View Full Version : Rating users

29 August 2002, 08:42 AM
OK, first lemme say I am not trying to sound paranoid, angry, sad, or like I am complaining. Well, ok, maybe a little of the latter, but not overly so.

I noticed recently that I have gotten a few less then favorable votes as of late, and I have absolutly no clue as to why. I asked the one person I could tell was a new rater but have yet to hear back from the individual (if I will at all), and the rest I could not distinguish from previous raters, and writing down every name that has voted on me seems alittle obsessive.

What I am asking is that if you vote on someone, especially a low vote, you at least send the individual a PM telling them what they did wrong so that they can try to fix the problem and avoid such problems in the future. I personally have no clue why I am getting low votes, but want to know so I can try to change or make amends.

Thanks for listening.

29 August 2002, 08:48 AM
Zanus has an excellent point. The whole idea of the rating system is to encourage users to be friendly and helpful in their posts. If they don't know what they're doing wrong, then the whole reason for the rating is lost.

Unless it's blatantly obvious why a person should receive a low vote, an explanation should be given. The only issue is that of retaliation. The rating is supposed to be annonymous so that angry users don't target the people who gave them low ratings.

From your post Zanus, I doubt you would give a person a low rating simply because they gave you one. It's that attitude that deserves an explanation for low votes received.

29 August 2002, 10:04 AM
That's a good idea. A couple months back my user rating started to tank, for reasons wholly unknown to me. If I had known what it was that was making me such an unpleasant fellow, I would have done something to rectify the situation. As it was, my user rating ended up going back up quickly (after I posted asking what it was I'd done wrong), but I never did find out what the problem was in the first place.

Certainly, Zanus, I've never seen anything you've posted that seemed objectionable.

Reverend Strone
29 August 2002, 11:23 AM
What a fantastic idea. I wholly support the notion. Feedback is essential to maintaining a constructive and pleasant environment. The success of this will of course rest with the maturity of the parties involved (I'm having visions of PM flame wars between raters who get out of control), but generally it's been my experience that users here are a pretty pleasant and mature-minded bunch.

Difference of opinion certainly doesn't justify a rating, though I think sometimes it appears to have, though I could be wrong. I'm guessing on this one because, like dgswensen and Zanus, my rating took at dive a while back too, and has been crawling back up in the months since. I'm still at a loss to figure out what it was I was doing to upset folks as I have always done my best to be helpful and considerate, though I freely admit I make mistakes. Feedback at the time would have been really helpful. If it truly was simply because I didn't agree with another poster's views on a subject, then that is more a reflection on the rater than the ratee, one would think.

A feedback/rating system in which raters are encouraged to give reasons for their rating of a user might be very helpful in combating reactive or vengeful raters.

29 August 2002, 11:55 AM
Sounds reasonable...at the very least I would say a system that requires someone to leave a reason/feedback if they are rating someone under the average (3.0 perhaps?). At least that way people are insured of (hopefully) constructive criticism when a lower vote is cast.

In other news...what the heck am I doing posting out of the SWAG Forum !?!?


Chris Curtis
29 August 2002, 12:08 PM
::Chris reveals how much of an old-fart community member he is...::

I don't believe any of you who've posted so far were around back when the "Force Point" system was (briefly, granted) in place, there was something similar to what's being proposed.

When users rated each other, there was also a small text box where you could leave comments about why you gave the rating you did.

Now that I start thinking about it, I don't recall whether these comments were available to the member (I can't remember reading comments anyone left, at least) or if they were just for the admins to make sure the low ratings weren't vengeful.

Anyway, I'll throw my support behind some kind of feedback system. I do believe it should be anonymous to the end user/member, however. I personally have no problem with anyone knowing that I send suchandsuch comment, but others will definitely feel more secure with an anonymous system.

Now, how difficult this would be to implement is another matter entirely. I can say that it wouldn't be the simplest thing to do.

Wedge in Red2
29 August 2002, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Chris Curtis

Anyway, I'll throw my support behind some kind of feedback system. I do believe it should be anonymous to the end user/member, however. I personally have no problem with anyone knowing that I send suchandsuch comment, but others will definitely feel more secure with an anonymous system.

