So its been long enough.....let's hear your opinions on the new Reputation feature.....keep the swearing to a minimum please...

I voted to get rid of it. Seriously. I think it really corrupts the forum, and Thailand is corrupt enough as it is ...

I voted to get rid of it. Seriously. I think it really corrupts the forum, and Thailand is corrupt enough as it is ...

Ditto. It doesn't encourage discussion only bickering between members. Its also wide open to abuse by members voting for friends etc therefore any indication of which posters are better than others is well skewed. Yep in the bin please.

I didn't vote because there wasn't another option. It's just plain silly, but okay for those that enjoy it. It doesn't mean a thing.

I didn't vote because there wasn't another option. It's just plain silly, but okay for those that enjoy it. It doesn't mean a thing.

Good point Ian....yeah well its my first stab at the poll thing.....never mind eh....who would have thought politics was this tough!

Surely it can only upset, or offend, if people take it seriously...........but nobody really does.......do they?

If it's intended to be a bit of harmless fun it's okay, otherwise it's pointless. Who really gives a shit what most people on here think about you?

In a similar vein, I'm perplexed by the 'friends' function on a forum. What does it mean to be someone's friend? I understand the purpose of it on Facebook - allowing people access to your info or posts, but what is it's purpose on a public forum? It doesn't seem to serve any purpose, or am I missing something? I don't know about you, but I find "so-and-so wants to be your friend" really funny. It reminds me of being back at junior school - "Can I be your friend?". It was always the sad little <deleted> that said that wasn't it?

That's got to be worth at least 5 negative votes.

You might think that positive reputation points were given with abandon in the thread announcing the inception of 'reputation' points, thus making them valueless cyber points.

Indeed, some could possibly conceive them as tools by which other members might give creadance to what some members might expose.

There are others who might confuse 'positive or negative reputation' with agreement, or not, to a particular posters sentiment rather than an inication of genuine reputation.

You might also think that a poster will 'self-moderate" the volativity of his / her replies based upon the ease of positive of negative response.

Which ever the case, it will never be clear upon which criteria has been selected, and so, even so by my popular response. the real meaning of members' 'reputation' scores will remaim ellusive.

Surely it can only upset, or offend, if people take it seriously...........but nobody really does.......do they?

Such naivety....how touching....

Surely it can only upset, or offend, if people take it seriously...........but nobody really does.......do they?

Such naivety....how touching....

-1 :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's got to be worth at least 5 negative votes.

In order to keep the poll and discussion fair I will even up any red/greenies awarded on the thread.

EDIT: Apart from those awarded to me!!! Nice one .....

Edited September 4, 201015 yr by smokie36

That's got to be worth at least 5 negative votes.

In order to keep the poll and discussion fair I will even up any red/greenies awarded on the thread.

EDIT: Apart from those awarded to me!!! Nice one .....

And of course you only see the net score, so the controversial stuff that balances out equally appreciated and depreciated, looks entirely innocuous...

TOPS!

SC

That's got to be worth at least 5 negative votes.

In order to keep the poll and discussion fair I will even up any red/greenies awarded on the thread.

EDIT: Apart from those awarded to me!!! Nice one .....

And of course you only see the net score, so the controversial stuff that balances out equally appreciated and depreciated, looks entirely innocuous...

TOPS!

SC

Pfft that's the trouble with this country isn't it no free speech.....jeez!

At least it leaves more time for my alcohol consumption as you rightly point out.....

Confusing, it could apply to the User, the Post, or the Thread.

It seems rather patronising and wide open to abuse.

I have used up all of my negatives for the day.

A pathetic gimmick. Waste of time.

I have used up all of my negatives for the day.

There's always tomorow....

I am completely obsessed by this new feature and check my points constantly. I once pathetically begged for a greenie, but now that I'm in the 'excellent' category, am too proud to stoop to begging.

From the outset I've mostly been respectful of other posters, sparing, allusive and fair in my criticisms, thoughtful in what I post, minded my spelling, punctuation and formating and gone to great pains to avoid using those awful emoticons. As such, point system or not, how do I improve on posting perfection? It's not fair!

