Karma Function Removed

[Allhallowsday]

It seems as though several members have already made comments that my leaving had to do with the karma issue, and, being that the karma is presently gone, that somehow means that I can become a member again; neither is the case.

I came on this board and provided an explanation for the sole purpose that Andrew had thought that I was upset with him, and that was not the case, and it was my responsibility to clear it up.

I did that, and anybody is simply going to believe what they want to believe; and it's not going to make an ounce of difference one way or another.

Hmmm... hindsight is 20/20.  If you weren't angry with Andrew (which he suspected at the time) and you weren't upset about getting knocked by "ten" members, then why can't you rejoin us?  Afterall, you are a member in everyway but in name. 

[Menard]

It seems as though several members have already made comments that my leaving had to do with the karma issue, and, being that the karma is presently gone, that somehow means that I can become a member again; neither is the case.

I came on this board and provided an explanation for the sole purpose that Andrew had thought that I was upset with him, and that was not the case, and it was my responsibility to clear it up.

I did that, and anybody is simply going to believe what they want to believe; and it's not going to make an ounce of difference one way or another.

Hmmm... hindsight is 20/20.  If you weren't angry with Andrew (which he suspected at the time) and you weren't upset about getting knocked by "ten" members, then why can't you rejoin us?  Afterall, you are a member in everyway but in name. 

I never said I wasn't upset at getting knocked ten times (I doubt it was ten separate members) over a troll. There was a lot more going on and it sure as hell didn't help; but I explained that and really don't need to explain myself any further.

Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves whatever you all want to believe.

[ghouck]

(I doubt it was ten separate members)

Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves whatever you all want to believe.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it were ten different people, but, as you say, feel free to discuss whatever you want to believe.

[KYGOTC]

Hmmm... hindsight is 20/20.  If you weren't angry with Andrew (which he suspected at the time) and you weren't upset about getting knocked by "ten" members, then why can't you rejoin us?  Afterall, you are a member in everyway but in name. 

Yes, Menard. Join us. There is no greater healer than UNITY. Join uuusss....JOOOIIINNNUUUSSSS. Do not fight uuusss....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zWAPTZ4KmUU

[AndyC]

I'm glad I get so much respect, then surreptitiously get called a p***y.

More of a hypocrite than a p***y, really. 

I do appreciate that the phrase "with all due respect" usually means that something decidedly disrespectful is coming, but in this case, it only means you are OK, but I disagree with you on this.

You see, Menard, your position on criticism reminds me of my first editor. The guy was opinionated as hell, to the point where he was essentially run out of the business. His biggest problem was dealing with differing opinions. If readers did what they were supposed to do, and put their criticism into letters for publication, he would always add his own response. These people would be ripped to shreds in a notation that would, in many cases, be longer than the letter it was responding to, and a lot more personal. He owned the paper, and he always got the last word, until, as I mentioned, he was run out of town after about 25 years of this. That part is complicated and beside the point, but long before that, people just stopped writing unless they agreed with him or happened to be writing about some bland subject that wasn't worth debating.

The point here, and ghouck has expressed something similar, is that one cannot demand that others express themselves openly, while at the same time making them afraid to do so. That is the act of a coward and a bully, and yes, a hypocrite.

I'm sitting here thinking I'm putting myself in line for a huge round of insults just for posting this, but I also think the point needs to be made. Bear in mind that I stick my neck out in print for a living, so this is not suggesting the average poster will overcome intimidation so easily for the sake of making a point. What you have created, Menard, is a situation where people are afraid to offer you the open criticism you demand.

[SynapticBoomstick]

People will always find a way to abuse features, it seems :-/. So somebody was running around randomly booing people That's not a sign of immaturity, surely. Or was it a glitch? I went from 32 to something like 22 in a minute. Weird.

[Kester Pelagius]

I had no idea this was such a hot button issue, much less that it was being abused.  Then again I rarely paid much attention to karma and rarely ever used the feature.  I mean you reply to a message then have to go find it again to give karma.  That's just too much >YAAaaaWwwN< work.

If someone does not have the balls to speak their mind, voting anonymously behind someone's back makes them no less of a p***y<...>

Are you suggesting their is something wrong with our system of anonymous voting?  Hmm.  Funny how the RL issues of voting machines that don't leave paper trails is much the same problem that Bad Movies had with Karma.  There's irony for you.

[Rev. Powell]

I'm at work and I've only skimmed the posts so sorry if this has been brought up.  Is there a way to disable negative karma and only have positive karma points? If possible, this could very well be a happy medium.  For example, if you don't like a post, don't give them karma and voice your opinion. 

This was my thought precisely.  Seems like no one has problems with positive karma; it's only the "boo" function that causes people to sometimes act like children.  How about it, Andrew, is that a software option?

