Post Ratings Review Board.

[VCheng]

The difference is that this forum purpots to be objective. If that's what the management says, that it's a Pakistani forum and so we should expect it to be biased, then I'm fine with it, since my particiption is entirely voluntary.

But their stance has always been that they try to be objective and unbiased - heck, the rating sytem itself is meant to convey that impression. They claim that ratings are given for good or bad post quality, not for being pro or anti Pakistan. So when people come to the forum and look at the names of members, they think that the red number underneath signifies he is a terrible poster who always violates forum rules, or trolls, or makes posts of no value. However, if the forum openly says that the red figure is mostly for anti-Pakistan remarks, then members who have a lot of negatives will be only thought of as anti-Pak, not as a worthless poster.

What Pakistanis say and what they do are two different things.

 

[anonymus]

then why are you acting like a cry baby on this thread. Man up correct your deficiencies and move on. You are all like my younger brother, but dont expect me or any of the mods to suffer any fools. You got game, show it on the field not in the changing room!!!
Araz

He @Tameem has no deficiency. Fault lies with Imran Khan Worshiping staff of this forum which give -ve ratings to PML(N) and PPP and god forbid MQM supporters. I have seen decent pro MQM posters having more than 30 -ve ratings.

 

[Manticore]

Starting this thread is what was humanly possible for us. Members are free to report wrong post rating... both positive and negative.

However being respectful is an integral requirement of being a title holder and members can always approach webby in this regard

Post rating meter idea was put forth by me when star members tag was converted to tta. I had seen the efficieny of this meter / rep power meter on various fora. This meter is here to stay however members are free to propose steps which can prohibit its misuse

 

[anonymus]

Starting this thread is what was humanly possible for us. Members are free to report wrong post rating... both positive and negative.

However being respectful is an integral requirement of being a title holder and members can always approach webby in this regard

Post rating meter idea was put forth by me when star members tag was converted to tta. I had seen the efficieny of this meter / rep power meter on various fora. This meter is here to stay however members are free to propose steps which can prohibits its misuse

You don't need to look too far. You just need to look at -ve ratings your own MQM supporting members are getting on this forum. At a sight of any pro MQM comment, all your titleholders gang up to give -ve rating to that post.

 

[janon]

Starting this thread is what was humanly possible for us. Members are free to report wrong post rating... both positive and negative.

However being respectful is an integral requirement of being a title holder and members can always approach webby in this regard

Post rating meter idea was put forth by me when star members tag was converted to tta. I had seen the efficieny of this meter / rep power meter on various fora. This meter is here to stay however members are free to propose steps which can prohibit its misuse

From your last line, it is my opinion that you are fighting a losing battle, because raters are humans, and think highly of a post that eloquently supports their own viewpoint, and would give a positive to such posts. Also, negatives are handed more easily when a poster insults the rater's cherished beliefs or country or institutions, than when an insult is made against something the rater does not care for. So Pakistanis would give negatives to a statement that called the Pak army ''eunuchs'', but will just skim through it if such an epithet is used against the IA. I gave an example previously, and frankly there are several examples in most multipage threads. It is a basic human trait called confirmation bias, and only people who assiduously guard against it can escape it - most people who have the power to give ratings do not have the ability to train themselves against cognitive biases. Unless you give the rating power only to such people, my contention that your innovation is bound to remain biased stands.

That said, since you have made up your mind that the rating system will stay, I can think of one or two easy ways to make it better.

1) Give positive ratings only if a member himself/herself makes a very good point, not simply for starting a thread with a good article or news item. Many people are getting positive ratings simply for starting a thread that makes the raters happy to read.

2) When a post is bad enough to get an infraction or ban, automatically add a negative rating as well. As of now, horrible abusive posts are given infractions that are not publically displayed under the person's name forever. So a person with zero negatives may have made abusive remarks against a member's family or religion, and a person with eleven negatives may simply have made mildly off topic posts. But it is the latter who will carry the meter of shame forever.

 

[Manticore]

From your last line, it is my opinion that you are fighting a losing battle, because raters are humans, and think highly of a post that eloquently supports their own viewpoint, and would give a positive to such posts. Also, negatives are handed more easily when a poster insults the rater's cherished beliefs or country or institutions, than when an insult is made against something the rater does not care for. So Pakistanis would give negatives to a statement that called the Pak army ''eunuchs'', but will just skim through it if such an epithet is used against the IA. I gave an example previously, and frankly there are several examples in most multipage threads. It is a basic human trait called confirmation bias, and only people who assiduously guard against it can escape it - most people who have the power to give ratings do not have the ability to train themselves against cognitive biases. Unless you give the rating power only to such people, my contention that your innovation is bound to remain biased stands.

That said, since you have made up your mind that the rating system will stay, I can think of one or two easy ways to make it better.

1) Give positive ratings only if a member himself/herself makes a very good point, not simply for starting a thread with a good article or news item. Many people are getting positive ratings simply for starting a thread that makes the raters happy to read.