Now, how difficult this would be to implement is another matter entirely. I can say that it wouldn't be the simplest thing to do.

For my feelings on the matter:

I'm quite behind giving feedback, but as has been raised, the fear of retaliation is a big factor.

As Chris said, an anonymous system would be great, however how to implement it is another thing. Even if it automatically made you send an anonymous PM after rating someone, it's not going to be too hard (if they have had only a limited number of people rate them) for them to work out who it was.

Okay, I apologise now for not really adding anything to the conversation (after going back and reading my post). I could have just said "yeah, me too". But then I don't like one line follow-ups :D.


29 August 2002, 09:41 PM
wow, didn't think I would get this sorta response. I am glad to hear I am not the only one to have noticed. I also didn't expect a bunch of votes cause of it. Should be interesting to see how this turns out. I am all for a having resons enter on rates, but not just on bad things. Being told when you are doing something right is just as important as being told when you are doing something wrong. It helps with self esteem. I know, alot of people don't let stuff happening online affect them (I usually try to do that) but it is still something people think about, and there are those that live solely online, so comments online can affect them, as well as other similar situations. I am not trying to point anyone out as I don't know of any here, but I do know it happens since it happend to me a few years back.

Anyway, I am surprised with the response, but hope it helps in the long run ;)

29 August 2002, 09:49 PM
I'm down with that. I don't usually bother to give someone a low vote, I just ignore their comments and move on. I do however reward those I feel make an impression with their commentary and I usually let them know.

Good point though, Zanus. If I tick someone off too badly, I'd like to know why. I'm not saying I'll change my behavior, but I'd like to know if I offend.

29 August 2002, 10:40 PM
One thing that I would like to see happen is instead of just being able to see who voted for me, I would like to see who voted against me. I think people would be less likely to slap a person down if they knew it might be coming right back at them. I have noticed that a lot of the time, people are smacked down because of their own opinions. That is not fair.

As far as being confrontational in a PM or to let them know why they got rated down, I think it depends on the topic (offensive material or things which should be treated delicately such as religion and politics, the two things that we should not argue about here). As long as you are respectful, you should be able to be confrontational as a side note to your next posting on that thread if it is related to Star Wars. It is an open discussion, right? Unless you know for sure you are starting a flame war by doing so, why not just come out in front of everyone and tell people to cool it? It will be like sending a PM to everyone. Everyone will be informed about how certain issues may spring arguments and as long as a warning accompanies the next post (either by one of the parties or someone else), it should do nothing but quell the argument. If they wish to take it further, they can duke it out over PMs then and there, and this should be announced too. If the argueing and rating down continues, the moderators can usually end this real quick.

I think this will show some of the new people that discussions about how D6 is better than D20 or vice versa are not going to be received well, and neither will direct attacks on personal opinions. I think it would show them that if they are going to go against an opinion, say why and be polite about it. Everyone has one and not everyone will agree, but we can all be polite about it. I would want anyone to let me know if I am stomping too hard on their ideas if I were to do so, because I certainly will let them know if they do it to me.

Reverend Strone
30 August 2002, 12:18 PM
Well, one way we can see this happen is to begin implementing it ourselves as a matter of personal policy. Rather than expect Armage or someone like that to come up with a nifty tech way for us to do this, lets try using the existing PM system to put policy into practice. If enough folks here begin doing so, it could become an unofficial Holonet ettiquette. New users would pick it up pretty quickly once they see others doing so, a polite and friendly prompts from time to time might see it begin to take on wide use.

What say we follow Zanus's fine suggestion and all begin undertaking it as a personal thing to give constructive feedback whenever we vote for someone? I mean, if you care enough to cast that vote, you must have an opinion right? And I for one, am not afraid to be held accountable for that view to the person it is being held with respect too.

That goes for both positive and negative feedback. A friendly- "hey you're doing great stuff buddy, that's why I'm givin yuosa a 5 today," can be a very cool way to encourage more positive behaviour on the Holonet, and make someone's day. I know this is true because one of the folks I admire most around here did the every same for me once (a complimentary pm out of the blue), and it made me feel really good. :)

Jim Williams
30 August 2002, 12:26 PM
If possible, How do I...

1) review who I have rated?

