Let's all get along shall we?

1. Let's all get along shall we?

   #1

   As we all know we have lost a few few talented writers whom we would no doubt love to hear from again.
   
   I had myself noticed that some of the writers who I'd been following, commenting and voting on had dissapeared over time. At the time I thought nothing of it, thinking merely that they had either move on or had other more pressing matters to deal with in RL.
   
   However, as I found out more recently this isn't the case anymore.
   
   There had been a submission created "The Law of the Hammer" (or similar). Which effectively gave people the ability to vote on your submission with a negative vote, without explaining why.
   
   I know it's original purpose was to stop authors starting lengthy arguments but as I (and a fair few other members) see it, it has if anything given people more rope to annoy/harass by voting really low, without giving any real reason. Making it easy for members that have a grudge against one another to "low-vote" each others submissions out of spite. Which wasn't how the system was intended to work, I don't think.
   
   So instead of ridding the citadel of that "Law", I propose something simpler. A block list.
   
   It would work just like any other block list. With the blocked member not being allowed to vote or comment on your submissions and vica versa.
   
   With this I hope to re-attract some of our "lost" writers. Some of whom I know would like to return, but refuse to do so whilst this "Law" is in effect/there are no alterations made.
   
   Please, discuss.
   
   -Kassandra

2. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #2

   http://strolen.com/viewing/Law_of_the_Hammer
   
   A link to the "Law of the Hammer"

3. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #3

   I understand the sentiment, but to be perfectly honest this shouldn't need to be done, or at least not as anything formal. There are 4 reasons why:
   
   1) Votes are hidden. The entire purpose of having hidden votes is so we don't focus on the vote that was given and instead focus on the comment about the submission. Unfortunately, the system can still be bypassed for the first few voters, thanks to simple math skills, but with more than a few votes, we can no longer see who gave what vote, and so the problem becomes one of disliking the comments.1
   
   2) Voting averages are still 'high': 4 is the new 3, as it were. With a few exceptions, I've noticed a most of the Citadel gives out higher votes for works that they describe in a manner consistent with what a 3 should be (those little labels off to the side aren't just there for show). So I'm not entirely sure there's a need for a blacklist of voters/commenters, simply because the "harassing behavior" doesn't have much effect.
   
   3) Excessively negative comments are already moderated. If it's not constructive, it'll get removed by mods. Disagreeing with a comment (or vote) that someone else makes is part of life in a public forum. When we put our stuff up here, we all know that it's going to be rated and commented on. That's WHY we put it up here. Removing the ability of some members to do so is counter to the purpose of the Citadel; we lose out on any constructive input that could have been given, simply because an author doesn't like the comments being received on their works.
   
   4) If all else fails, we're all adults here (or rather, we treat everyone like an adult and expect them to act like it). If you truly have a disagreement with someone, you can and should talk it out with them. This happened with myself and Ancient Gamer a few years back, and at the time he asked me not to vote or comment on his submissions because he found them nonconstructive and disagreeable. We shouldn't need to institute a block system, simply because the problem isn't widespread (I'm not even sure it's a problem at all anymore), and the individual cases can already be handled by a personal request.
   
   
   1 Back in ye olde days, this wasn't the case. Your vote was displayed right by your comment, and everyone could see it. It was then that the issue first arose, and was a direct reason for hiding them in later versions of the Citadel.

4. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #4

   I joined the citadel just under 4 years ago. I've had subs ranging from HoH's to abysmally scored articles. The majority of my fare gets a very mediocre response from the citadel, which usually favors chrome and literary shine over the capability to actually use material in actual games.
   
   That said, it is absolutely a good feeling to get a sub ranked in the 4-5 range. It's very satisfying to create something others enjoy.
   
   But frankly, I enjoy creating a lot of things that others don't seem to get Strolenites eager to laud me with high votes. (CRTF, anyone?)
   
   I'll continue to do my own thing. Screw the votes, and if someone doesn't like what you're doing (Like, including system-related character statistics in a submission), fuck them. Have your own fun. You know the people who will enjoy your work, and you shouldn't rely on the Citadel as the only medium for them to express their thoughts.

5. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #5

   The early voting issue has come up a lot.
   
   How about not showing the voting scores on the sub till there are at least 3? or another number of your choice. 2 is bad I think.

6. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #6

   
   The early voting issue has come up a lot.
   
   How about not showing the voting scores on the sub till there are at least 3? or another number of your choice. 2 is bad I think.
   

   
   
   The downside is  those subs that only get 2-3 votes will be forever "unvoted" as far as showing up in  a persons profile of "most popular" and what not.
   
   An ignore/block list might not be that bad of an idea really, since if would only effect those who are on someones ignore/block list and generally help encourage people be less twits in general.
   
   (If for example someone continually made dis-barging remarks on peoples subs and generally acted like a dick to people, they would find themselves on multiple peoples black lists over time and then likely reform their attitude, restrain themselves from acting in such a childish manner and hopefully become a valued member of the citadel.)
   
   It would add a layer of control to the citadel, and allow its members to passively deal with unwanted troublemakers without needing to get the admins involved and raise a fuss.
   
   Truth be told no matter where you go in life you run into people you don't get along with. The difference is with the internet those you don't get along with often feel they can get away with a lot more petty revenge then in real life without repercussions. Giving individual Strolenites the ability to deal with such immature people makes life better all around in the citadel, and keeps any of us admins from looking like "bad guys" for taking disciplinary measures.
   
   Besides, just knowing someone can add you to their block list if you act like a jerk to them will likely cut down on such problems on it's own without the black list even needing to be utilized.

7. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #7

   Silveressa couldn't have put it any better.

8. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #8

   
   The downside is  those subs that only get 2-3 votes will be forever "unvoted" as far as showing up in  a persons profile of "most popular" and what not.
   

   
   
   A sad drawback of the solution, but it can be somewhat counteracted by including a sidebar for "minimally voted" submissions, to help them not be forever stuck in limbo (much like unvoted subs).
   
   Or we could set up a few fake initial votes, which are then removed from the list when there are 3 actual votes. Keeping them in the 3-4 range will prevent too much negative effect, and having a random number of them given (2-4 should be sufficient) helps prevent vote-guessing by those that are so inclined.
   
   Any solution we come up with will have trouble; it's just a matter of deciding which trouble we're willing to live with.
   
   

   
   An ignore/block list might not be that bad of an idea really, since if would only effect those who are on someones ignore/block list and generally help encourage people be less twits in general.
   

   
   
   Not to sound disparaging about the idea, but does this actually happen anymore? It obviously happened in the past, but I haven't really noticed anyone being anything even remotely like a twit in their commenting the past few months. Further, is the threat of a blacklist truly necessary just to prevent people from commenting stupidly, or would some other consequence suffice?
   
   We can upvote comments that we find constructive or useful. Why not add a downvote option as well? I seem to remember it being around for comments at one point, but I no longer see it. That would both prevent a blanket muzzling of individuals while also being a much easier implementation for the S-man.
   
   On a more abstract note, would a blacklist REALLY help with the original problem, which is people voting negatively without giving an explanation? We don't show votes anymore. How can you tell that someone is being a jerk with their voting if, by definition, they don't post a negative comment to match the vote?
   
   
   
   This bit is unrelated to Silveressa's comments, but I find myself a bit skeptical that there are actually former members who would be willing to come back, but dislike the ban so much that it's the only thing preventing them from doing so. If it was a blanket ban on all discussion of voting, that might be different, but the Law of the Hammer, as written, is only about critiquing others voting practices. IMO, that's a perfectly reasonable rule to have in place; I can't really think of a reason why anyone should be doing so in the first place, and it DOES degenerate into futility, as described in the post detailing the ban.
   
   Lastly, I'm not entirely sure the Law of the Hammer is the source, or even a major contributing factor, of spiteful voting. I think it's just a consequence of having an open voting and commenting system. We don't require comments on votes, so of course someone can just vote low and not give an explanation for it. That's just how the system works, and the alternatives are even less agreeable (public votes, required comments).

9. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

   #9

   Although I personally don't deem it to be as necessary now.
   
   It will certainly help in getting old authors back. That don't want to whilst it is still in effect.

10. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #10

    It's also a nice preventative measure against future problems from any who might join (or return) that have a talent for stirring up trouble.
    
    As for getting some of the old authors back, I'm all for anything that would encourage more subs and activity around the site (not counting the leeches activities.)

11. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #11

    Just make votes hidden until there are three votes. Keeps the vote guess to a minimum.

12. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #12

    
    Just make votes hidden until there are three votes. Keeps the vote guess to a minimum.
    

    
    
    Doesn't do anything to prevent people with grudges low voting on subs just to be jerks however, which is what the black list would prevent.

13. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #13

    
    Doesn't do anything to prevent people with grudges low voting on subs just to be jerks however, which is what the black list would prevent.
    

    
    
    Presuming you know who to blacklist.

14. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #14

    
    
    Presuming you know who to blacklist.
    

    
    
    Without getting into specifics, I would say anyone who's had disagreements and/or difficulties with someone can tell if those particular issues require a (temporary) blacklist, especially if the problem degenerates into spiteful commentary on ones subs along with immature nit picking and over all disrespect.
    
    Besides, the block is a personal choice and effects none beyond the individual/s the person has a problem with, so has zero negative impact on the rest of the site/users, and would be invisible to everyone else.
    
    If someone is ultra touchy and blocks half the people on Strolens for whatever reason/s they hurt no one but themselves given their subs would remain largely unvoted/commented on; so I fail to see how the black list would be a problem.

15. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #15

    I'm going to be honest here, you make several good points.
    
    I think a Black List is a terrible idea.

16. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #16

    
    I think a Black List is a terrible idea.
    

    
    
    Now you got me curious, how come?

17. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #17

    I agree with scras on the blacklist part... I think it is unneeded or at least an unworkable solution. I for one having been at the forefront of such a situation as you speak of Silver I don't think it is the solution you are looking for. Unfortunately personal favorites will always be here at Strolen's regardless of how many rules or guidelines we put forth, and the more of those you do put into effect the more you chance on losing good authors simply for the headache of it.
    
    Honestly from what I have learned from my very many years here, and unfortunately it arrived a bit to late in the game, if you have an issue with someone or even think you do then confront them via PM and go from there as adults. If it doesn't get resolved then leave each other alone, plain and simple. I know easier said than done but there is no sure fire way to fix any of the personal issues we have via the internet... just my 2 cents.

18. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #18

    Would the blacklist solve anything or just make matters worse?
    
    Yes, the one that believes they are being wronged get that satisfaction and "safety" but those that are blacklisted may take it another way when they go to make a vote and find they are rejected. Now there a whole new level of issue but now, instead of it being only a disagreement between two people, the site mechanics are brought into the mix because of a "feature" and we will have threads like this with the opposite argument, "Why do we have a blacklist?"
    
    I see your points and they do make sense but, for the site as a whole, I am not a fan at all of it.

19. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #19

    A blacklist would effectively destroy the value of the voting system.
    The current problem is we have a low vote count per sub, so bad votes can greatly skew results.
    
    If you do not want people to vote, do not post. When you post you ask for a vote and you have given the power to others and have to accept the consequences of this.  That is a reality of any such rating system.  Yes, it can be gamed. Yes it can be ugly at times.
    I agree completely with Scras as well.
    
    A blacklist would formalize cliques even more and could essentaily fragment an already small community.
    
    Its sad t see people leave. But i do not want to walk on eggshells when i vote.  People who leave seem to have thinner skins - they ask for votes but seem only to accept good ones.  You know what is crueler then a crappy vote? No votes.
    
    Seriously. Stop caring about votes - take the positive and negative where and as it is and move on.
    
    True assholes need to be dealt with on a case by case basis - otherwise let the market decide.
    
