Rep points

[StringJunky]

I think it's been a long time since we last discussed rep points, specifically negative reps. Originally, I thought they were a useful tool, but now think they cause more harm than good. This is because people seem to be using them more and more as arrows to reinforce their position in a discussion, and when several posters do it to someone in a minority position, it appears they are being subjected to mob justice. This is happening between long-time members who know each other well. It's striking me now as a petty weapon, rather than a device to moderate uncivil behaviour and other social negatives by generally less comitted newer posters. Nothing will be lost just having a like-only system because persistently uncivil, intransigent posters are banned anyway. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[Genady]

I've had the same thought, but I feel too new here still to make this suggestion. I do agree and support and +1.

[StringJunky]

It has been on my mind a while, and seeing a comment by studiot about the number of neg reps in a thread, prompted me to say something. I feel quite strongly now that it is causing harm and resentment amongst highly intelligent and thoughtful members.

Edited February 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

I said much the same in another feedback thread some months ago.  Hear, hear.

 

[iNow]

Counter Proposal: Return to the old system where a single click from me or swansont would knock someone’s rep down by 372 or more points since the power of the result was driven by the positive rep of the person applying it. 😂 

Kidding aside, to me this all seems less related to the content of one’s argument than it’s related to the manner in which one makes it.

A quality argument is almost NEVER neg repped even when people disagree (and let’s be honest, I’ve probably received more neg reps even when presenting rational quality arguments over the years here than anybody else…combined!).

Instead, negative responses with rep tend to come when people post needless personal barbs or act disingenuously… when they seem to be knowingly misrepresenting the position of others or continue to act as if their position hasn’t been refuted even when it very much has, and even when that refutation comes from recognized topic experts (see also: the science of gender and sex).

Neg reps come when one acts in bad faith, is being an asshole (yep, I’ve gotten lots of those, too… and I deserved many of them!), or when one gets obstinate and just digs in their heels. I’m not one who thinks every kid should always get a trophy and I do tend to adjust my approach based on community responses, but YMMV. 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited February 6, 2022 by iNow

[Phi for All]

I'll dig a bit deeper today, but many of the red & green points given in recent politics threads aren't from participants in the thread. To me, these represent the "Hear, hear!" and "Boo!" votes from folks who don't really have much to add to what's been said. I'm not sure these are the votes you're concerned about.

Also, I'm watching at least one new person who seems to have a grudge against a long-time member and regularly downvotes them, but the rest of the members have been correcting it with upvotes, so it fell off my radar. This part of the system seems to clean itself fairly well.

For the rest of it, I dislike the idea of a like-only system on a science forum. I know this is social media for lots of members, and the value of positivity in discourse is important, but I don't think any science discussions will be improved by removing any of the tools we use for measurement. 

I'd rather do away with all reputation if you don't like any part of it. It seems wrong to only allow the "Hear, hear!" and not the "Boo!" votes. It wouldn't hurt me or most long-time members. It removes a way for inquisitive newbies to gauge replies from some of our members who've been less than civil but not blatantly so, or who're repeatedly wrong (which isn't against the rules as long as you don't preach), or who argue using any of the annoying habits people regularly get downvoted for. 

 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'll dig a bit deeper today, but many of the red & green points given in recent politics threads aren't from participants in the thread. To me, these represent the "Hear, hear!" and "Boo!" votes from folks who don't really have much to add to what's been said. I'm not sure these are the votes you're concerned about.

Also, I'm watching at least one new person who seems to have a grudge against a long-time member and regularly downvotes them, but the rest of the members have been correcting it with upvotes, so it fell off my radar. This part of the system seems to clean itself fairly well.

For the rest of it, I dislike the idea of a like-only system on a science forum. I know this is social media for lots of members, and the value of positivity in discourse is important, but I don't think any science discussions will be improved by removing any of the tools we use for measurement. 

I'd rather do away with all reputation if you don't like any part of it. It seems wrong to only allow the "Hear, hear!" and not the "Boo!" votes. It wouldn't hurt me or most long-time members. It removes a way for inquisitive newbies to gauge replies from some of our members who've been less than civil but not blatantly so, or repeatedly wrong (which isn't against the rules as long as you don't preach), or argue using any of the annoying habits people regularly get downvoted for. 

 

If people feel that no system is better, then I'm up for it. Even if it's predominantly outsiders doing it, it's looking more and more like graffiti, in effect, to me.  Removing it will remove suspicion between the core members.

Edited February 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I chuckle a bit that even those advocating for the removal of rep found it useful to signal their own agreement in this thread… about removing rep.  

[Genady]

Not directly about the topic question, but still rep points related. I've noticed a long time member with 10 posts in total and marked with 10 rep points, but when I look at their posts I don't see any flags at all. How come?

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

I chuckle a bit that even those advocating for the removal of rep found it useful to signal their own agreement in this thread… about removing rep.  

In my defence, I did propose a like-only format.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

Not directly about the topic question, but still rep points related. I've noticed a long time member with 10 posts in total and marked with 10 rep points, but when I look at their posts I don't see any flags at all. How come?

In the old days you used to get 10 points for signing up. Perhaps this person fell under that category.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

...now think they cause more harm than good

If you downvote someone they may not like it but things move on.

If you explain why they are being an ass for example, you get a lot of off-topic conversation as they defend themselves, you counter, etc. Now THAT will generate hard feelings.

I don't think it is too much for us to bear to accept a bit of anonymous criticism along with the anonymous trophies. 