2) determine who has rated me and what that rating was?

Reverend Strone
30 August 2002, 12:41 PM
If you place your cursor over the green-texted number of votes besside your user rating and click it, you'll get a list of users who've voited for you. It doesn't say what vote they cast, and indeed, they can change their vote at a later date and you won't be able to tell what their new vote is or who it was that updated their rating on you, but at least you can see who's cast a vote at some point, be it good or bad. If a new user votes for you, you'll be able to tell it was them because they'll be the newest name on your updated list.

As for reviewing who you've previously rated, I'm not sure about that one, though there's nothing stopping you from voting twice. ther way it works is, only your latest vote counts, so if I gave someone a 1 and then later thought better of it and changed that to a 5, only the 5 would count.

At least that's how I understand the system to work. Someone might correct me on a point if I've said something incorrect here.

Chris Curtis
30 August 2002, 04:10 PM
The good Rev is correct in what he says. However, I do feel the need to clarify something, though it isn't really important.

If a new user votes for you, they are not automatically placed at the bottom of the list. The list of people who've voted for you is done by user id, which essentially corresponds to how long someone's been on the HoloNet.

For instance, if you've already had 20 people vote for you and then I cast my vote, I wouldn't be the last person on your list. In fact, since I believe I have id #8, I'd more than likely be the first person on the list (okay, maybe second since Armage is always listed. ;) ).

Re: sending PMs when we vote on someone...

This is a great idea. However, I would suggest being more informative/constructive than simply saying "Great job, buddy. Keep it up!"

While it's certainly nice to hear something like that, it really isn't that useful. Instead, try to tell them why you voted them high or low (or in the middle). For instance, "Hey, JoeBob42... Just wanted to know I appreciate all the great feedback you've been giving people in the XX forum. Not only have you been stating your position clearly without being belligerent, but you're also providing examples to back your side up. I may not agree with everything, but you're giving me stuff to think about. Keep up the excellent posting!!"

Reverend Strone
30 August 2002, 06:42 PM
Thanks for the clarification Chris. Rereading my post I can see it was misleading. What I really meant was that the name would be the newest one to appear on your list, not necessarily at the bottom of the list. I probably should have used the terms new voter rather than new user too. I seem to sometimes have difficulty saying exactly what I mean. Fortunately there are other folks around here with a more suscint syntax than my own garble. Thanks again Chris.

I also agree that a useful, specific criticism/encouragement is by far the best way to facilitate really good and appropriate feedback, otherwise all you're doing is re-iterating what a 5 or a 1 is saying anyways.

As an aside- Id#8 huh? Wow, that makes me (Id # 2000 something I imagine) feel kinda like I'm talking to Yoda or someone like that.;)

Late edit- Turns out I'm user id# 1516. Thanks to Overlord for the tip!:D

Wedge in Red2
30 August 2002, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Jim Williams
If possible, How do I...

1) review who I have rated?

2) determine who has rated me and what that rating was?

Reverend Strone and Chris Curtis have already dealt with #2. I didn't click until they mentioned it that the list was in UserID order.

Originally posted by Chris Curtis
(okay, maybe second since Armage is always listed. ;) ).

I take it your wink smilie meant that was not actually true, but that Armage seems to have rated lots of people? Because I have noticed some that he hasn't :).

In answer to #1, Jim, you can't (as far as I'm aware) pull up some comprehensive list of who you've rated. However, if you open a users profile window, next to their rating it will say "Previous rating:" followed by either the word "none" or a nubmer from 1 to 5. This is what you have previously rated that user. So, unfortuantely you'd have to check on an individual basis :).

On the subject of feedback, yeah, I've started to do it and I've noticed others (even new users) have sent me PM's to say they appreciated stuff I did and have rated me X because of it. As Rev says, if we start doing it, we can shape the way others act on the holonet and keep it an intelligent, pleasant forum for all :).

Hope that helps,


P.S. Re-reading my post, I did not intentionally end all my paragraphs with smilies. It just happned that way. Sorry...

