Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
There is a limit of only 3 negative votes per day - hardly shotgun. Also, Ken has already mentioned that he has reversed some negative votes and applied them to the voter.

Reversed negative votes get applied to the one who gave it?  I missed that little bit of detail.  That, in my opinion, is a great way to curb the click-happy people.

I disagree with leaving a reason for the No vote.  If I'm handing out a bad vote, it would be for an obvious infraction.  If something is borderline, I won't give a no vote.  And I would hope it would be obvious enough that Ken/Gerri would understand why I voted the way I did.

Plus, Ken/Gerri have enough to do without having to start reading a bunch of notes from disgruntled users.  People said this system was a waste of Ken's time that could have been spent on improving the program.  I don't see how how we can help this by giving him more work to do.

Finally, if I just have to speak my mind, I'm always welcome to send Ken/Gerri a PM to give additional input or explain my vote.  In turn they have the ability to contact us if they have a question about something.

This is Ken's/Gerri's tool to help them moderate the place.  It's not up to us to determine how much data they need to do the job.  If they discover that they need more input, Ken will add that feature.  As long as he doesn't, I'll continue to assume he's getting enough data to do the job he wants to do.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
I disagree with leaving a reason for the No vote.  If I'm handing out a bad vote, it would be for an obvious infraction.  If something is borderline, I won't give a no vote.  And I would hope it would be obvious enough that Ken/Gerri would understand why I voted the way I did.

That's for you.  Your no votes could be quite clear.  But it doesn't mean that everybody will vote the way you vote.  I've received a negative vote because someone didn't like a joke I made about politics (and that vote was eventually removed).

I highly doubt I will ever give negative feedback unless someone draws the line with a personal attack which I don't see happening.  But if I find what someone says helpful and of a benefit to me I will give positive feedback.  Unless maybe I miss understand the feedback system (but that's what I get from being gone so long).

Quoting kahless:

Quote:


What could be changed?
At the moment it's possible to give reputation votes anonymous and without any justification. I think it would be a good idea to proceed like votings on contributions. A reason for a yes vote is optional, a reason for a no vote is a must! And we we do not hide behind an anonymous voting system, we would like to see the names of the voters.

I second this!

I think it would be a good idea to have this option. It is unfair to the original poster (or a responder) to not know what upset the person who leaves a negative. How is anyone suppose to learn from their mistakes if they do not know what they are. Maybe by reading what someone feels was not acceptable, the original poster (or responder) can think about what they said and maybe realize that what they said may have been out of line. It could even instigate an apology at times.

An option on the yes vote would also be nice. Would be nice to hear what the voter felt was a good point in what you said. People like to get an "atta boy" from time to time. It keeps their spirits up.

All in all I am totally pleased with the system the way it is right now. I personally have seen a change in the way posts are being answered. There are still people who may not agree with what has been said in a post, but the big difference is that they are responding to it in a very civil manner ... which is what I think Ken's original reason for instituting this might have been.

Mark
.

Quoting kahless:

Quote:

we mostly speak other languages. For me peronally it's very hard to understand every verbal side blow. And on the other hand I'm not able to translate all my thoughts accurate in a foreign language.

You made your point very clear though. :D

Actually I don't see a lot of linguistic difficulties in most fights.
Yes, there are misunderstandings, but it seems to me they oftentimes depend on individual assumptions and attitudes, rather than on language. ;D
BTW, there are fights between English native speakers as well as with non native speakers. I don't think different languages are a real issue here.

Hi Guys,

Many great points here, I particularly like Kahless & Skip's thinking here.

Quote:
I've not given a negative yet, but I can imagine giving them for:
- being rude (e.g. telling someone to shut up, "maybe you should learn how to read", etc.)
- outright insults
- persistent hostility (e.g. "I'd expect that from YOU")
- deliberate attempts to derail a discussion / question
- excessive repetition where there should be evolution (e.g. I have no argument, so I'm just going to say my opinion lots)

Giving negative votes is NOT going to change the posting style of the offender! Your 'NO' vote only allows the voter to anonymously vent his/her frustration. Your behavior here should be the same, as your public behavior. Someone displaying, the above quoted behavior, would be looked at as immature  & ignored; up until the police need to be called.

My choice is "NO" NO voting, only positive, regardless!

As Always Take Care
Rico

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Guys,

Many great points here, I particularly like Kahless & Skip's thinking here.

Quote:
I've not given a negative yet, but I can imagine giving them for:
- being rude (e.g. telling someone to shut up, "maybe you should learn how to read", etc.)
- outright insults
- persistent hostility (e.g. "I'd expect that from YOU")
- deliberate attempts to derail a discussion / question
- excessive repetition where there should be evolution (e.g. I have no argument, so I'm just going to say my opinion lots)

Giving negative votes is NOT going to change the posting style of the offender! Your 'NO' vote only allows the voter to anonymously vent his/her frustration. Your behavior here should be the same, as your public behavior. Someone displaying, the above quoted behavior, would be looked at as immature  & ignored; up until the police need to be called.

My choice is "NO" NO voting, only positive, regardless!

As Always Take Care
Rico

But the point is that giving negative votes will change the behaviour of the original poster - it can stop them being able to post at all.

Giving a negative vote should be viewed like reporting the post to Ken/Gerri. They have just automated it so that whereas with other forums the post would have to be reviewed before any action was taken, here we have the possibility that is many report the post then action is taken automatically against the poster.

On other forums I have reported posts and within 1-2 mins have seen the offending post/thread stopped - but that relies on having enough moderators to carry out that role.