Rating member by *** after names?

If I knew how to set a poll up, I would do so. I waste a lot of time reading posts in sciforums and think I had and idea that would help us all. I sent following private msg to two of the monitors, but would like others to comment on it (or set up a pole):

Dear monitors, please consider the following “carrot & stick” suggestion for making sciFORUMS more of a forum for the exchange of ideas and views (and less of a place for name calling and idiot’s ego trips, etc.)

Idea:

If several monitors (at least two) agree that participant XYZ is a valuable forum participant – i.e. helps others who are sincerely trying to learn something, or frequently gives the answer too questions, or is just an active participant in discussions using reasons and opinions instead of name calling and ridicule of others – Then an asterisk could follow his/her name in the “new posts” and “last post” lists. For example XYZ* - If some participant has consistently earned the respect of many different monitors and four have entered his/her name in the “pending double asterisk” nomination list, then after the confirming majority vote, his/her name would appear as XYZ**
(For receiving six different monitor nominations, XYZ** gets to be XYZ*** etc. Actually sciforums would need only one list. E.g. if in that list XYZ is already XYZ* and three monitors have already nominated him, then when a fourth monitor also recommends him, the system could automatically bring his name up for the “second asterisk” vote. - I am assuming that there exist an “on-line meeting” (of monitors only) where this suggestion could be implemented and periodically asterisks could be awarded, after confirmed by majority vote.)

That was the “carrot.”
Now for the “stick”

If a participant with one or more asterisks following their name should begin to name call etc, without good cause, then they could lose an asterisk, by majority vote confirming the “remove asterisk” recommendation of the monitor of the thread in which this objectionable performance occurred. (Merely reciprocating in kind, more gently than the personal attacks received, IMHO, should not be grounds for removing an asterisk. The object is to avoid escalating exchanges of name calling etc. not to completely block defense in kind. (MacM is a good example – he does not initiate name calling, but gently does so in response to more vicious attacks.)

Why am I suggesting this?

When I first visited the sciforums, I found so low a percentage posts worthwhile that I was on the point of not looking at any more threads. Then I happened to open a discussion in which Stokespenwalt and MacM? were giving some informative facts about nuclear power and defending it against less logical, name calling attacks. So, I had a few private exchanges with Well Cooked Fetus about getting to be a monitor (which I do not have time or inclination to be now, but back then, before I learned the names of a few participants usually worth reading, I wanted to be a monitor so I could make sciforms what it should be by throwing off the name callers/ ego-trip jerks etc. (I don’t think you or I would take asterisks from a participant only because we think he/she is wrong. E.g. I think MacM is completely wrong about SRT, and that when pressed hard, he will “duck and weave” as James R has stated. James R will also confirm that I have had firm and yet friendly discussions on SRT with MacM and that I have even come to his defense when he was being attacked by name callers who know less than he does.)

Why is this needed / useful?

I have learned to recognize the names of several participants as meriting the asterisks I am suggesting, but I am sure there are others that I do not recognize. I almost always read the posts of these participants I remember as usually worth reading. For example, yesterday, I was surprised to find Stokespenwalt made a mistake in the thread about burning jet fuel, which I corrected, and he then promptly thanked me. Also yesterday I read a thread Yuriy had started about “strange orbits” in which he wondered if it was possible for a satellite orbit not to go around the source of the gravitational attraction. (It is.) I suggested he search the net for “Lagrangian Points” + “Trojan” – “war” (Two separate Trojan groups of small asteroids do orbit about the two Lagrangian points (of Jupitor and sun) for which stable orbits are possible.)

Thus I have learned and have taught in sciforums, but I could do so more efficiently if you marked the more polite and knowledgeable posters with asterisks after their names.

Thanks not only for considering this, but also for all of the work you do. I too want the sciforums to be better, but not enough to do the hard work you monitors do! BTW I have not notice any posts by Well Cooked Fetus lately. I admire her ability to make good short posts. (Mine are usually much too long.) I made a minor correction to one of hers a few months ago, but she is usually correct and wonderfully succinct.

Sent to Well Cooked & James R only b/c I have had prior exchanges with them.

PS, just as I was about to send above as private msg to WCF by again replying to a private one she sent to me months ago, I discovered that WCF is now ElectricFetus. Nothing could illustrate the need for asterisks better than this. I have been looking for WCF and missing her. If she were listed as ElectricFetus****, (as I think she should be) I would not have missed her recent posts!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WCF is a he.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billy T:
That's utterly inane. Go back to junior high.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is it, when I hear about carrot sticks, I think of Chuck Palahniuk? That short story still makes my ass cring.

 

I beg to disagree (or "differ", I don't care).

Billy T, I like this idea. And I like how well thought-out yer PM is. I second the motion, and I hope the monitors (or as we at SciForums call them, "moderators") think it's a good idea as well.

 

I say: Better evaluate members by their post count!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The only thing that post count shows is how much of a post whore one is.

