I get the impression polls are used to influence voter choices.

Does the experience of moderating/administrating Sfn's reputation system generalise to what political strategists might get up to? (at all/ even a bit/ to what extent)?

This is very much an experience question hence the subforum.

 

I'm not sure I follow your question. Could you elaborate a bit more?

How does the reputation system influence how discussions progress, and how easily swayed are they by moderation (modification of rep points removed is not transparent, fro eg)

Hopefully, the rep system, on a per-post basis, does have an effect, otherwise it would be pointless. If a person is being offensive or wrong-headed in some way one would hope that the administration of a red one or two will temper future posts from that person in a more congenial direction. I think all the regular committed members help police for poorly issued rep points and not just the mods. This is not an 'us and them' forum; I don't treat it like that anyway. As far as I'm concerned, we are here to talk about science and the general protocol that goes with it.People only get rollocked or neg repped when they are not conforming in the spirit of this forum's general remit. As far as your OP goes some people probably modify their behaviour and some clearly couldn't care less. .

I suppose my conjecture has to be that people do modify their behaviour based on the rep they get and see others get.

 

So, yeah in most of the science specific subforums the rep system is pretty straightforward. Refer to OP re the other subforums

Edited March 28, 201510 yr by randomc

In Politics, which I don't follow too much here, it seems more of a free-for-all and I suspect people glad-slap with a green one when they agree with someone and not necessarily on the quality of the argument. Objectivity tends to wander more in favour of emotions and ideology; just like real-life I suppose.

well, exactly

Don't get carried away by the Rep Score !

 

It is highly deceptive to say the least !

i'm trying to tap the experience of the people who run the site TBH...

i'm trying to tap the experience of the people who run the site TBH...

 

TBH ?

 

You mean To Be Honest ?

Edited March 28, 201510 yr by Commander

I use rep points to identify particularly good or particularly poor posts. So if a post addresses the topic at hand, provides solid information with supporting evidence, I'll +1 it. If on the other hand, it's generally oft repeated and refuted bunk with no attempt at an original thought or to address a prior refutation, I'll -1 it.

You could say the rep system reinforces the rules, which have evolved to provide a civil place for science discussion. Minimal advertising, we try to avoid personal remarks while offering a critical review, and when asked we want members to provide evidence for their assertions. Many of the reputation points (I'd say most, but I don't have the data to back that up) reflect how well a member does at fostering this atmosphere, making discussions more meaningful and productive.

Don't get carried away by the Rep Score !

 

It is highly deceptive to say the least !

Who do you think is deceiving?

Who do you think they deceive?

i don't like that a mod can pull rank in a thread and then answer same person immediately in another thread. My problem, but still....

So open your own forum where you can make the rules and do whatever you like.

i don't like that a mod can pull rank in a thread and then answer same person immediately in another thread. My problem, but still....

You should understand that a mod is addressing an issue and not the person; it's not personal.

You should understand that a mod is addressing an issue and not the person; it's not personal.

hard not to take it that way...

So open your own forum where you can make the rules and do whatever you like.

he he like you had to do .org

That doesn't really apply here to these circumstances, or even to this particular community at SFN: http://thescienceforum.org/topic3.html

 

Either way, even if it did it does not negate the core message I was sharing with you.