Member's "confidence" factor

[sereneiders]

I've seen people around that in some way or another disrupt the way the board is supposed to work.

1) Trolls like Golfer (see his Risk post) -who has been banned, I know-.

2) People who have little or no experience and provides advice driven by their own fears and prejudices, soemthing that would be fair if they were telling something about their (lack of) experience that you can know only by checking other previous posts they made (thus misleading the reader).

3) People using the forum to build up their own realm to feed their personal tastes and cravings, as if they were roleplaying a story with the unaware participation of the rest of the members. See my post at Mogambo's My wife is addicted to gangbang. What should i do? thread and compare it with his previous thread where he posted a completelly different story going around the same issue. This tread wasted the time of 40 members honestly willing to provide asistance!

I am worried because:

a) These people's posts may misslead the newcomers and the people coming here becaus of feeling curiosity about swinging, where they have no way to "weight" each poster oppinion.

b) They become disrespectfull with the rest of the members who, either waste time taking them seriously enough to answer back, or have to waste even more time reading other posts as to ensure they're serious (gathering a knowledge about the poster that cannot be registered, nor shared with the other members to avoid them wasting their time again). After noticing they were fooled a couple of times, members may refrain to post valuable oppinions, thus, undermining the forum purpose

I believe this could be addressed in a collaborative fashion among members, in a way that also may help Julie and her collaborators to save time (for example, traking the forum activity to ban some people, to join threads, and so forth), should the forum provide a couple of tools resembling the ones from sites devoted to sellers/buyers communities in where the members can qualify other's members behavior.

I guess this forum software is a packaged standard forum one, with a set of features to enable or disable by means of configuration, and that the meant feature isn't likely to be part of the current package, hence, unless programmed from the scracth it would be hard to implement. But here's the idea, anyway, in case of something like this were there.

The idea is, in each member's profile to have a "confidence factor", just a number that would be there beyond the member's control. As today we're able to "vote" threads (which is being seen as a group o stars in the threads lists), for the remaining members to be able to provide "positive" and "negative" votes on the member "confidence", that would be averaged as each member's "confidence factor", and, as we can see the registration date and number of posts a member has, next to their posts, we should be able to see this "confidence factor" (and perhaps with an icon that let us indetify it at first glance, red in the confidence factos goes under certain threshold, blue if it's normal or for newcomers, and green when it goes above another threshold), thus allowing the members to share the knowledge gathered about every one of us with the entire community.

Of course, this would require a responsible use from the members, and perhaps, as to be able to vote on the confidence factors, members would have to "prove their membership" by means of amount of times and amount of posts (i.e. after X months of being registered with an average of no less than Y posts per month, and with a confidence factor over certain threshold aquired in that period).

It would be good if, when voting the confidence factor for a member, the voter were having to add a comment (perhaps addressing the posts that justify the oppinion), as for the administrators to be able to disregard certain votes, and for the voter to have the option of making them public. This way, the member's profile would have the confidence factor and a list of comments made by other members (which would affect their own confidence factor as well once read by the community).

It should be clearly stated that this confidence ratio isn't meant to tell who's best swinger" nor who's "more experienced", insthead whose posts deserve attention because the community use to appreciate the posters oppinions, and whose posts deserves either a second tought or to be disregarded because the community criticized the posters oppinions before. And for the poster, both his/her own confidence ratio and the comments made by other members about his/her posts quality would provide an aid on how to improve his/her attitude inside the board.

Before proposing this feature I'd like to know other members oppinions, because I am aware something like this could become problematic if being used in the wrong way (for example, giving negative votes for someone just because you disagree with his/her oppinions or mindset, or you just dislike the guy), thus, besides the adventages, this could turn into a really bad idea.

[Chicup]

While I agree with you, I think we can leave it up to the intelligence of the reader to figure it out.

I do get amused when people who have yet to swing try to give advice on swinging, and the wierdos are quite annoying, but as long as we have a core of good posters, a smart reader can figure out who to listen to and who not to.

[DBL D]

I think you're right Chicup...We already know what everyones number is, mainly by how often they post. It doesn't take long to see who is on track and who isn't. (Now...Are we on H.O. or narrow gage tracks?)

I ain't the smartest guy here but enjoy posting my thoughts, some of which are personal and not couple oriented, but if I were to get a number like a 2 or a 3 I would feel like someone had missed something, but there would be nothing I could do about it. I would be labeled for the duration. I think we should stay away from that and allow people to make their own individual judgements upon us.

Male D

[JustAskJulie]

We discussed an option similar to what you are suggesting a while back and basically decided that it would not be worthwhile. All it takes is for someone to decide they don't like someone to bump their "rating" down a few notches. And few people would probably participate.