 

Aaw, don't be so envious, wulfie. I'm sure that in time you will agree with me.

 

Moi? Envious of Avator? Ha!

I am very sure we will always disagree with each other.

 

So, basically what you want is for someone else to do your thinking for you? Do you really think that you have enough in common with the moderators that you'd agree with their choices as to who polite and knowledgeable?

To me, this whole thing smacks of a popularity contest. Moderators are people too and they would recommend people for your asterisks by arbitrary methods which are prone to bias.

I recommend that you just keep reading and form your own opinion of the posters.

By the way, funny stuff calling the Fetus a she. She is you know. She's a great goddess of wisdom with sagging teats of knowledge which we all bow down to suckle upon. All hail her bounteous beauty.

Back to topic, this is the problem. You think that Fetus is an uber poster worthy of 4 asterisks by your system. I think that he's a self-serving asshole. He does know some things about biology, but polite? Pshaw. When he was moderator, sure. He 'tried' to be polite. Not very well.

So, what of the knowledgeable assholes?

What is your criteria? Politeness or knowledge? The two are seperate and I see method by which your system can really be worked out so that they are equally considered.

Also, consider the difficulty involved. How do you start out? With no asterisks? So that asterisks must be earned? And how are they earned? Each time you're polite you get an asterisk? Each time you're not you lose one?

Meh. Frankly this whole idea is completely unworkable.

There is a system in the bulletin board software that kind of encompasses what you're talking about. The green square in your user profile. It's not a moderator only voting though. I think that all users can somehow vote on your individual posts whether you're a good poster or a bad poster. It's not in effect, probably because these things are nothing more than popularity contests with no real value.

So. Enough rambling here. In short I say, do your own thinking.

 

She was full of shit you mean.

 

didnt she run off to do some study or something?

 

or work at the corner of walmat...

bad idea by the way, for much the same reasons all ready aired

 

You WASTE a lot of time reading posts here?
Oh, poor you.

You bourgeois snob!
You snake on SciForums' bosom!

Get thee behind me, you dingy person!

 

Certainly everyone should make up their own mind and not let the moderators do it for them. It is memory, not thinking, I need help with. I have read dozens of very good posts, but no longer remeber who made the post. If my memory were better, or I had time to ready all the posts, the asterisk system would be of no value, but my time at sciforms is limited. - I read less than one hour total in the last two months - Too busy with other things. I forgot many of the "asterisk poster" names. I remember that I have read many of yours, but do not remember what I thought of you. (Now tending to be positive, as unlike some replies here, you give reasons instead of short insults.)

Thanks to you and others for the gender correction, on Fetus. I will not appoligize to him as I am very concerned about the status of women (I have only daughters, am ex civil rights fighter, etc.) and to do so, would imply that being a woman is a lesser or undersirable status.

As a Ph.D physicist, I can tell you he knows some things about physics too, but it was about how far radiation can pass thru plasma that he made a minor error, which I corrected months ago, in a thread about how far back in time you could see with very large telescopes.

Being an asshole or totally wrong IMHO should not preclude one from gaining many asterisks. (Personally, I think MacM currently qualifies for several and probably should have lost one along the way, when provoked to excesses of name calling. I think even Paul Dixon could have one, despite his very repetive posts.) Being an very obvious idiot and / or mainly making short insulting posts should, preclude astrisks.

I do not want asterisks after the name to be any comment on the information presented.Asterisks only indicate that that the posts probably has a supported view, even if most people think that view is in error. I, for one, especially enjoy reading views that disagree with the accepted opinion, if they tell why.

As and example of this, look at the attachment to my post 761390 (or same at 760671 and not repeated again here to avoid excessive use of storage space) - In it I disagree strongly with the view, universally accepted by cognitive scientists, of how visual perceptions functions.

As a consequence of my understanding of vision, I concluded that genuine free will can be consistent with physics. Most scientists, who understand the molecular events that cause our nerves to discharge and know they are in accord with physical laws, either believe in miracles (God, souls, etc.) or think that "free will" is an illusion, or simply refuse to think on this difficult subject.

In that post's attachment, I give three independant proofs that the cognitive scientist's view is clearly wrong, and many other arguments to support my position. They probably think me both wrong and an asshole. - My view appeared more than a decade ago in a low circulation journal published by John Hopkins University and to date, no one has refuted it or publicly agreed with it, so I am trying to get some reaction here.

No, it could work, but would be impratical if asterisk count changed with every post. Moderators are already over worked. I was thinking that they would make changes to asterisk count four times a year and perhaps that one only becomes eligible for asterisk after 100 posts. (Must limit the new moderator work required.)