Also, I've noticed that certain emotional topics, like the perennial red/yellow slugfests can be gold mines of greenies, once you've sussed out the audience and post appropriately. I've been tempted to go digging there, but decided it would be just too easy. Where's the sport in shooting fish in a barrel (or roping a 'girlfriend' at a go-go bar)?

Then there are those that get points just for showing up. While mothers are a legitimate voting bloc, here on TV, as a practical matter, they are a bloc of one for one. Whatever happened to 'tough love'? As my mom is not computer savvy, it's not fair!

Honest greenie whores with no helpful mothers or friends are left with little option but to spend hours honing their submissions, gauging member sentiment, and studying up on the most opportune times to post. It's exhausting and it's not fair!

What I'd like to see is a hair-pullingly complicated system where there are check boxes of (-)5 to (+)5 points on a whole host of subjective and objective criteria like spelling, punctuation, wit, grammar, relevancy, pathos, helpfulness, etc and where the weight given to each mark depends on the reputation level of the giver, which in turn varies from category to category. For example, those with high marks for wit should be given greater weight when judging the wit of others. If it makes everyone as nuts as I already am, well, then that would be fair.

This poll is academic because I am sure the management here will keep it going. Why? It appeals to the lowest common denominator aspects of human nature thus creating even more dedicated, addicted members here. From a business point of view, what's not to like, but I still think it DEGRADES the overall quality of the experience here. It is an idiotic DISTRACTION.

This poll is academic because I am sure the management here will keep it going. Why? It appeals to the lowest common denominator aspects of human nature thus creating even more dedicated, addicted members here. From a business point of view, what's not to like, but I still think it DEGRADES the overall quality of the experience here. It is an idiotic DISTRACTION.

As far as degradation goes I think the reputation feature is the least of the problems on this forum ! ......

Who cares? It's just a bit of fun. Nothing more. People will still bicker. People will still come to the aid of 'allies'. People will lie, scold, manipulate, propagandize. Nothing really changes. I like it, for no other reason than it adds another dynamic to an already interesting forum.

Is it genetics?

its pure wank, pandering to to those sycophants and sad sacks who frequent thaivisa as an alternative to genuine human contact.

given the average age on these fora is north of 50, you would think most had had their fill in school.

the trading of reputation, especially in the the thread introducing the the new "feature" demonstrates exactly how needy some on here truly are.

I am completely obsessed by this new feature and check my points constantly. I once pathetically begged for a greenie, but now that I'm in the 'excellent' category, am too proud to stoop to begging.

From the outset I've mostly been respectful of other posters, sparing, allusive and fair in my criticisms, thoughtful in what I post, minded my spelling, punctuation and formating and gone to great pains to avoid using those awful emoticons. As such, point system or not, how do I improve on posting perfection? It's not fair!

Also, I've noticed that certain emotional topics, like the perennial red/yellow slugfests can be gold mines of greenies, once you've sussed out the audience and post appropriately. I've been tempted to go digging there, but decided it would be just too easy. Where's the sport in shooting fish in a barrel (or roping a 'girlfriend' at a go-go bar)?

Then there are those that get points just for showing up. While mothers are a legitimate voting bloc, here on TV, as a practical matter, they are a bloc of one for one. Whatever happened to 'tough love'? As my mom is not computer savvy, it's not fair!

Honest greenie whores with no helpful mothers or friends are left with little option but to spend hours honing their submissions, gauging member sentiment, and studying up on the most opportune times to post. It's exhausting and it's not fair!

What I'd like to see is a hair-pullingly complicated system where there are check boxes of (-)5 to (+)5 points on a whole host of subjective and objective criteria like spelling, punctuation, wit, grammar, relevancy, pathos, helpfulness, etc and where the weight given to each mark depends on the reputation level of the giver, which in turn varies from category to category. For example, those with high marks for wit should be given greater weight when judging the wit of others. If it makes everyone as nuts as I already am, well, then that would be fair.

point in case.

