Apokalupsis
March 10th, 2005, 02:23 PM
As many of you know, it's merely a fun, extra feature that doesn't hold that much value (at least to myself, but I know some of you feel otherwise).
But I thought I'd address something that recently came to light using the Rep System.
I've stated before, that the Rep System, in order to have what little value it adds to the community, should be used to rate the quality of post a debator makes. It should not be used to play favorites, nor as a way to constantly "burn" those you regularly disagree with.
I think MOST people here understand and acknowledge the importance of this. However, there are a few, who are still either confused as to what it is used for, or wish to abuse the feature merely because they are upset with another poster.
Here is an example of WHAT to do (in as far as giving out a bad rep rating):
Joe: Apples are red, juicy and yummy.
Bob: Not all apples are red, but I agree that the ones that are yummy are juicy.
Suzie: Apples can be a variety of colors, but none of them are yummy.
Goober: Geez, you guys are gullible. hahahaha It's precious, really, but it's so naive. Let me educate you ill-informed about something here. Fruit grows on trees. There are A LOT more fruits out there than apples! LOL! You guys crack me up. Also, some peaches are quite tasty too! Duh!
Joe: ...
Bob: ...?
Suzie: ...
---
Goober gets a bad rep rating from Bob as a result of such a horrible post that lends nothing to the conversation, is riddled with ad homs, and completely misses the point being made. It's a horrible, horrible post...and is not even a valid argument. It does not address the issues of the op (opening post).
------------------------------------------
What NOT to do (in as far as giving out a bad rep rating):
Same thread, many posts later after the above op (opening post)....
John: So if we want the juciest apples, we must plant an orchard full of "Red Delicious Apples", after all they are the most delicious.
Bob: No, that is just their name. It doesn't mean that they really ARE the most delicious. Being the most delicious is rather subjective.
John: But the other types of red apples have no description about how they taste in their name. This proves that this type of red apple stands out.
Bob: Not true. It's just a name, not necessarily a descriptor of the apple itself. What you are saying is like saying:
"Golden Delicious" apples are the best gold tasting apples. (that they are really made out of gold). Or that "The Winesap Apple" is made from the sap of wine."
The name does not necessarily and literally DESCRIBE the apple. It's just a name.
-------------------
Goober, still holding a grudge and apparently not understanding that his/her post was really all that poor and out of place, gives Bob a "poor rating" on his latest post. The reason?
Puts words in op's mouth then attacks them.
Obviously, this is not true. The op was John, saying "Joe: Apples are red, juicy and yummy."
1) The discussion is much further along NOW.
2) The op was NOT objected to here.
3) The op poster was NOT addressed in the alleged "offending" post that Goober claims to be.
4) Bob's post was in DIRECT response and rebuttal to a claim made by a new particpant in the discussion. Bob wasn't taking the thread off-topic, responding to the op, the op poster, positing a new claim, nor was it shown that Bob was in error, nor was Bob attacking any poster here.
We have 1 of 2 possibilities here. Goober is not qualified to use the Rep System (as he/she appears easily confused as to what a good post and poor post is, as well as what is actually going ON in any given argument), or 2) he/she harbors grudges for those who disagree with Goober, and call Goober out for bad form.
Either way, Goober, has shown himself/herself to be a rather poor debator and has shown that he/she is incapble of discerning between a reasonable or horrible argument.
And yes, the ACTUAL event above took place recently. I've changed the names and the argument as it is not my intention to embarrass or harrass any member. And I have no desire to FORCE any member from not abusing the feature if they so choose to do so (however, there are already automatic measures in place that semi-prevent abuse). If Goober wishes to "come out", Goober certainly may do so, but Goober is not required to by any means.
This thread is to merely show an example of what TO do, and what NOT to do.
Also, if you were the "victim" of any such rep rating instance such a the above (I know there has been more than one - not all by the same Goober character either), try to ignore it, OR challenge the Goober via pm if you like. But please do not contact staff requesting for the reversal of a rating. It won't be done.