    

20. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #20

    Val said it very well. We need more activity, more commenting and voting, not the creation of self isolation.

21. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #21

    You bring up solid points, and it seems those of us in support of the idea are in the minority on this one; and (thankfully) given the current lack of troublesome members there's no real compelling reason to pursue it any further regardless.  :up:

22. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #22

    Proposition
    There's always the Karma option, instead of the voting scale. I feel that tends to work better.
    
    Have the post keep track of the number of upvotes, and the person keep a karma level.  For example:
    
    On Post:
    :up:    Poster +20    Voter +2
    :down:    Poster -10  Voter -1
    
    On Codex Contribution/comment:
    :up:    Poster +10    Voter +1
    :down:    Poster -2  Voter -1
    
    Then let the levels be linked to karma.
    
    Rationale
    
    By convention, we could decide that an upvote means "We want more of this kind of content here", and a downvote means "We want less of this kind of content here". Great posts will naturally rise to the top with upvotes.
    
    This also gets rid of the vote attribution problem altogether, since voting and commenting are completely separate, votes can't be attributed to individuals. (although it would be much appreciated if downvoters could comment on how the post could be improved)
    
    I had a chance to hear Joel Spolsky talk about "The anthropology of stackoverflow" recently, and his talk (There's a copy of a similar talk on vimeo.com as video 37309773) might be relevant, as it deals with exactly the kind of voting and community building that has been discussed here.
    
    A blacklist though, since it stops discussion and discourages participation, will actually act against community-building, which is the one thing we must avoid at all cost, especially given the size of the citadel. I would be more in favour of removing votes all together than having a blacklist.
    
    Besides the pragmatic concerns, from an ethical point of view, silencing dissenters outright is dangerous proposition indeed. These kinds of systems are always symptoms of deeper underlying problems, and inevitably herald worse to come.  This is the 'bad' kind of politics.
    
    Feel free to ignore my opinion as desired, after all, I only come around here once in a blue moon these days.
    
    Aside: Strolen, Do you keep an activity level meter on the citadel (# new posts, #comments, #new users per week etc), and do you monitor activity level with respect to the changes you make (voting, UI, color scheme, etc)?

23. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #23

    The thing with votes is, some people are just hard to please. This is life. I appreciate that some people feel like they get downvoted for no good reason (I've been there myself), but I think the proper response is to shrug and move on. Some people won't like your stuff. Maybe they don't "get it", maybe it just doesn't tickle their fancy. Will it affect your XP? Sure, but not to a large extent. Will it change your Citadellian standing and how people respond to your subs? Not really.
    
    It's true, some pretty good contributers have left due to some people's voting preferences. Frankly, I think it's a little immature. No one writes perfectly, and absolutely no one writes in a way that pleases everyone. Thus is the human condition. If you can't take a little criticism (hell, even a lot of criticism) then public writing/the Internet is not for you.
    
    In short, if you get criticism you feel is undeserved, gird your loins and keep writing.

24. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #24

    
    It's true, some pretty good contributers have left due to some people's voting preferences. Frankly, I think it's a little immature. No one writes perfectly, and absolutely no one writes in a way that pleases everyone. Thus is the human condition. If you can't take a little criticism (hell, even a lot of criticism) then public writing/the Internet is not for you.
    
    In short, if you get criticism you feel is undeserved, gird your loins and keep writing.
    

    
    
    I'll admit it frankly: This is exactly my thoughts on the matter. I just didn't feel like being this blunt about it.

25. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #25

    Bump since the conversation has kinda been brought up again.
    
    [img width=400 height=215]http://strolen.com/graphics/downvote.jpeg

26. Lets all get along shall we

    #26

    Ok, I know there are DeLorean owners and fanatics in New England.....so come out of hiding and lets make this an active club. One event a year just wont cut it Anyone? Anyone? Bueller???

27. Re: Let's all get along shall we?

    #27

    I propose October 26th 1:24 am, of course my Delorian is just a shell filled with parts from an old pinball machine

Rise of the Strolenati-Ideas/Suggestions · All categories · Guildhall