We do, however, have an option where you can rate a thread. If you feel a thread isn't really worth looking at, rate it so, if you feel it's a great thread that everyone should read then rate it so.

As both Chicup & DBL D said, we are all pretty good judges and anyone who takes the time to read mroe than just one or two posts will quickly figure out who is a trustworthy source of information/opinion.

[intuition897]

Originally Posted by Chicup

While I agree with you, I think we can leave it up to the intelligence of the reader to figure it out.

I agree, Chicup. I think that it is inevitible that the board will evolve somewhat as people come and go. It's a fairly fluid environment, with a few good anchors (not the same kind of "anchor" that the Spoomonkeys were talking about, eh?) that keep the board from over-evolving by providing good examples to follow, and by urging everyone to behave civilly and show some class. One of the things I love here is that even the ugliest threads are handled with as much tact, diplomacy and grace as possible, and it is not acceptable to allow the thread to dissolve into useless I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I duels. Good behaviour is praised, but one can expect to be chastised for tastelessness, rudeness, maliciousness and general classlessness. I think the difference is that here the code of conduct is enforced not because the mods are on a power trip or out of a sense of self-righteousness, but because they really, truly believe that it makes for a more productively communicative environment when everyone simply treats others the way they'd like to be treated. Simple stuff, folks! They teach this rule in kindergarten.

The trouble with over-moderating the board is that, while we might find some posts offensive, they do serve a purpose: they give very clear examples of how NOT to behave. The responses that these folks get for their stupidity sets the tone for the board. And if we start pruning and culling and weeding, we run the risk of inflating our egos, thereby making the mistake of thinking that we know enough to judge for everyone who reads the board what is or is not right. Mods are only human, eh? It's much safer, and much more correct, to stick to the simplest of rules: does this post hurt anyone? Does it endanger anyone, or put them at risk? Is it highly intrusive, and does it disrupt the board? And while a little disruption now and then keeps things interesting, if it becomes apparent that someone is here to intentionally cause discord, then that is company we can do without. We're all here for the good company, after all, not to be pissed off by someone with a negative agenda.

[Sweet_Candy]

We would agree that letting the cards fall where they may is the best approach. There is no stupid question . . . well maybe. Ok there isn't but you do wonder at times. Censureship is a slippery path to be avoided. We like the fluid dynamics of the forums as they are.

[sereneiders]

Sweet_Candy, my proposal has nothing to do with censorship, but to give a clue on the oppinion the community have about everyone of the posters.

Julie remarked the point leading me to ask for the oppinions. As she said, there are drawbacks, either the example she gave, or (as I was thinking afterwards) this could lead to a bargain of scores among members (if you rate me good, I'll do the same).

The problem here is that there doesn't seems to exist a way to avoid the drawbacks, and not the ranking itself, nor the meaning.

DBL_D made another point that I didn't tought, about the perception of having every oppinion rated that could prevent people from just sharing their toughts without too much care about the consecuences. I didn't tought this would be a vote to be done for every post people does, I tought of it as "oh, this is a sound advice, let's give it a thumbs up (that would increase this guy score)", or "mmmm, this is bulshit, let's give it a thumbs down", and the vote wouldn't be seen as a per post basis, insthead as an average of the thumbs up/thumbs down given, where it'd turn "red" when it drops below, let say -150 notches, and green if it goes over +150 notches up, and perhaps limiting the amount of notches a member can "move" from another member in, let say, one month, to 5, so it would require 30 members in a month, giving 5 thumbs down each one to push the score under the "red" threshold, that would be, you'd have to screw it up big time, and under many members oppinion, to get your red flag. And the red flag wouldn't forbid you to post, nor ban you, just it would appear next to your post as to warn people about the overall oppinion the community have as to take this into account when reading your post.

I am well aware of people who use to be controversial, even when they provide very clever oppinions that deserve to be read. The purpose isn't to give a thumbs down just because you disagree, but because the poster is missleading the readers, is trolling around, or is being disrespectfull with other people and/or with the forum goals, something pertaining to the form and not with the contents. In any case, if just when I an bringing this subject people understand the contents is what would be judged insthead of the form, it is pretty evident that it would be too hard to set up a premise understandable to every member on how to use such a feature.

I'd like to point out that even when we may keep relying on our hability to figure out who's who, our preception of this hability become a wishfull thinking. One of the examples I gave proves this, since 40 members answered a thread posted by a faker. I gess many more just read it, several ones realized this guy posted the same before and decided to avoid wasting time themselves, but lacking a way to warn others to avoid wasting their time, 40 members didn't paid attention (they shouldn't have to pay attention) and answered the post. If there wasn't a waring about a related thread from the same poster two years ago as one of the first answers, even myself would have been providing advice to someone who's using our time to jack off. And the one who warned about the same thread said "it seems you keep having the same problem", without realizing both threads where telling a different story about a wife turning into a "whore". If people were having the chance to give a thumbs down with just a click insthead of having to answer (something you have to read in the middle of the discussion), after several thumbs down the remaining members would had seen the red flag as a warning against the poster, and they could devote their time to answer a more serious post.