Wedge in Red2
30 August 2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Reverend Strone

As an aside- Id#8 huh? Wow, that makes me (Id # 2000 something I imagine) feel kinda like I'm talking to Yoda or someone like that.;)

Hey Rev, you're actually #1517, not quite 2000 something :D. Quite interesting the explosion that has taken, place, though, given you registered in Feb 2002, while I registered in May and I'm 2723 or something. That's 1200 people registered in 3 months...crazy.


P.S. Didn't mean to do 2 consecutive posts, but Rev's previous one came in after I had started reading the thread, and I felt I needed to reply.

Jim Williams
30 August 2002, 07:31 PM
Thanks for the answers!

I will definitely be PMing people if I don't tell them in a post what and why I rated them. Heck, Fred and I got pretty heated with a Force discussion a few weeks back and I don't think I even rated him. And boy did we disagree!

I guess I'll just listen to that little part of my brain that sometimes says, "Did you rate them already?"

As for the network itself, the maturity, etc., I've been really impressed. I've learned a lot about the game, and arguments/discussions here have helped me persuade my co-GM into adopting rules that make my Jedi master of...wait, sorry, help our game run more smoothly. And I certainly don't reference anything that weakens my character's...well, you get the idea.

Wow...my number must be like 8 (dramatic pause) Million or something.

Can't wait for my submissions to get looked at too.

So fess up to those low ratings you give someone and tell how to shape up! That's what I say.

Wedge in Red2
30 August 2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Jim Williams

Wow...my number must be like 8 (dramatic pause) Million or something.

4075 actually :D.

You just hover your cursor over the "view profile" link next to a post, and along the status bar at the bottom (provided you're using Internet Explorer - sorry, I'm not familiar with other browser software) it will say "javascript: profilewindow('X')", where X is what your user # is.

Just something I've picked up over my brief time on the holonet that I thought I'd share...


Armage Bedar
1 September 2002, 12:20 PM
Hey all -- sorry for my delay in responding here, I've been a bit busy with some non-site-related things.

The topic of low ratings comes up every so often, and the question people always ask is, "Why did they rate me lower?" Sometimes there's a reason, sometimes not. It does seem unfair when you're doing nothing wrong and suddenly your rating jumps down a few decimal points.

As Chris noted, we did use to have something called the Force system, which had different mechanics but served the same purpose as user
ratings do now. They did, however, allow members to give a reason for rating a member a certain way. It never took off, probably due to the lack of support I gave it and the lower number of members we had at the time. After reading this thread, though, I'm glad to see that it is indeed a wanted feature, so I'll be bringing it back. This along with fractional ratings and "rating weighting" (say *that* five times fast) to reduce the effectiveness of low-rated members. I'm also thinking about either changing the system's range to -5 to +5 or 0 to 10.

I'm also thinking about purging the entire rating history of every member to get rid of votes from members who no longer participate (or whose membership has been deleted), troublemakers, etc. I'm not as worried about the time it would take for everyone to rebuild the system since the concept of user ratings is more supported by more people than when it was started.

However, I'm *still* not sold on members being able to see not only who rated them but how each person rated them. At least, I'm not sold on letting just anyone see that, since someone with a lot of negative ratings could conceivably lash out and cause a lot of trouble. So, what about being able to see who voted you if your rating average is 4 or higher? (This may drop to 3.75 or some similar percentage, depending on what "feels" right.)

I actually intend on instituting these new options immediately, because I'd like to get a feeling for how well they work before I upgrade the boards in a few months. Your feedback, as always, is most appreciated.

1 September 2002, 01:29 PM
holly cow! I didn't think this sorta change would occur from my post. But, who knows, maybe it will be for the better. Maybe it would be better to not allow anyone (except network admin) to see who voted for them, with the comments be anonymous. EVen if you have a higher rating, to avoid any bitterness with those that might have a lower rating. Just a thought. :)

Reverend Strone
1 September 2002, 03:10 PM
Armage, what you're proposing sounds great, and I'd be very interested to see it trialled.

A couple of thoughts though-

If you're allowing fractional ratings, I'd question needing to expand the rating range beyond the five points you have. Five is a good number because it doesn't feel like a huge gap exists between low and high ratings, so folks don't feel too alienated if their rating is a little lower, because it's never percievably too far from the higher rated users. It also means that the fractional difference between drops or rises is small. People rarely drop or rise more than .1 or .2, which is probably good. Larger drops or jumps, even though they are only precieved differences, may upset folks. Am I making sense?