As others have noted, post count alone proves nothing but that one spends a lot of time at the forum. (A big pile of horse shit is less attractive than a small one!) I would be open to your suggestion that non-moderators be allowed to vote, but would not want it completel open as that would reduce to a worthless popularity contest, form mutual support clicks, etc. Perhaps as a compromise, if you have three asterisks, you could vote only whether or not some one with only two should be elivated to your rank. (If you have two, you can vote on a one asterisk poster joining the two asterisk rank etc.) This "vote on one rank below nominations" would build in a slight bias against "grade escalation" which is probably a good idea.

Perhaps, after asterisk system has been set up, moderators only nominate asterisk up grades and the the "asterisk community" has three months in which to vote, after which, moderators put up a new list of nominations for vote. This would make little extra work for the monitors, but I think only they should be able to remove asterisks.

Answers to your other questions should be clear from above, but: Start with zero asterisk. "politeness" not required for asterisks - be as rude as you like, but not to a specific person. For example: I think it true that most of what appears in the forum is "ego-trip shit." - that crude / rude statement IMHO should not preclude me from earning an asterisk.

The asterisk system would reduce the amount of shit I wade thru to find the few pearls that are here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I want to thank WATER for helping prove the need of the asterik system.

In his entire post below there are four sentences. They are:
1) "Oh poor you."
2) "You bourgeois snob!"
3) "You snake on SciForums' bosom!"
4) "Get thee behind me, you dingy person!"

and one question repeating a comment of mine.

WATER's post count just went up (perhaps his objective.)

I will let others judge (and comment if they like) on WATER's ability to present reasoned arguments that are useful in the form. I refrain from making (or responding to) insults with insults. Instead I try always to be factual in what I present.

 

Whew, I am male again!

BillyT, you are taking yourself seriously in a manner that is ridiculous.

 

Billy T.

Not quite. She's actually done just the opposite. She's shown just how easy it is to make snap judgements of people. She didn't like your idea and inferred things about you because of your idea and you automatically determine that she is worthy of negative marks and shouldn't even be paid attention to any longer. She's become a nonentity to you.

Too bad too, she's one of the better posters here but you'll never know that now, will you?

Well, in that case, it's not that big a deal. You don't spend enough time here. I can understand you wanting a shortcut to knowing the forum dynamics, but there are no shortcuts. These are value judgements that are unique to the individual.

Don't bother. He likes the idea of being a woman.

What if someone deserves an insult? You're just wrapped up in sheer politeness then?

So, now it's about politeness and well-supported or well-spoken theory? Moderators now need to become facts checkers as well as ettiquette managers? Or is it good enough to asterisk someone if they give a convincing argument even if he's just blowing smoke out of his ass?

Still gives the moderators too much power in my opinion. They are supposed to be in charge of enforcing forum rules not deciding who are good posters and who are not.

Not to a horse-fly.

I didn't make any such suggestion. I like things the way they are.

It's not going to happen. Wading through shit is the nature of the internet.


Water,

Good eye. Completely missed that.


SpuriousMonkey,

Pretty much. As I said, she knew some biology, but you'd be in a better position to know where she was right and wrong than I, but she did have knowledge about it that I certainly don't have.


vslayer,

I think she was ran off by the mods. Or at least shamed into leaving. She wasn't a good mod and couldn't keep her mouth shut about inside business. Always saying things to make her seem more important. Actually drew Goofyfish into a shit-spewing contest one time. That was nice.

 

We need monarchy!!
Say, only the members who have 2000+ posts can give asteriks, and members with 5000+ get larger avatars, members of 8000+ get signatures and loads of asteriks to give away. Thus a perfect system is born (for members with 8000+posts).

Vote for MY solution!
AVATAR! AVATAR! AVATAR! AVATAR! AVATAR!

 

No. I am not making any judgement about others, only about what I want to spend my normally very limited reading trime on. (I have time available for a few days now b/c I am recovering from minor surgery.)

If the asterisk system were in place and she is one who does usually support her view with reasons and logic and has thus earned an asterisk, then I would open her posts and might come to your same opinion. Thanks for giving another reason for adopting the asterisk system.

You are still missing my intent. I too do not want the monitors making "value judgements" - I will do that for myself. What I want is an indication before opening someone's post whether or not that person generally makes serious arguments (even if these arguments usually do not endorse a generally accepted view) or just likes to exchange short, often insulting "one liners" and there by jack up their post count.

My typically posts are long, serious arguments, and very boring to most participants here. The asterisk system would help these readers to avoid my posts and others like them. If you enjoy short quips, insults wars, etc. then support my suggestion for asterisks. If it existed, you would not waste time reading reading posts like mine.

I am not looking down on or judging people who want to use sciforums for ego trips, insult wars etc. (They appear to be in the majority.) The internet and storage space are big enough for all, but its very bigness makes it hard to find what you are interested in. I only want to read post that argue with reasons. I especially want to read the ones that advance non standard views, but do not want the moderators to judge what is a standard view either. The asterisks should indicate ONLY that the poster typically uses logic and argues for his view, not judge it or him! - I will do that if I have time to read it.