[Menard]

I'm glad I get so much respect, then surreptitiously get called a p***y.

More of a hypocrite than a p***y, really. 

I do appreciate that the phrase "with all due respect" usually means that something decidedly disrespectful is coming, but in this case, it only means you are OK, but I disagree with you on this.

You see, Menard, your position on criticism reminds me of my first editor. The guy was opinionated as hell, to the point where he was essentially run out of the business. His biggest problem was dealing with differing opinions. If readers did what they were supposed to do, and put their criticism into letters for publication, he would always add his own response. These people would be ripped to shreds in a notation that would, in many cases, be longer than the letter it was responding to, and a lot more personal. He owned the paper, and he always got the last word, until, as I mentioned, he was run out of town after about 25 years of this. That part is complicated and beside the point, but long before that, people just stopped writing unless they agreed with him or happened to be writing about some bland subject that wasn't worth debating.

The point here, and ghouck has expressed something similar, is that one cannot demand that others express themselves openly, while at the same time making them afraid to do so. That is the act of a coward and a bully, and yes, a hypocrite.

I'm sitting here thinking I'm putting myself in line for a huge round of insults just for posting this, but I also think the point needs to be made. Bear in mind that I stick my neck out in print for a living, so this is not suggesting the average poster will overcome intimidation so easily for the sake of making a point. What you have created, Menard, is a situation where people are afraid to offer you the open criticism you demand.

I'm lots of things; probably some of them are even bad.

Seems like standing up for oneself or others has become bad.

Despite what all I may or may not be, I am not the admin of this forum; I'm not even a member.

A comparison of me to an opinionated editor may well be fine, but the main variable here is that this is not my forum; I hold nothing over anybody else who comes on here, and even less being, as I mentioned, that I am not a member.

Hypocrite?

A$$hole? (goddamn censoring)

Jerk?

I'm certain that if we all put our heads together that we could come up with a never ending list of words to describe me.

If I state my opinion about something, well, that is me being me, and being a person; whether any of you want to give me that particular credit or not.

If someone thinks it is unfair of me to state my opinion and call anonymous snipes pussies, I'm wondering how so? I'm in no position to do anything to them.

If someone takes offense to me calling them a p***y, being that I only used the term void of identity, then how did they come to decide that I meant them?


Sheeesh....I started quite a few sentences consecutively with if; poor composition on my part.

[Andrew]

I'm at work and I've only skimmed the posts so sorry if this has been brought up.  Is there a way to disable negative karma and only have positive karma points? If possible, this could very well be a happy medium.  For example, if you don't like a post, don't give them karma and voice your opinion. 

This was my thought precisely.  Seems like no one has problems with positive karma; it's only the "boo" function that causes people to sometimes act like children.  How about it, Andrew, is that a software option?

Unfortunately, it is not.  The available options do not give the ability to restrict karma to positive only.

People will always find a way to abuse features, it seems :-/. So somebody was running around randomly booing people That's not a sign of immaturity, surely. Or was it a glitch? I went from 32 to something like 22 in a minute. Weird.

You were one of the targets of the latest abuse problem.

[Patient7]

I just want to point out the silver lining, now we can say whatever we want without people being able to punish us through a points system; don't push it though, Andrew can still ban you.

[AndyC]

Menard, you might have no official status on this board, but you are a very active member in all ways that count. I'd even go as far as calling you a self-appointed mod, meaning that as a compliment, of course. Standing up and expressing yourself the way you do doesn't make you bad - far from it - but it does make you considerably more than "not even a member." You might not be signed up, but you have status on this board nonetheless.

Personally, I've had no problem with you. I wasn't around for the final Wyrewizard blow-up, but seeing as I couldn't stand the little twerp, I probably would have expressed disappointment that anyone would criticize you for unloading on him. You call a troll a troll. What's not to support?

I also have to agree that you had every right to be mad at seeing your karma drop as far as it did. Even if karma meant nothing to you, the intention of the culprits was to do harm, however petty. Guys who hand out a lot of bad karma and don't speak their minds are pussies. On that, we agree. In my business, I've had to deal with bad gossip in a community where I lived and worked. Comes with the job, but it's still disgusting.

The only point I have to make is that you are not the guy to be telling people to express their criticism up front. You might not believe it, Menard, but the prospect of arguing with you is scary. The expectation I have is no holds barred and no quarter given, with a generous dollop of biting sarcasm. I'm not suggesting you change, but you need to realize that most people don't want set themselves up for that.

I agree with you, but what you advocate would be difficult where you are concerned. I also just want to emphasize again that people are no less p**sed off if they don't express it. Getting rid of the karma only masks a problem I'd rather be aware of. I'm not taking any sides here. I just want people to be honest with themselves.