I'd not suggest a rating scheme that has negative numbers. I think that sends the wrong message. Again it's a question of perception, but I stand by it.

The weighting system sounds good aswell, as does the idea of hiding who voted for you below a certain threshold, leaving it the choice of the voter to include an identifying comment or not.

It's great that you listen and implement changes based on what users want Armage. We appreciate it.

Armage Bedar
2 September 2002, 07:33 AM
Yeah, <b>Reverend</b>, changing the rating scale probably isn't a good idea at this point, since it's far more trouble than it is worth. And combined with fraction votes, there's really no point. Your point about perceptions is also well-put, so worry not :-)

evan hansen
2 September 2002, 07:46 AM
Well, I rarely check out any of the forums outside D6, GM, and General SW-RPG (And SWAG of course!!!), but I figured I'd look over here today -- and, ah, quite the discussion I've discovered. :)

Just to chime in on a few things that have been said throughout the duration of this post:

1 - I'm not sure that I'd be a big fan of cleaning out previous ratings. Why? Well, what if someone like a Nealos emerges from weeks of absence to post something in a question that a newer user has? Nealos is, hands down, one of the most thoughtful and helpful SW-RPG online community members there's ever been in a very small group with folks like Kevin, Armage, Chris, Moridin, etc... He has, I'm sure, a fairly high rating. Occasionally, when catching up on a long thread, I'll just read the comments from people who have a bigger rating than not. Why? It's just easier. In short, newbies might find it more helpful to realize that he's earned the respect of everyone around here when considering what to do. His advice has been considered helpful, and people like it. Wiping ratings out for people like that could have a pretty detrimental effect, I would think. (On the off chance you read this, sorry for randomly using you as an example, Tim.)

2 - Short of eliminating the system altogether, there is no way to possibly eliminate immature people from "striking back" via voting. It's sad but true.

3 - A feedback option would be nice. But it should probably be anonymous. The bottom line is that the same immature people that strike back via voting are the same people who don't like to get feedback -- even if it is constructive. (especially true with a somewhat younger membership)

4 - I'm wondering if, perhaps, it wouldn't make sense to make it so that people couldn't see who rated you. People could still offer fair rating for each other. But there would be no way to tell who rated you. That would eliminate the ability of people to "strike back" for negative votes, etc... There are obvious disadvantages, but if people think retaliation is a huge problem, maybe that's something that needs looking into.

Just some thoughts!

10 September 2002, 08:04 AM
I guess I'll chime in as well...

When the rating system first started, I had an extremly high rating... somewhere around 4.8 or so, then it suddenly dropped to 4.3. To be honest, I coudn't figure out what was going on. I don't post often- especially at the time it suddenly dropped. And me being the curious person, I looked at the list of people who voted for me only to discover the new votes were done by people that I've never seen nor heard of. On top of that, I had no clue why they were voting so low. I was behaving myself for the few posts I made during that time period, and as far as I could tell, I hadn't misbehaved.

Personally, I would prefer to know who voted for me. Not so I can retalliate or anything like that- I'm an adult, and if someone's got a problem with how I behave, then I change the way I act to try and fix the problem. More for me it's to know if it's actually by someone whom I interact with, and so I can PM them if I think I'd like an explanation to the low votes- so that I can behave in a better manner.

I would especially like to see the voting system have a commentary on it, since it just makes sense that we should be able to tell why we gave the vote, and also it is not quite so impersonal. It can be particularly useful for people who have the lower end rating so that even though they don't know who voted for them- if Armage does instigate an anonymous voting system- they can still recieve an explanation to their low rating and hopefully have a chance to change their behaviour.

Armage, I'm deffinitely glad for your immediate response to this since it does affect everyone on the Holonet.

10 September 2002, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by dragonseye
Personally, I would prefer to know who voted for me. Not so I can retalliate or anything like that- I'm an adult, and if someone's got a problem with how I behave, then I change the way I act to try and fix the problem.