I use it if I really like a post. It safes other from reading stuff like I agree or thats very true, well written or something like that. Shortens the threads witch makes it easyer to follow them.

I am completely obsessed by this new feature and check my points constantly. I once pathetically begged for a greenie, but now that I'm in the 'excellent' category, am too proud to stoop to begging.

From the outset I've mostly been respectful of other posters, sparing, allusive and fair in my criticisms, thoughtful in what I post, minded my spelling, punctuation and formating and gone to great pains to avoid using those awful emoticons. As such, point system or not, how do I improve on posting perfection? It's not fair!

Also, I've noticed that certain emotional topics, like the perennial red/yellow slugfests can be gold mines of greenies, once you've sussed out the audience and post appropriately. I've been tempted to go digging there, but decided it would be just too easy. Where's the sport in shooting fish in a barrel (or roping a 'girlfriend' at a go-go bar)?

Then there are those that get points just for showing up. While mothers are a legitimate voting bloc, here on TV, as a practical matter, they are a bloc of one for one. Whatever happened to 'tough love'? As my mom is not computer savvy, it's not fair!

Honest greenie whores with no helpful mothers or friends are left with little option but to spend hours honing their submissions, gauging member sentiment, and studying up on the most opportune times to post. It's exhausting and it's not fair!

What I'd like to see is a hair-pullingly complicated system where there are check boxes of (-)5 to (+)5 points on a whole host of subjective and objective criteria like spelling, punctuation, wit, grammar, relevancy, pathos, helpfulness, etc and where the weight given to each mark depends on the reputation level of the giver, which in turn varies from category to category. For example, those with high marks for wit should be given greater weight when judging the wit of others. If it makes everyone as nuts as I already am, well, then that would be fair.

+1

Reputation Feature?....

What reputation?

LaoPo

Is it genetics?

Well, everyone else has got these two little bits, and I haven't.

I voted to get rid of it. Seriously. I think it really corrupts the forum, and Thailand is corrupt enough as it is ...

Ditto. It doesn't encourage discussion only bickering between members. Its also wide open to abuse by members voting for friends etc therefore any indication of which posters are better than others is well skewed. Yep in the bin please.

Doesn't encourage discussion? This very discussion belies that statement!

Granted, though it is a circular discussion since it is only about itself.

I am completely obsessed by this new feature and check my points constantly. I once pathetically begged for a greenie, but now that I'm in the 'excellent' category, am too proud to stoop to begging.

From the outset I've mostly been respectful of other posters, sparing, allusive and fair in my criticisms, thoughtful in what I post, minded my spelling, punctuation and formating and gone to great pains to avoid using those awful emoticons. As such, point system or not, how do I improve on posting perfection? It's not fair!

Also, I've noticed that certain emotional topics, like the perennial red/yellow slugfests can be gold mines of greenies, once you've sussed out the audience and post appropriately. I've been tempted to go digging there, but decided it would be just too easy. Where's the sport in shooting fish in a barrel (or roping a 'girlfriend' at a go-go bar)?

Then there are those that get points just for showing up. While mothers are a legitimate voting bloc, here on TV, as a practical matter, they are a bloc of one for one. Whatever happened to 'tough love'? As my mom is not computer savvy, it's not fair!

Honest greenie whores with no helpful mothers or friends are left with little option but to spend hours honing their submissions, gauging member sentiment, and studying up on the most opportune times to post. It's exhausting and it's not fair!

What I'd like to see is a hair-pullingly complicated system where there are check boxes of (-)5 to (+)5 points on a whole host of subjective and objective criteria like spelling, punctuation, wit, grammar, relevancy, pathos, helpfulness, etc and where the weight given to each mark depends on the reputation level of the giver, which in turn varies from category to category. For example, those with high marks for wit should be given greater weight when judging the wit of others. If it makes everyone as nuts as I already am, well, then that would be fair.

+1

Dammit! That made me check my points again.

(Edit: corrected capitalization)

Edited September 5, 201015 yr by Thakkar