Thus, it seems to me many of us doesn't have this hability we supposedly have, and if this happens to us after being around periodicaly and for a long time, what should we expect from the newcomer?

So, I am pretty sure it would be nice to have something like this feature, and that this doesn't have to do with censorship, the problem would come from the drawbacks pertaining to the missuse of such a feature. Even when I may claim the same responsability and hability that today we require as to deal with these issues in the forum would be the same required to make a good use of such a feature, it seems we cannot figure out the scope of the drawbacks, and we figure out enough drawbacks as to understand the risks doesn't justify the benefits.

But if we agree the problems have to do with the drawbacks, it would be a matter of figuring out the ways to prevent them from happening, should this be feasible somehow, as to turn a bad idea into a good one. So I guess this deserve to be put on hold, until someone else come back here with a similar proposal and a brighter idea on how to make it possible.

[intuition897]

I've seen this member rating system used on other boards, and it has turned into a circus. People threatening to "red flag" another member, people giving negative ratings to others without fully reading the post, or just to spite them. It became a weapon. Now we have some pretty good people on here, and I doubt it would be used as such, but I have to wonder if it's just one more "moving part" in the machinery that isn't actually needed, or worse, just one more moving part to maintain and worry about breaking?

[sereneiders]

Originally Posted by intuition897

I've seen this member rating system used on other boards, and it has turned into a circus. People threatening to "red flag" another member, people giving negative ratings to others without fully reading the post, or just to spite them. It became a weapon. Now we have some pretty good people on here, and I doubt it would be used as such, but I have to wonder if it's just one more "moving part" in the machinery that isn't actually needed, or worse, just one more moving part to maintain and worry about breaking?

Yep, I already agreed with this and changed my mind about this feature.

What I said is the already knowm machinery is breakable, wich also mean that in the future someone could bring up with a new machinery able to fit our needs without the drawbacks (of course, this would have to be tested, let say, in another forum before being proposed here). Until then, I understand the benefits doesn't worth the risks involved.

I also pointed out that some arguments doesn't seem to stand for themselves, regarding our supposed hability to deal with the mentioned problems as being enough. They aren't, and because of this I posted this thread.

Having a problem that doesn't have a solution doesn't mean it isn't a problem, even when you may say it doesn't worth the time to keep looking at the problem since currently it isn't anyoing enough for us as to try to solve it. So I'll stick to the motto "if you have a problem that doesn't has a solution, why to worry? and if it has a solution, why to worry?", where we're facing the first case.

[Sweet_Candy]

Originally Posted by intuition897

I've seen this member rating system used on other boards, and it has turned into a circus. People threatening to "red flag" another member, people giving negative ratings to others without fully reading the post, or just to spite them. It became a weapon.

This is the kind of censureship that I didn't articulate fully that we should avoid. Thanks Intuition.

[sereneiders]

Originally Posted by Sweet_Candy

This is the kind of censureship that I didn't articulate fully that we should avoid. Thanks Intuition.

Again, that wasn't the meant idea. It seems to me you're thinking of a system where just one guy can put a red flag on another one, and if this were the idea, I'd be the first to agree this could correlate with censorship.

But, ff you require at least 30 (or 60, or 150) members to impose a red flag, it's supposed the isolated attitudes of this sort that some member may have shouldn't have to affect the outcome, since the remaining ones would leverage, and it's likely that the ones having this sort of attitude will end up flagged first. To become a weapon it would require 30 (or 60, or 150) guys from the community to act in accordance to pull the trigger. If someone manages to upset 30 members with his/her posts, as to use this as a weapon, the more likely that this one would aslo manage to call Julie's attention and end up being banned way before they have the chance to pull the trigger.

Notice, BTW, that the administrator right to ban someone allows him/her to impose a censorship measure, but no one of us deem to claim the use of banning as censorship so far. This is because the word censorship have a negative conotation, and most of us agree with Julie wisdom when she use this right she have. I feel it would be anoying for Julie if someone deemed banning as a censorship mechanism, even if it POTENTIALLY could be used this way, because we KNOW the banning isn't meant to be used this way by her.

The same happens here, such a mechanism could POTENTIALLY be used as censorship, but is not mont meant to be used this way.

Deeming the idea as censorship mechanims impose a negative prejudice against it, and against my intentions when I bring the idea. I could even claim, backed on the Godwin's Law that awaking a negative prejudice by means of associating the word "censorship" to my original proposal is a very effective way to impose a censorship to my idea.