I don't think the problem is with you dragonseye. I think the problem is with the fact that people don't understand the rating system. I think that people see an opinion that they don't agree with and they instantly fire away at it. Unless someone is openly rude to me, passes false information with the intent of confusion, or does something else of a jackass manner (not opinion related), I wouldn't even consider rating them down.

People have opinions, and some only seem to be interested with the intent to cause frustration and disarray. They come here to argue and cause problems, that is until the moderators get them.

I would like to see who rates me lower, and I would like to see an explanation. A visible explanation is what should be the only thing which can bring a rating down of someone, not a simple vote down.

Retalliation sounds childish, but they (the instigators) understand it well. Having the ability to see them and to do back to them what they had little grounds to do to you is not lowering yourself to their level ( you did not start it), but is preventably keeping the level of your credibility up to where it should be. They want you to look poorly, not them.

You may agree or disagree with this. After all, we all do have our opinions :)

Dan Kyrinov
10 September 2002, 09:25 PM
Well, I just came onto this discussion, and I'm pleased to see everyone communicating their ideas for the system. All that being said, I do want to point out that a while back we saw the ratings of our posting greats dip by quite a bit. It was about middle of the year I think. I kept track of some of the guys who I had voted highly for and whom I admire and noticed they took some unfair hits. It climbed back eventually because their quality posts and help were the same. Other complaints led me to believe the hit was widespread, during an upsurge in Holonet users. During that time we got a lot of absolutely top-notch people, but we also saw some short-lived posters. I don't want to dwell too much on the system, but I want to point out it's a byproduct of the system that there will be a few hits taken on our scorecards. People will do that, and in many cases a rating hit makes us strive to do better (when in reality we never messed up at all.) Keep on keepin' on, because ratings can come and go in phases, but around here I'm glad good posts and discussion are the rule.

11 September 2002, 05:32 AM

Yeah, that's about when I saw my rating take a nose dive. At that point, I had hardly been on the Holonet at all, and almost never posted because of family problems. So I was kinda confused how they even saw me post something badly inorder to rate me like that.

You also bring up one good point: I think a lot of people will just rate a person based off of one post. When with the ratings, at least of my impression, it's supposed to speak of the person's posts in general all together, not just a single one.

I think another way to handle seeing who voted what is maybe to just make a list from ascending (or descending) order that tells number of votes for each rating. IE: Votes for a particular person at 5 were two, votes at R 4 are 4, votes at R3 are 0, and so on. (I hope that makes sense.) That way, you could keep the voters anonymous, but you could still list the voted scores. (Hopefully that would be a good compromise.)

Reverend Strone
11 September 2002, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by dragonseye
I think another way to handle seeing who voted what is maybe to just make a list from ascending (or descending) order that tells number of votes for each rating. IE: Votes for a particular person at 5 were two, votes at R 4 are 4, votes at R3 are 0, and so on. (I hope that makes sense.) That way, you could keep the voters anonymous, but you could still list the voted scores. (Hopefully that would be a good compromise.)

Actually that's a darned fine idea. That way you'd get the idea very quickly whether a particular rating was a wild card or more representative of a poster's more general percieved contribution to the Net. Good thinking dragonseye. What are the chances Armage?

26 September 2002, 01:10 AM
Well, I am ashamed to say that I rarely think about rating people altogether... Truly, it is not something that crosses my mind very often... Sorry about that. I personally don't worry about rating, but I certainly wouldn't rate someone badly (unless I thought they really did or said something bad, which since I've been on the board I haven't noticed).

Now, having said that I don't worry about it... Let me contradict myself and ask "why do I have just 4 votes??" :D Oh well, at least I do my best, that's what counts isn't it? Sorry if I'm not as useful as others here... :p

But I promise I'll try to remember to vote for people from now on... ;)

Nova Spice
26 September 2002, 02:25 PM
I think that people see an opinion that they don't agree with and they instantly fire away at it.

Agreed, I think Krad-edis is absolutely right on this one. My rating used to be up there as well, but I remember saying a few things that contradicted with a couple of new users and BOOM I've been rated low. :D

Now I would never retaliate or anything because its childish and they were new to the boards. Personally, I think its hard to acquire the extremely high ratings (i.e. 4.7, 4.8, 4.9) with so many different folks on here. I understand that and I'm willing to accept that and not worry too much over the rating. Although there was one time that I confronted someone for giving me a low-rating when they had yet to even post! Fortunately that problem resolved itself.