But I thought I'd address something that recently came to light using the Rep System.
I've stated before, that the Rep System, in order to have what little value it adds to the community, should be used to rate the quality of post a debator makes. It should not be used to play favorites, nor as a way to constantly "burn" those you regularly disagree with.
I think MOST people here understand and acknowledge the importance of this. However, there are a few, who are still either confused as to what it is used for, or wish to abuse the feature merely because they are upset with another poster.
Here is an example of WHAT to do (in as far as giving out a bad rep rating):
Joe: Apples are red, juicy and yummy.
Bob: Not all apples are red, but I agree that the ones that are yummy are juicy.
Suzie: Apples can be a variety of colors, but none of them are yummy.
Goober: Geez, you guys are gullible. hahahaha It's precious, really, but it's so naive. Let me educate you ill-informed about something here. Fruit grows on trees. There are A LOT more fruits out there than apples! LOL! You guys crack me up. Also, some peaches are quite tasty too! Duh!
Joe: ...
Bob: ...?
Suzie: ...
---
Goober gets a bad rep rating from Bob as a result of such a horrible post that lends nothing to the conversation, is riddled with ad homs, and completely misses the point being made. It's a horrible, horrible post...and is not even a valid argument. It does not address the issues of the op (opening post).
------------------------------------------
What NOT to do (in as far as giving out a bad rep rating):
Same thread, many posts later after the above op (opening post)....
John: So if we want the juciest apples, we must plant an orchard full of "Red Delicious Apples", after all they are the most delicious.
Bob: No, that is just their name. It doesn't mean that they really ARE the most delicious. Being the most delicious is rather subjective.
John: But the other types of red apples have no description about how they taste in their name. This proves that this type of red apple stands out.
Bob: Not true. It's just a name, not necessarily a descriptor of the apple itself. What you are saying is like saying:
"Golden Delicious" apples are the best gold tasting apples. (that they are really made out of gold). Or that "The Winesap Apple" is made from the sap of wine."
The name does not necessarily and literally DESCRIBE the apple. It's just a name.
-------------------
Goober, still holding a grudge and apparently not understanding that his/her post was really all that poor and out of place, gives Bob a "poor rating" on his latest post. The reason?
Puts words in op's mouth then attacks them.
Obviously, this is not true. The op was John, saying "Joe: Apples are red, juicy and yummy."
1) The discussion is much further along NOW.
2) The op was NOT objected to here.
3) The op poster was NOT addressed in the alleged "offending" post that Goober claims to be.
4) Bob's post was in DIRECT response and rebuttal to a claim made by a new particpant in the discussion. Bob wasn't taking the thread off-topic, responding to the op, the op poster, positing a new claim, nor was it shown that Bob was in error, nor was Bob attacking any poster here.
We have 1 of 2 possibilities here. Goober is not qualified to use the Rep System (as he/she appears easily confused as to what a good post and poor post is, as well as what is actually going ON in any given argument), or 2) he/she harbors grudges for those who disagree with Goober, and call Goober out for bad form.
Either way, Goober, has shown himself/herself to be a rather poor debator and has shown that he/she is incapble of discerning between a reasonable or horrible argument.
And yes, the ACTUAL event above took place recently. I've changed the names and the argument as it is not my intention to embarrass or harrass any member. And I have no desire to FORCE any member from not abusing the feature if they so choose to do so (however, there are already automatic measures in place that semi-prevent abuse). If Goober wishes to "come out", Goober certainly may do so, but Goober is not required to by any means.
This thread is to merely show an example of what TO do, and what NOT to do.
Also, if you were the "victim" of any such rep rating instance such a the above (I know there has been more than one - not all by the same Goober character either), try to ignore it, OR challenge the Goober via pm if you like. But please do not contact staff requesting for the reversal of a rating. It won't be done.