[exchemist]

56 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'll dig a bit deeper today, but many of the red & green points given in recent politics threads aren't from participants in the thread. To me, these represent the "Hear, hear!" and "Boo!" votes from folks who don't really have much to add to what's been said. I'm not sure these are the votes you're concerned about.

Also, I'm watching at least one new person who seems to have a grudge against a long-time member and regularly downvotes them, but the rest of the members have been correcting it with upvotes, so it fell off my radar. This part of the system seems to clean itself fairly well.

For the rest of it, I dislike the idea of a like-only system on a science forum. I know this is social media for lots of members, and the value of positivity in discourse is important, but I don't think any science discussions will be improved by removing any of the tools we use for measurement. 

I'd rather do away with all reputation if you don't like any part of it. It seems wrong to only allow the "Hear, hear!" and not the "Boo!" votes. It wouldn't hurt me or most long-time members. It removes a way for inquisitive newbies to gauge replies from some of our members who've been less than civil but not blatantly so, or who're repeatedly wrong (which isn't against the rules as long as you don't preach), or who argue using any of the annoying habits people regularly get downvoted for. 

 

Yes, I think I'd be in favour of keeping it, so long as we know the mods are monitoring it for abuses, such this person with an apparent grudge.

[Phi for All]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Instead, negative responses with rep tend to come when people post needless personal barbs or act disingenuously… when they seem to be knowingly misrepresenting the position of others

Perhaps important enough for its own thread, but many downvotes seem aimed at repeated fallacies (mostly strawman and ad hom) where exactly this happens. There is a heavy tendency (especially in Politics) to use the argument that if you don't support x, it must mean you support y, and I think folks get tired of correcting such misrepresentations only in rebuttal. 

Repeated use of fallacies is against the rules but probably one of the hardest to be strict about. It's frustrating to discuss anything when you feel your points are misrepresented. Do we need to have some meta-threads about discussion among peers?

55 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If people feel that no system is better, then I'm up for it.

I think no system is worse than this system, but no system is more honest than a like-only system.

58 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Even if it's predominantly outsiders doing it, it's looking more and more like graffiti, in effect, to me. 

I didn't mean to suggest it's predominantly those not involved in the discussion, just that not all the votes are eligible for the "petty weapon" category.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps important enough for its own thread, but many downvotes seem aimed at repeated fallacies (mostly strawman and ad hom) where exactly this happens. There is a heavy tendency (especially in Politics) to use the argument that if you don't support x, it must mean you support y, and I think folks get tired of correcting such misrepresentations only in rebuttal. 

Repeated use of fallacies is against the rules but probably one of the hardest to be strict about. It's frustrating to discuss anything when you feel your points are misrepresented. Do we need to have some meta-threads about discussion among peers?

I think no system is worse than this system, but no system is more honest than a like-only system.

I didn't mean to suggest it's predominantly those not involved in the discussion, just that not all the votes are eligible for the "petty weapon" category.

OK. 

[Peterkin]

I don't use it anymore, except in the rare instance when I cancel a spiteful down-vote to a reasonable post.

Have no real problem with graffiti - it's less intrusive than lavish use of emoticons.

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't use it anymore, except in the rare instance when I cancel a spiteful down-vote to a reasonable post.

Have no real problem with graffiti - it's less intrusive than lavish use of emoticons.

Emoticons send out more information about intent than rep points. That device came about for a reason, namely to address the limits of the written word in online social interactions. Not everyone has your language skill set.

Edited February 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

moticons send out more information about intent than rep points.

I know. But there are sites where the extravagant use of them, in multiples, is mere display and conveys no information. Also, the sneaky addition of a smiling coin to a personal slur is annoying, no matter who does it to whom. I can live with both - I can bear a level of annoyance with equanimity . 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I know. But there are sites where the extravagant use of them, in multiples, is mere display and conveys no information. Also, the sneaky addition of a smiling coin to a personal slur is annoying, no matter who does it to whom. I can live with both - I can bear a level of annoyance with equanimity . 

I had a hunch after that you were talking about other forums. Yes, less is more.

[Peterkin]

As with the rep points, I make the occasional exception.  

[Arete]

Of course, my SFN rep points go on my CV right next to my H-index, Researchgate score and number of Twitter followers. 

This paper may be of interest - an analysis of toxic interactions on Reddit showed that less than 0.1% of subcommunities generate 38% of hostile interactions, and just under 1% generate over 74% of them. 

[joigus]

I don't find them very useful. The last time I used them, I regretted it. I thought about reverting it. Then I saw another member already had. I don't think I'll used them much, except on account of uncivil behaviour.

[swansont]

The fact that some people complain quite vociferously about getting negative rep means that it has an effect, so there is some hope that it might make people think a little about what they post. 

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

In the old days you used to get 10 points for signing up. Perhaps this person fell under that category. 

Yes. I think that was also tied in with the system that doled out rep points weighted by your own rep, so that a new member would have some amount of clout if they wanted to up- or down-vote. But as iNow noted, there were a few of us whose quantum of reputation grew to be quite large, so that system was abandoned.

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you downvote someone they may not like it but things move on.

Except when they complain about the downvote, which happens, and can become a distraction.

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you explain why they are being an ass for example, you get a lot of off-topic conversation as they defend themselves, you counter, etc. Now THAT will generate hard feelings.

The staff would prefer that posts that are over the line get reported so these tangents are minimized (not that modnotes always stop the tangents, but it often helps to do so)