I have to admit I am becoming disappointed in how people are choosing to use this feature.

I just figured out how to see reputation points... and found I had generated a negative one today based on my Talkboard Thread on expanding the GLBT Forum definition to match the Women's Forum definition. The negative reputation was "FT is a travel forum not a a tool to promote gay lifestyles". BOY... did not know that was what I was doing in any way. And considering I have not posted on that thread for a few weeks... was really disappointing.

It will be sad if people starting giving out their reputation points based on discriminations (be it race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nationality). If that is how it will be used, I will have a tough time supporting the feature...

I hope that others do not get "dinged" as I did in that forum for similar reasons.



William

I don't remember any decision on FT ever having generated this much controversy

Some people seem to be using the anonymity of this feature to get around the 'no personal attacks' rule. Since it's anonymous, they can make their biggoted comments, but their dirty little xenophobic identity stays in the closet. People like that are just affraid that the rest of us will expose their self imposed ignorance, and see them as the frightened little boys and girls that they are.
I say get rid of the anonymity, and the personal attacks will cease.

Precisely, HigherFlyer. At that is exactly the reason JonNYC that I am very serious about reporting offenses.

For instance, I received two negative comments, one complete with a nasty remark, on this post:

Since the post itself is totally innocuous, even complimentary to all, the negative reputation posts were clearly nothing but petty harassment. I sincerely hope that Randy and his staff will investigate this type of abuse and remove the posting privileges of those involved. There is no need for this type of underhanded nastiness to exist on FT.

I am very sorry, Wharvey, that type of behavior is also unacceptable, you are such a gentle soul. If I had any reputation points left, I would give you an attaboy.

I suppose you're right, alan. I was just mad and rattling cages earlier, so ignore me.

(Though I find it noteworthy that in the past when socks like ftomnibox, moderatethis, yesstillme, __isadweeb were castigated for not being "man enough" to take "personal responsibility" for their trollish posts, everyone seemed to agree that anonymity was the wrong way to go about disagreeing with another member.)

No, at the end of the day, I don't care. I look forward to future dings - and dongs, hopefully, as you do, as well, I presume.

(Randy, this is a long-winded way of saying, forget I said anything.)

Welll, here are a few thoughts in response...

If you enable your reputation display, you CAN see who is "dinging" and who is "pinging"
your reputation? I agree that we cannot see the comments without enabling the feature,
but you can see who it is, if you enable it?

We would find it useful to see the non-anonymous comments directed our way, even if
we have to choose to have the feature enabled. Even better if we all could see
non-anonymous comments with the feature disabled, but it appears that you are
one step ahead of the rest of us already...
.

I could care less if Randy et al, tell me who the culprits are. All I hope is that when abusers are reported, they are investigated and that their privileges are revoked as Randy and his team see fit.

wharvey writes: I'm certainly not surprised how some are using this feature.

I wrote in another thread:

In fact, there's already a Reputation Point conga going on in the S.P.A.M. forum!

Hope Randy turns this one off fast. Contrary to those here that optimistically believe this might have great "potential"...it never will, IMHO. At least not just good potential.

And Punki...can you imagine all the hundreds of emails Randy will get "demanding" to know who's giving them negative rep points? Oh yeah. That's gonna be really welcomed.

I think and hope Randy will can this whole rating thing VERY soon, due to this kind of nonsense already going on:

A creep in a couple of hours could give someone 100 negatives etc, and a red blob or however that will show up as. There is NO note or record of who left the negatives either ... even to Randy or team it seems. A very well known and respected FT'er emailed me today to say 2 FT'ers from a Forum they all frequent had stalked his account and left him a ton of negatives. FT does not need this sort of thing.

One well known FT'er has already lobbied me to add positives to his account as some of the 'adults' here are already wagering on their totals it seems:



"I agree its gonna be a mess .... still, since I have a wager going with another FTers, I would appreciate it if you could vote for me........... ;-)
Thanks !!!!!!!!



Disclaimer - I have only logged into the new FT for about a day and see I have a green blob, but am now turning off that functionality on my profile, as I can see it will in the MAIN, only be divisive and negative .... something Randy usually goes to great lengths to avoid on Flyertalk.

