any user based ranking system to eliminate it.... without eliminating the ability to assign negative entirely (such as facebook does with "like" but no "dislike"). that much is actually possible, would the majority find this preferential?

obviously i would vote yes --- or limiting it to admins

i think limiting it to us would be unfair... i'd like to hear feedback from others on the subject. particularly any arguments against the restriction.

Well today I got my first negative Karma, not once but twice (this is not a challenge btw, lol)

Negative 1. I tried to support a fellow member, who I saw as receiving the rough end of the stick. HE then gave me negative karma, wtf

Negative 2. Another poster read me efforts to help the first poster, thought I was having a go at him and not, as I actually was, trying to support him and gave me more negative karma.

Hey Ho! Maybe in time they will see the error of their ways and give it back, lol

I do like the karma function and think it does have a place on CEO but lets not cry too much over it.

There are one or two people (not meaning the above mentioned) who do seem to use it as some sort of 'Get Even' weapon, I am sure in time they will grow out of it.

The site seems very slow today, so I just visited a thread about it ( just to read, not comment) and now the site is fast again, lol, now that is a sort of karma, I guess (thanks Dragon)

this was one point

Karma seems to be used as a weapon by some. I myself never really use it. As phuket Richard said, a like button would be better.