2) When a post is bad enough to get an infraction or ban, automatically add a negative rating as well. As of now, horrible abusive posts are given infractions that are not publically displayed under the person's name forever. So a person with zero negatives may have made abusive remarks against a member's family or religion, and a person with eleven negatives may simply have made mildly off topic posts. But it is the latter who will carry the meter of shame forever.

Well the awarding is slightly subjective however we have a criteria for rating in the hidden TTA section. For me, half of my ratings have been from indians so I havent felt any bias in this regard

Regarding rating some thread, if that thread induces good discussion and in turn elevates the quality of the forum, then I see no problem in rating that post. Its better for people to post meaningful threads rather than threads on toilets etc and this rating system drives them to find quality stuff to post on the forum.

In other words you want the infractions received part visible to all, other than the mod/admin team?

 

[janon]

...

In other words you want the infractions received part visible to all, other than the mod/admin team?

Well, it is better than the ratings being visible, since ratings are meant to be given for lesser offences. I gave an example earlier in this thread about a member who posted a comparison chart of MKI and JF-17 in the thunder thread, and got two negatives for being off topic. Now those two negatives will be seen on his ''record'' forever. OTOH, members who have abused families and sacred figures etc don't get a negative, they usually get an infraction or a short ban, which will not be seen by others later on.

Some time back, before the rating system existed, somebody had suggested in the thread about infractions that when an infraction is given to a troll, a message to that effect should appear where his post used to be. But webby or an admin shot down that idea, saying that infractions are not meant to shame or humilitate members in public, but only to keep future discussions healthy. Now you have actually introduced a sort of shaming system (the negative ratings), and ironically it is lesser offences that get that treatment.

I think the best course of action would be to club the negative rating and the infraction together - ie, give a negative only if a forum rule has been violated, or serious trolling, or derailing, or abusing - you know, what infractions are generally given for. Make infractions the new ''negative rating'', and display the number where you currently display the number of negatives. Let positive ratings remain for the intended purpose, of appreciating a good quality post. That way, your intention in creating this rating system would still be fulfilled, serving as a tool for motivating people to post with quality.

Of course, this means that only mods and admins should issue negatives, not all titled members. That is just as it shoud be - berating somebody for violating forum decorum should be the job of the mods, not of think tanks or professionals. And the power to give positives should remain with all titled members. (I would also ask you to reconsider some of the people you have given TTA titles to, but that is another point.)

 

[Manticore]

There is a criteria for the TTAs to follow while rating posts. If its not being followed, charman TT / webby can be mentioned.

Mods can rate posts however we go with pre-warning and warnings. Pre warnings carry 0 points

The ratings system gives an added tier to a person's repute

 

[Hakan]

There is a criteria for the TTAs to follow while rating posts. If its not being followed, charman TT / webby can be mentioned.

Mods can rate posts however we go with pre-warning and warnings. Pre warnings carry 0 points

It might be beneficial to post the criteria in this thread.

edited..

 

[Manticore]

I maybe beneficial to post the criteria in this thread.

We were discussing some amendments particularly adding some age criteria to the title.

@Secur
@Slav Defence
@jaibi

generally members have 3x infractions to neg ratings

 

[Audio]

Exposing Stalinist lies gets you a negative rating here? There are numerous historically proven sources saying i was correct and vostok, as usual is full of shit.

Accidents in Russia | Page 4

post #51

@WebMaster how are you not ashamed of this?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Exposing Stalinist lies gets you a negative rating here? There are numerous historically proven sources saying i was correct and vostok, as usual is full of shit.

Accidents in Russia | Page 4

post #51

@WebMaster how are you not ashamed of this?

You just made a personal attack on Vostok right here? Don't you think that is a bit too ironic?

 

[Audio]

You just made a personal attack on Vostok right here?

Really? You will deny also the crimes of the Red Army in Germany in the final months of WWII? That's what the "full of shit" comment is meant for. And is factually correct.

Thanks for the post rating. Should have been expected people like you and vostok will not be able to handle the responsability.

@WebMaster another wrong rating by Chinese dragon. this time for saying that Stalinist lies is "full of shit".

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Really? You will deny also the crimes of the Red Army in Germany in the final months of WWII? That's what the "full of shit" comment is meant for. And is factually correct.

Thanks for the post rating. Should have been expected people like you and vostok will not be able to handle the responsability.

WebMaster another wrong rating by Chinese dragon. this time for saying that Stalinist lies is "full of shit".

How can you attempt to twist a post that you just made?

There are numerous historically proven sources saying i was correct and vostok, as usual is full of shit.

 

[Audio]

How can you attempt to twist a post that you just made?

Is he not lying?

And i'm not twisting anything. Both posts are made in the same spirit with same message. except, in the second it is explained what the first one means, just for you.

And no matter how you try to spin it for your own purposes, it is still a shameful attempt of revisionism which you of all, seeing that you're Chinese should condemn as well, if not out of basic humanity, then out of purely pragmatical reasons of trying to prevent Japan doing it's own historical revisionism of the Nanking events.