There are plenty enough new bells and whistles slowing down FT right now to almost being unusable most times I've tried - so leaving that feature turned OFF may even improve speed and functionality for ALL of us.

It appears that you didn't understand my post, PremEx.

My point is that if abusers are reported, Randy, et al, will know and can act accordingly. I could care less who the abusers are, as long as their privileges are revoked.

posted bt Premex:

Yeech. First it was post count whoring. Then Junior Member, Member, Evangelist sprints. Now we gotta deal with reputation stuffing to boot? Saints preserve us! Just what we need. Another "ego" account to run up (or down, as the case may be) with "reputation points."

I agree with this 100%. FT doesn't need this at all.

Someone giving someone else 100 bad points isn't possible. The system allows you one vote for a person per 20 votes, and 10 votes per day. So for someone to be "knocked down" requires teamwork

FWIW, when someone hands out a bad reputation in a seemingly normal thread it doesn't mean it's harassment, it could also just be a vote for the person, and not the post. The whole reputation system was not explained well and except for the people that know where to find this forum I can imagine there are many people out there that don't know the real purpose. I've been dinged on a few thread that were completely innocent, so I can only assume they were votes against ME and not against the post I made there.

It's a shame because I've been left an awful lot of very nice remarks about posts I've made in the past days, and some for older posts where I helped someone out but I seriously doubt this system is going to benefit Flyertalk in any way at all.

I've heard too many stories in the past days about people whoring for reputation clicks, in emails, private messages and even people telling me about requests they received in IM.

Plus, we know there are people out there with multiple handles or multiple users in a family, that alone opens the door to misuse.

The system is clever, well built and easy to use, but not suitable for Flyertalk.

If it's only developed for Coupon Connection then I advise Randy to consider creating a feedback thread there and allowing the moderators there to alter someones feedback points, it serves no other purpose on the board other than creating some that will feel more equal than others or teams of people fighting a battle against others, that is the last thing we need here.

Due to the near non existent "speed" (indeed availability!) of FT until the east coast goes to bed, and bandwidth seemingly opens up, I was typing reply above, and had not seen Premex's post. We certainly do not agree on all things, but certainly agree on this one.

Now I have seen his post, I also agree (apologies to Punki) that the LAST thing Randy and team need right now are emails about this "reputation" function. I am sure they are up to their eyes in working on smoothing a few of the inevitable little bugs in the new system to benefit all of us.

I am sure Randy does not need reminding there are some folks who are perpetually bitter and negative on FT who will delight in leaving such comments given half a chance. It has taken some of them only a couple of days to start on it. That is for them to live with and be judged upon. IMO. the only 'reputation points' that really matter on FT are the ones Randy dispenses.

I do not need any more little green squares to encourage me to post on FT, and just went and turned off that function. If many other regular posters do the same it will save Randy needing to possibly consider doing it.

Am posting to a UA thread right now where 2 posters on it I notice have respectively 6 and 22 posts on FT and already both have a green box showing, so you do need to smile at how curious the system is.

FWIW, stories of someone leaving "a ton of negatives" can't be correct, with 10 votes a day and a vote for the same person being once per 20 votes there can be no more than 2 votes from the same person for a member, plus, negative votes don't count as strong as positive ones so a single member can't really harm another member.

I know we all think we know "whodunnit" but as long as it's anonymous it could be anyone, perhaps even someone from whom we'd least expect it.

The more I think about it the better this might turn out to be.

If, and it is a big If, Randy is able to commit the manpower to investigate all incidents of abuse, and if we are all committed to reporting incidents of abuse, this might be the tool to determine who the real problem children (of all ages) are and permanently remove their privileges.

It could also encourage all posters to make certain that their posts are above reproach, so that any "dings" would show as clear abuse. If, then, a perfectly innocent post was dinged, Randy, et al, could easily determine that the ding was pure harassment and deal with the offender.

One possible scenario.

P.S. Already, the positive and fun comments I have received far out way the petty, anonymous, and totally insignificant comments. I sign all of my comments and they are all intended to spread a little joy. Handled properly, this could be a good thing.