Forum posts voting system

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Appreciated jersey tom (EDIT:....oops MX tifoso) my sincerest apologies!!

Re the topic:
Why not have a system whereby naysayers can bypass the vote system upon login and carry on as is currently the norm?
By doing so their fears are allayed, but their posts arent privy to those who endorse the vote system.

It may be two tiered, but it allows the user(both voter and non voter), to make up their own mind for each post read.
So you can have your cake and eat it

[mx_tifoso]

But something of great importance is that voters should be held accountable for their actions, in that if we notice that someone is abusing a specific member by only voting them down we can take away their voting rights asap.

Steven, will there be a way to view a members voting history?

This idea by itself is showing the basic fault of a simple system. The moderators already have super powers. It is not their opinion that the system is supposed to express. The users should vote in the content system and moderators in that system should be treated exactly like any other user. One man one vote. And no manipulations by moderators.

A fair system publishes the reputation status of each member but only the member himself should be able to see where his status comes from. Perhaps mods can also view the rep account of members but they must not be allowed to manipulate it. The users will very quickly hate a system that is manipulated by the mods.

...

I never meant to insinuate that we should have any sort of manipulative power within the voting system, but merely being able to see patterns and maintain a careful eye on those who abuse the system. If a certain member were to constantly abuse someone, through both posts and voting, then something should be done. And mind you, there has never been a single instance where only one of us made a decision without consulting the others. As a matter of fact, not only do we consult with the entire moderation group but we often ask for advice to normal members in order to get a clear point of view.

[WhiteBlue]

mx_tifoso

The question is what would be seen as abuse of the system? If the users have carefully defined voting powers that are the same for all how would you abuse the system?

Users can only vote within the limits that they are given. Why should any vote within the system be censored?

Naturally you will get users ganging up on others who hold opposing views and such campaigns may be orchestrated by private mail and even public discussion in the thread unless you suppress it. Such mobbing may create additional work for the mods. It is a concern that I would certainly have. You may have to add a rule that forbids the discussion of any rating action in the threads.

Nevertheless the voting itself cannot be abusive IMO if you want a democratic platform.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

As my post alluded to WB, if you are worried it will come to a popularity contest why not have option to withdraw your post from the voting "priviledge".
I say priviledge as that's what it boils down to.

Users with x amount of posts may vote, or a predetermined factor that Tomba and co can decide upon as in length of membership, amount of warnings recieved, whatever they feel will push it forward.
However, if you cannot vote you should not be allowed to withdraw your post from being judged.

I wouldn't want the site to become elitist, but this is a very "niche" website we are talking about.

It gets quite complex when you want to cater for everyone, maybe like Mx said.... The best idea is to leave voting for everyone, but with a keen eye for any abuses that may lead from it.
Sounds like a lot of work for the mods this way though.

[manchild]

Two new ideas how to prevent abuse of voting, when it matters animosity between members.

- Negative vote on post is conditioned with obligatory reply with explanation of different opinion.

or

- Members and visitors can't see username, avatar, signature or any other info about author of post they haven't yet rated. All they can see is the post text. That way, their vote will depend solely on their agreement or disagreement with the content of the post. They will be able to see to whom have they given thumbs up or down after they've already voted. Script should therefore also hide poster's username from quotations and from the text of the following posts.

[blokkie]

Just a post to keep this alive as I realy would like to see some form implemented.

How is work progressing ? Is there an implementation date ?

A -1 or +1 by posters would also help the moderators I think.

Heads Up !

[mx_tifoso]

It is actually alive and well, but Tomba will implement it along with a host of other changes to the forum within the upcoming weeks. Stay tuned!

[Giblet]

Other sites that rank posts wait until a threshold is reached before displaying the rank. That way, you can't see if someone has 1 or 2 votes, until it reaches, say, 5.

It makes it harder for people to vote with a mob mentality. These same other sites I refer to, also randomly assign a certain number of votes per day to add randomness outside the scope of the users and keep someone from gaming the system.

I've seen the preview, and it adds to the site. It doesn't really change it so much that you can't continue to use the site the way you have been.

[Steven]

Indeed, work is going on.
It is also possible we'll move to a new server at the same time.

Anyway, I wanted to say that downvoting will initially not be enabled. It could be added in the future and/or for users with a high ranking. We'll see how things go.

[Dragonfly]

This ranking stuff is a children's play, but you must know better.
Time will tell.

[strad]

I agree..I don't think it will show any real value and in time will be dropped.