If you look at some of the awesome veterans and the frequent posters such as Donovan, Reverend, and Frobi, you will see that even they don't have a 4.7 or 4.8! That's incredible IMO since they are three of the most well-known and helpful folks on the boards. It simply is just hard to please everyone.

27 September 2002, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
It simply is just hard to please everyone.

Wrong! :D

I am just going to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone, especially a group which is so large and diverse. You can please a majority, but rarely is 100% ever happy. People have different opinions, even when you agree with someone 99% of the time, you will find one thing that just does not fit with you. This is okay and perfectly acceptable. Married people know this, people who have sibblings and friends know this, anyone who has ever had a relationship with a carbon based life form knows this. It is how we still get along, the ability to disagree and still be civil about it.

Think of how boring the world would be if there were no other opinions. People of the Holonet, that is why I come here: to see other opinions on things which are interesting to me, and things that are not very clear to me rule wise! No one should be lambasted for their opinions. Opinions are not factual, they are opinions. They are how we see things, in other words, they cannot be wrong. People make mistakes and misinterpret facts (I am going to college right now and I wish I had more erasers), but one should know that even if one screws up, they should not fear for their credibility on this board being blown out of the water. People who like to stir up trouble by passing false facts beware. Credibility here should be based on people offering help and providing insight.

In short, and I apologize for the length my final rant in this thread. This is a discussion forum. Open discussion is a good way to hear other opinions; offering a very open minded environment for helping those who need it. Disagree all you want with someone if what they have to say is not what you perceive or what you are looking for, but understand that doing so is not done through destroying their credibility in the number game. It is through being polite and offering arguments (the stronger arguments are usually based on and backed by facts) that support your opinion for all to see.


Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes! ;)

6 October 2002, 01:20 PM
You know I really belive that the only thing that I have ever given someone a bad rating for is stating opinion as fact and consistantly not behaving in a courteous manner. I really do value the opinions of others as long as others are aware that they are opinions. Otherwise you are all valuable assetes to this community and I try to reward in kind. This may be the congiac talking but...::sniff::I love you all!

28 November 2002, 11:35 AM
Just recently I was also voted low, I'm not sure why, maybe because the chargen thing, but that's all I can think of, it would be nice if people would pm me saying what I did wrong, if they are going to take the time to vote me low, you might as well let me know what I did wrong so I can improve.

evan hansen
29 November 2002, 08:49 PM
I thought it might be interesting, and possibly helpful, to folks to see how people rate other people -- what the thought process is. I know I don't speak for everyone, but I'm sure lots of folks go through something similar. So maybe folks can extract a few ideas from this to focus on making their posts, their votes, and, thus, the holonet better.

This stuff is very general, btw. So keep that in mind when you read it. It hardly addresses specific problems or issues. Just some thoughts.

When I rate someone, it's generally either a very high or a very low rating because I'm only often moved to vote for someone when they do something that strikes me as exceptionally positive or exceptionally negative.

Things I typically consider positive:
- Insightful or unique answers to questions
- Answers to difficult or unpopular/uncommon questions
- Genuine/repeated concern for the well-being of others' games
- Contribution of links to off-holonet resources (and, in some cases, the development and sharing of those resources created by the poster)
- Attempts to bring all viewpoints together into an exceedingly well thought out post

Things I typically consider negative:
- Any post, justified or not, that attacks a holonet member
- High-level mockery
- Anger
- Posting without regards for others' feelings or thoughts
- Being inconsiderate (in general)
- Being hypocritical

Everyone's guilty of negative actions from time to time; we're all human. It's the repeat offenses, I think, that make people upset.

Anyhow, as I said, this was just kind of a general list of things that *I* look for when I rate people. I thought it might give all of us something to reflect on when we post or get upset at being voted low or when we vote others. I know I've made bad posts in the past (or, more so, made bad emails to an SWRPG listserv years ago), and I think that everyone -- including myself -- can learn from little exercises like this.

So hopefully this was beneficial for someone out there. On the whole, everyone here does a fabulous job. So I hope we all keep up the good work. :-)