[AndyC]

Unfortunately, it is not.  The available options do not give the ability to restrict karma to positive only.

I guess it wouldn't be karma if it didn't cut both ways. Still, paying small compliments was the most practical use of the system. You could just go through and hand out karma for every clever comment without cluttering up the board with a lot of compliments that aren't quite worth making a post. I used to hand karma out like candy, but only posted a compliment when I really, really enjoyed something. Without the positive karma, I lose the ability to pay those little compliments.

[Mr. DS]

I guess it wouldn't be karma if it didn't cut both ways. Still, paying small compliments was the most practical use of the system. You could just go through and hand out karma for every clever comment without cluttering up the board with a lot of compliments that aren't quite worth making a post. I used to hand karma out like candy, but only posted a compliment when I really, really enjoyed something. Without the positive karma, I lose the ability to pay those little compliments.

I agree with you on this front Andy C.  I think thats what made the karma system cool was knowing someone thought something you said was entertaining or insightful to them.  I neither am going to go through and post something like "Wow Andy C, you have amused me with your response" every time you say something funny.  Nor would I say it out loud if I talked to you on the street.  As for this board, it would just result in personal conversations on a board full of contributors.   

Granted I agree with those who feel that negative karma should be replaced by "speaking your mind" in so many words.  Still, out of how many of the thousands of posts made is there really such a confrontation showing up?  (Well aside the political posts.)  Most of the posts consists of stuff that we like and people's feelings on the subject which are most of the time well though out and respectful responses.  Although some may disagree, there is a lot of respect among the users of this board and maturity.  I don't come here for a war of words and have no clue why anyone else would. 

The positive karma was simple much like a laugh in real life.  Thats what I liked about it. 

[Menard]

The only point I have to make is that you are not the guy to be telling people to express their criticism up front. You might not believe it, Menard, but the prospect of arguing with you is scary. The expectation I have is no holds barred and no quarter given, with a generous dollop of biting sarcasm. I'm not suggesting you change, but you need to realize that most people don't want set themselves up for that.

I agree with you, but what you advocate would be difficult where you are concerned. I also just want to emphasize again that people are no less p**sed off if they don't express it. Getting rid of the karma only masks a problem I'd rather be aware of. I'm not taking any sides here. I just want people to be honest with themselves.

There was a store manager in a retail with which I worked that I respected very much. One of his management techniques was what I refer to as 'a line in the sand' (call it 'this far and no further if you like).

The first time I approached him to get something, I forget what, he bluntly and almost abrasively denied it.

Later, he approached me, quite differently this time with a characteristic smile and charming attitude.

I had realized, at some point, what he was doing: he would first set a boundary, then invite you over that line, so long as you know where the drawing line is.

I am not comparable to him in his technique, but I do have a tendency to set boundaries up front. Of course, there is a thin line that must not be crossed; and that is humanity must be present, or else it is just abuse.

Sometimes I will p**s someone off (sometimes it happens a lot), to get a better idea of where they stand. Whether it is being p**sed off or being enamored with something, when someone is emotional they are passionate, and they are generally honest in their passion which gives me a better idea of where they stand.

I have used this technique on this board...err...at least once (ahem) to find out where someone is coming from. I did this in a thread about a particular film where I disagreed with them, but I wanted to know more of the basis of their opinion so I pushed them; and then smoothed things out when I got what I wanted.

Andrew just took it, and stated so, that sometimes I come off with too strong of an opinion up front. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I'm working the conversation; but you'll never know which one it is.

One thing I never do is manipulate someone for my own entertainment. To me, that devalues a person to simply something less, and is simply lacking in humanity. WyreWizard and Lester are both good at starting something for their own entertainment. At least Lester does contribute in other areas (I was going to say something else, but I'll leave it at that).

People, though, are not born to be pussies or a$$holes (goddamn censoring again). People adapt. If given an easy way out of something, and it works for them, they will often take it; some of us simply prefer the challenge of overcoming something.

The karma system did not exist on the forum for years and people expressed themselves; perhaps not to the degree with which I express myself, but they nonetheless expressed themselves. Ash was always good at pushing buttons, and everybody was always good at pushing back; now they push a Boo or Applaud button instead.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll certainly acknowledge credence in your opinion, but i believe that several people who would otherwise use the karma system would be likely to comment without one.

This may sound contrary to what I have been saying, though, but I do also believe that if the karma system is reinstated that it should have the option of plus and negative votes and that it should not require a comment if someone so chooses. It's just my opinion that someone has the right to both express dissent, and to do it anonymously if they so choose.

Saul D. Alinsky would have been proud of that last statement.