I already agreed the idea doesn't seem to be feasible because there are risks involved that doesn't seem to worth the price. Up to to me, "censorship" doesn't seem to be one of these risks.

Comming from a place in the world were we suffered censorship big time, where my generation fought against censorship and won the battle (to the point where I dare to claim today we have way more freedom of speech than the one people have in the USA), I regret the intention to peg my ideas to any form of censorship.

[LOL_OMG]

I believe that your proposal is flawed. This board is about information, and even if a troll comes by and inserts something rediculous...it's dealt with by the eloquent posts of the daily users. People with half a brain and common sense can sort out the craziness from the sanity.

I also take exception to the fact that some people are not as experienced as others. There are people of many occupations on this board who can contribute to many issues...from legal to medical to psych to family counseling, etc. These people may not have been swinging for years but still can contribute to a subject.

The board belongs to the owners. If they deem something inappropriate or downright hateful they can delete it. I trust JustJulie to do the right thing, and if there is ever any censorship (even of a clickish red flag type) I will leave.

Mrs LOL

[sereneiders]

Originally Posted by LOL_OMG

I also take exception to the fact that some people are not as experienced as others. There are people of many occupations on this board who can contribute to many issues...from legal to medical to psych to family counseling, etc. These people may not have been swinging for years but still can contribute to a subject.

Of course. And as I said before, the sole fact that when discussing the idea of qualifying the FORM and not the CONTENT (i.e. how much a post fits to the frum spirit disregarding the oppinion) the focus is being shifted to the CONTENT alone (as your post suggest) is enough reason to believe such a premise would be really hard to follow for the members.

My comment regarding how experienced someone is has to do with the lack of warning about the poster experience in a post, misleading the reader about this fact. Was never intended to make an elite of posters, nor to censorship anyone because of ANY motivation, just to gather and share the oppions the members have about each other attitude inside the forum, and this information is just that, information, that MAY deserve to be known as much as any other information or experience we share.

Originally Posted by LOL_OMG

The board belongs to the owners. If they deem something inappropriate or downright hateful they can delete it. I trust JustJulie to do the right thing, and if there is ever any censorship (even of a clickish red flag type) I will leave.

"A discussion proceeding on a positivist examination of facts is considered terminated when this objective consideration is transformed into a normative discussion of subjective right and wrong" (from the Wikipedia on the Godwin's Law, since the quoted paragraph turns to be the perfect example for this ransformation).

I really regret the introduction of the term "censorship" here. It perfectly fits the Godwin's Law paradigm on the ways to disrupt and kill a discussion. The negative connotiations this word have are enough to shift the original discussion focus to something unrelated. People read the word and react towards the negative connotation instead of paying attention to the discussion arguments, and the thread digress into this very sort of topics where everyone end up deffending their principles, even when they share them, and I am feeling prosecuted por suposedly deffend ideas going against these principles.

And up to me, this is the factor that would render my original idea into a mess for the board, and not the supposedly "censorship" that someone asumed as the idea purpose insthead of asking me to clarify a point. In any case, we all trend to do so, to give things for granted, to assign intentions to other people insthead of asking about these intentions. Should something like this idea were implemented, it would require just one guy correlating it with a censorship mechanism as to become a mess, and that's enough for me to cahnge my mind about the proposal value.

So, I will end up the discussion right there, by properly fitting Godwin's archetype, in where someone talk about Hittler to trigger the sum of all the negative connotations. I already mentioned him. We're here. There's nothing further to say... If you're not following me, then read the Godwin's Law.

[Sweet_Candy]

sereneiders,

I'm not attacking your idea or your right to promote but I've seen the same system used on other boards and it leads to censorship of ideas consider out of the norm. It also leads to censorship amongst the members when there is a fear of losing ratings verses being popular. Even the troll brings insight to the discussion. Information should be unfettered and by imposing a rating system you've fettered the users thereby you've censured the information. IMHO

[sereneiders]

I double checked because I suspected there could be a different definition for the word censorship in English an in Spanish, and there isn't (for example, see here).

Censorship is the forbidding or banning of information in order to PREVENT it from being known or spread among the members of a community.

This is far from QUALIFYING an oppinion that's is ALLOWED to be known and spread.

I see your point and it's a convincing one (I'd like to know if the way these mechanisms are implemented fits my proposal because it would affect the outcome, but by now it doesn't matter since the discussion already reached the Godwin's Law dead point), wich doesn't mean the word "censorship" fits. Again, it has enough negative connotation as to misslead the reader to believe I proposed a FORBIDING mechanism insthead of a QUALIFYING one.

The use of the word censorship to enhance your point was something unfair.