Post Ratings Discussion

[JU 199]

I agree. I think we'd have been fine with just doing a better job of informing people that you could turn off ratings alerts.

I didn't know you could even do that.

 

[MrTroll]

Without alerts appearang for ratings, edge case users won't see negative ratings come in and be able to chimp out over then.

At least until they realize you can still view every rating you've received by clicking the "Ratings Received" link from your user control panel.

 

[nad7155]

This thread has more autism than the whole Tumblr subforum.

 

[Strelok]

At least until they realize you can still view every rating you've received by clicking the "Ratings Received" link from your user control panel.

That is way to much effort and intelligence for the sort of user who will fly off the handle at receiving 3 negs.

 

[Ruin]

Meh I thought the forum was way more fun with ratings notifications but if some people can't handle being triggered whatever.

 

[Dr. Boe Jangles Esq.]

The whole ratings system seems designed to encourage good forum etiquette. If you say something stupid, you should be rated poorly. It teaches you not to say stupid shit in the future. If your response is to get mad instead of trying to change or correct the offending behavior, then you should be mocked for it.
That said, let's discuss alternatives:
Online communities seem to live and die by their ability to encourage people to behave within certain boundaries, particularly new users. If a new user isn't taught that through the ratings system, how do they learn? Any ideas?

 

[DNJACK]

I suggest we make threads and openly laugh at them.

 

[Tookie]

I liked being able to ping potential waifus with positive ratings so they could tell I like care about their feelings and shit (not like those other guys on here), I respectfully request the rating notifications be turned back on NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!!!!

 

[Super Collie]

I just liked seeing how many ratings I've given out.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

I don't really understand the point of all this. If people getting negative ratings delete their posts, so what? The less shitposting, the better. If the poster doesn't delete their own post, then it's equally likely that a mod will. I don't see a reason to disable any ratings. Dislike and Disagree are distinct enough in their meanings to avoid redundancy (though, to be fair, Dislike gets far less use so if one has to go, it'd be that one). Those who propose getting rid of Dumb are being pretty dumb themselves, and probably sperg out at getting dumb ratings. If people sperg over ratings, then just let them sperg. Chances are they'd have made asses out of themselves some other way anyway. It's a relative minority anyway. For every @Cucky on this site, there are like 20 normal users.

I propose that rating alerts should be disabled by default, but that it should be made clear (for new users) that you can turn them on. That way, it can decrease sperging, while those who would like to still receive alerts can do so. Also, I don't see the point in removing the ratings board from peoples' individual profiles.

It just seems like Null's making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[AP 297]

Let's just admit the truth. Most of us are not capable of being a cool kid like @Dynastia . A lot of us do care about what other people think. It is why the ratings system works. It in effect adds a degree of consequences to speech. Some of us care less and we have more neg ratings to prove it.

Also lets be honest, there is one Dynastia. If we all tried to post like him, it would be forced edgy trite and resemble other forums where people just call each other faggots all day. There are rules that tell us we have to be civil. An example would be that a lot of us want to go into the Dobson thread and tell them to stop A-logging. We would all be threadbanned and given warning points. It would not be the ratings that discourage us, it would be the fact that we could be banned. Cat and Dyna have no fears about being banned. Because if they got banned most of us would be unhappy enough to say something about it. If some of us did it and got banned - few people would really care. Look at what happened to LIC. A few people had it even worse. Some of the more prominent ones got banned and a halal thread erected with a promise of constant observation.

Those guys on /cow/ are all anonymous and lets be honest, if they posted here like they post on /cow/ would get blasted for their attempts to be edgy and controversial. Many would likely get banned and have been banned because they could not post without being complete idiots.

The ugly truth is that it is really the banning system that affects behavior a lot more than ratings. A lot of us when we go into a thread to say something have to strike a delicate balance of between saying exactly what we think and not wanting to get warning points. When we say what we think, we often have to ask how brutally honest can we be to get the exact point across to often dense people without getting warning points.

While we may not need notifications removed, it would probably be nice for people to actually be able to decide if they receive them or not.

 

[GS 281]

Let's just admit the truth. Most of us are not capable of being a cool kid like @Dynastia . A lot of us do care about what other people think. It is why the ratings system works. It in effect adds a degree of consequences to speech. Some of us care less and we have more neg ratings to prove it.

Also lets be honest, there is one Dynastia. If we all tried to post like him, it would be forced edgy trite and resemble other forums where people just call each other faggots all day. There are rules that tell us we have to be civil. An example would be that a lot of us want to go into the Dobson thread and tell them to stop A-logging. We would all be threadbanned and given warning points. It would not be the ratings that discourage us, it would be the fact that we could be banned. Cat and Dyna have no fears about being banned. Because if they got banned most of us would be unhappy enough to say something about it. If some of us did it and got banned - few people would really care. Look at what happened to LIC. A few people had it even worse. Some of the more prominent ones got banned and a halal thread erected with a promise of constant observation.

Those guys on /cow/ are all anonymous and lets be honest, if they posted here like they post on /cow/ would get blasted for their attempts to be edgy and controversial. Many would likely get banned and have been banned because they could not post without being complete idiots.

The ugly truth is that it is really the banning system that affects behavior a lot more than ratings. A lot of us when we go into a thread to say something have to strike a delicate balance of between saying exactly what we think and not wanting to get warning points. When we say what we think, we often have to ask how brutally honest can we be to get the exact point across to often dense people without getting warning points.

While we may not need notifications removed, it would probably be nice for people to actually be able to decide if they receive them or not.

Not to be a dick, but if you re-read this, wouldn't you see how this could be kinda cringe-worthy? Is this an act or are you being serious here? No disrespect, but c'mon.

 

[AP 297]

Not to be a dick, but if you re-read this, wouldn't you see how this could be kinda cringe-worthy? Is this an act or are you being serious here? No disrespect, but c'mon.

Cucky may have embarrassed himself with worrying about it, but people do worry about what others think about them. It is why the ratings system works - Peer Pressure.

Notice you had to preface your own statement "Not to be a dick" and add the suffix line "No disrespect". You clearly don't want to start a fight or at least want to maintain the appearance that was not your intention. I am guessing the latter because this is not our first clash in a thread like this lately - you taking the opposite position just to provoke a response sometimes your positions have been rather ludicrous. It is because if you or I started a fight in a thread like this, we would get on the path to being banned.

I don't know about you, but I am socially aware enough to be certain that if I was banned - no one would care. If you were banned, would anyone care?

I would argue the ratings only add pressure. The banning system is the real deterrent. Thank you for proving it for me.

 

[*Asterisk*]

Cucky may have embarrassed himself with worrying about it, but people do worry about what others think about them. It is why the ratings system works - Peer Pressure. You as a PHD in the field you are in should know that better than anyone.

Notice you had to preface your own statement "Not to be a dick" and add the suffix line "No disrespect". You clearly don't want to start a fight or at least want to maintain the appearance that was not your intention. I am guessing the latter because this is not our first clash in a thread like this lately - you taking the opposite position just to provoke a response sometimes your positions have been rather ludicrous. It is because if you or I started a fight in a thread like this, we would get on the path to being banned.

I don't know about you, but I am socially aware enough to be certain that if I was banned - no one would care. If you were banned, would anyone care?

I would argue the ratings only add pressure. The banning system is the real deterrent. Thank you for proving it for me.

You're missing the forest for the trees in a way. Not starting fights on the Internet is hard. Often it happens unintentionally, and while certain times it's funny, a lot of times it just gets spergy and unwatchable.

It's why the Farms tries to foster a more temperate environment than the likes of ED despite our views and coverage of topics being pretty similar. When an insult contest does come about, it has more meaning, and because our rules of shitposting is to always be funny even if unintentionally so, it helps keep threads from becoming unreadable.

 

[GS 281]

Cucky may have embarrassed himself with worrying about it, but people do worry about what others think about them. It is why the ratings system works - Peer Pressure. You as a PHD in the field you are in should know that better than anyone.

Notice you had to preface your own statement "Not to be a dick" and add the suffix line "No disrespect". You clearly don't want to start a fight or at least want to maintain the appearance that was not your intention. I am guessing the latter because this is not our first clash in a thread like this lately - you taking the opposite position just to provoke a response sometimes your positions have been rather ludicrous. It is because if you or I started a fight in a thread like this, we would get on the path to being banned.

I don't know about you, but I am socially aware enough to be certain that if I was banned - no one would care. If you were banned, would anyone care?

I would argue the ratings only add pressure. The banning system is the real deterrent. Thank you for proving it for me.

My comment was not made to address agreement or disagreement, just to encourage you to read some of the things you say before you say them. That said, I will disregard everything else you said because it isn't pertinent to the message of mine that you quoted.

Am I the only one who has said this to you? I am not trying to "bait" or "troll", I am trying to help you from looking foolish. Read the initial post you made again, and if it was made by someone else, what would you think about their reverence for other users? I always enjoy a good cat or Dynastia post, but when you make posts like that, you're taking it to a weird space.

BTW it is creepy that you would be able to recall my education status so easily.

 

[KingGeedorah]

Guys, ratings are serious business, didn't you know?

 

[Philosophy Zombie]

Not to be a dick, but if you re-read this, wouldn't you see how this could be kinda cringe-worthy? Is this an act or are you being serious here? No disrespect, but c'mon.

Sunlight Streak is either really insightful or really, really stupid depending on what day of the week it is. This is normal for him.

Let's just admit the truth. Most of us are not capable of being a cool kid like @Dynastia . A lot of us do care about what other people think. It is why the ratings system works. It in effect adds a degree of consequences to speech. Some of us care less and we have more neg ratings to prove it.

Also lets be honest, there is one Dynastia. If we all tried to post like him, it would be forced edgy trite and resemble other forums where people just call each other faggots all day. There are rules that tell us we have to be civil. An example would be that a lot of us want to go into the Dobson thread and tell them to stop A-logging. We would all be threadbanned and given warning points. It would not be the ratings that discourage us, it would be the fact that we could be banned. Cat and Dyna have no fears about being banned. Because if they got banned most of us would be unhappy enough to say something about it. If some of us did it and got banned - few people would really care. Look at what happened to LIC. A few people had it even worse. Some of the more prominent ones got banned and a halal thread erected with a promise of constant observation.

Those guys on /cow/ are all anonymous and lets be honest, if they posted here like they post on /cow/ would get blasted for their attempts to be edgy and controversial. Many would likely get banned and have been banned because they could not post without being complete idiots.

The ugly truth is that it is really the banning system that affects behavior a lot more than ratings. A lot of us when we go into a thread to say something have to strike a delicate balance of between saying exactly what we think and not wanting to get warning points. When we say what we think, we often have to ask how brutally honest can we be to get the exact point across to often dense people without getting warning points.

While we may not need notifications removed, it would probably be nice for people to actually be able to decide if they receive them or not.

I have made quite a few confrontational posts before, have confronted quite a few members before and haven't gotten a single warning point for any of it. Dynastia and cat are the main posters in the business, we can agree on that, and I probably couldn't get away with calling everyone faggots like they can, but as long as I remain within a reasonable stroke of civility I can be fairly confident that the staff won't hound after me for sharing my opinions. Maybe this is just a communication issue between users and staff where the userbase thinks that the moderation is much more draconian than it actually is, because my experience is that it is difficult to get banned on Kiwi Farms. Getting banned permanently is particularly difficult. At least, the reason that I haven't said anything in Dobson's thread isn't because I am afraid of the banhammer or fear our moderators or the warning system, it's because so far I haven't cared enough to write anything.

ETA: politeness also saves you from the brunt of negative ratings, unless the posters in your particular thread are especially petulant that someone is criticizing them, in which case they're dumb anyway. It's a matter of watching your tone so you don't get too snippy.

 

[HG 400]

Neither cat or I are unbannable. I'm sure people would kick up a fuss and maybe one or two would sperg out in protest (hey, Private Dickhead had some sperg leave in protest so why shouldn't I?) but the place would quickly settle down and move on without us. People far more popular than us have been banned, and the ruffled feathers and outrage only ever lasts a week, max.

I probably couldn't get away with calling everyone faggots like they can...

You absolutely could. You'd just get told off for it. I used to get an assload of warnings and deleted posts and derisive 'stop trying to be catparty' and 'stop being an unfunny shitposter' comments but eventually people realised that I give zero fucks and then they stopped bothering to tell me off for it and then they pretty much decided that I was the Official Chief Faggot-Caller in Charge of Calling People Faggots. Double-standard? Maybe. But maybe it's right and just. If people care so goddamn much what other spergs think of them that a simple 'stop trying to be dynastia' is enough to shut them down, maybe they don't deserve to be going around calling people faggots in the first place.

but as long as I remain within a reasonable stroke of civility I can be fairly confident that the staff won't hound after me for sharing my opinions. Maybe this is just a communication issue between users and staff where the userbase thinks that the moderation is much more draconian than it actually is, because my experience is that it is difficult to get banned on Kiwi Farms. Getting banned permanently is particularly difficult.

This is all true, you'd have to be retarded to post here and you'd have to be max-level retarded-as-fuck to get shown the door.

That said, there have definitely been mistakes and overreactions in moderation in times past and maybe that's coloured people's perceptions of Nol being a fat little Hitler stomping his feet, but I think those have mostly been resolved and all in all this place is chill and moderation is lax and if you're actually too afraid to say what you think here then you should let me know so I can call you a faggot and a cuck and laugh at you.

 

[CatParty]

Neither cat or I are unbannable. I'm sure people would kick up a fuss and maybe one or two would sperg out in protest (hey, Private Dickhead had some sperg leave in protest so why shouldn't I?) but the place would quickly settle down and move on without us. People far more popular than us have been banned, and the ruffled feathers and outrage only ever lasts a week, max.

speak for yourself buddy

 

[HG 400]

speak for yourself buddy

Ya when I said 'people would kick up a fuss' I was mainly only speaking for myself. If you get banned there probably won't be any outcry.