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!

WCF is a he.

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

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

That's utterly inane.

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! :cool:

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.

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.

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.

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.


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

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.

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



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!

You bourgeois snob!
You snake on SciForums' bosom!

Get thee behind me, you dingy person!

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

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.)


...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?

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.


...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.... In short I say, do your own thinking.... What is your criteria? Politeness or knowledge? .... 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.... I think that all users can somehow vote on your individual posts whether you're a good poster or a bad poster. .... (he made reference to another system here)... it was not in effect, probably because these things are nothing more than popularity contests with no real value....I say, do your own thinking.

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. ;)

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.

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.


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

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?


I read less than one hour total in the last two months

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.


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.

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


Being an very obvious idiot and / or mainly making short insulting posts should, preclude astrisks.

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


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.

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?


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.)

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.


A big pile of horse shit is less attractive than a small one!

Not to a horse-fly.


I would be open to your suggestion that non-moderators be allowed to vote

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


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

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


Water,


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

Good eye. Completely missed that.


SpuriousMonkey,


She was full of shit you mean.

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,


didnt she run off to do some study or something?

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!

Billy T.
... 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.

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.)


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

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.


...These are value judgements that are unique to the individual.

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. [B] The asterisks should indicate ONLY that the poster typically uses logic and argues for his view, not judge it or him! [B] - I will do that if I have time to read it.

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.

My point is that moderators are just as prone to snap judgements as everyone else. A mod is having a bad day, reads a bad post, and labels the perpetrator of said post as a felon for the rest of his days.

You have too much faith in human nature.

Yes, have faith in Avatar! My system rocks!
AVATAR! AVATAR! AVATAR!

p.s. I'm having a good day and want to relax.

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!

Sounds good to me.

Anyway, the initial idea is quite good, but I do not know if it is really feasible. It would be quite a lot of work for the moderators, wouldn't it?
But, as far as I remember, this forum software has an inbuild Karma option (or whatever it is called), where members can gather good or bad reputation. Perhaps that can be turned on, but I suppose that is also not feasible, otherwise, Porfiry would assumingly have activated it.

EDIT: Invert has a good point there, moderators can get bitchy, and that could cloud their judgement, or they could be just stoned and make changes for no reason at all. (not wanting to discredit any moderators, of course.)

I particepate in one other forum where this is in place.
You can give one +1 to a member in 48h and only members with 100+posts can give +1 points. The result? Some members giving each other a +1 every second day, because they so much adore each other's views, old members have plenty of +1 points, new have none.

In the same forum there is also the secod stage +1, an elite member, which the other elite members have evaluated and voted for his particepation in the elite folk to which staff and modertator members also belong to. They have a seperate elite forum section and are mostly respected. I have the pleasure to be one of these few members there :D // Because it is a staff/moderator/other elite wide vote, then the results are far more better than if you evaluate a member from his +1s. You get a little title "elite" under your name.

p.s. I like the second system better.

My point is that moderators are just as prone to snap judgements as everyone else. A mod is having a bad day, reads a bad post, and labels the perpetrator of said post as a felon for the rest of his days.

You have too much faith in human nature.

I agree that people often make snap judgements. That is part of the reason I suggested in an earlier reply that one must make 100 post before being eligible for asterisks (I don't yet qualify but if my objective were to equal your large count I could do so in 24 hours so post count is not a guide to who you want to read (and that information is alread given with each post).

A second safe guard against the "snap judgements" you fear is my suggestion that monitors only moninate posters for asterisks every 3 months, after the "asterisk community" of each asterisk level has voted on the next lower asterisk rank candidates. For space reasons, I think four asterisks should be the max possible.

I will try only once more to get you to understand that I too do not want monitors "making judgements" about the information posted or the person. [B] only want an indication of the STYLE of the person's typical post.[B] Is it via logic and arguments or short quips (they presume others will find funny or will react to so an insult war can be started etc.) Normally I do not have time to read the latter, but admit a few are funny. There are sites on the net just to find good jokes and they usually are much better even the short ones. For example: "I want to die in my sleep, like my deaf grandfather did - not screaming like the passengers in his car."

I will try only once more to get you to understand that I too do not want monitors "making judgements" about the information posted or the person. only want an indication of the STYLE of the person's typical post.

By doing so they're making a judgement on the person. They're making a decision that will affect how others look upon that person and his posts.

I understand your point. I just don't like it. And I won't like it either.

By the way, the last bold tag should be a [/b].

Hmm, reformulated that does sound like a good idea. Well, if you can make the mods and Porfiry giving consent to this, I am in on the idea.

Could be worth the effort.

EDIT: But to make it fair, there should be a communal consens, and that would never happen, I think.

The forum software already allows for this kind of thing. It is possible to specify that each poster has a "reputation" level, and that can be displayed along with the user name. I'm not sure whether reputation is determine by rating a user's posts, or what. I think it is possible either for all users to vote, or for reputation to be assigned by the site administrator.

For whatever reason, Porfiry has decided not to use the reputation system on sciforums. Personally, I think he's probably right not to have such a system. If you stick around here for any length of time, you quickly work out who is worth reading and who isn't. Having a reputation feature would, I suspect, just lead to another series of arguments and complaints, along with the usual attempts to manipulate the system.

I'm not particularly partial to the various ratings systems that the various message boards use, but one positive outcome of a peer-review system would be that it might improve the overall attitude of a given forum if people are trying to maintain some level of "karma" or other rating.

Then again, there are probably those that find satisfaction in rating low or below the scale. I've been to some boards where these kinds of ratings were coveted and people were careful about things like trolling, flaming, being rude, etc. in order to maintain their rating.

Something like that would likely change sciforums, but for the better?

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!

i like the larger avatars part, why sholud we waste bandwidth on members that arent ever here. but power should be kept in the hands of a select few, trying to get hundreds running the place wolud create E-anarchy(the main reason i support porfiries new system of governing)

Billy T.


You say things like:



I waste a lot of time reading posts in sciforums


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

Have you any idea what an insult you have stated thereby?!
You have started a thread in order to insult the SciForums community!!

If you don't like it here -- make your proposals with respect to this community.
Otherwise, just go somewhere else.



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.)

Well, I'm sorry to hear about your memory troubles, but it is essential to communication that one remembers WHAT was said and WHO said it.

If you see that the problem is on *your* part (like having poor memory or little time), you must accept it as *your* failing, not this board's.

You can ask members here to help you -- but if you do it with such disrespect like


I waste a lot of time reading posts in sciforums


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

then expect it all to come back at you.

Billy T. Have you any idea what an insult you have stated thereby?! You have started a thread in order to insult the SciForums community!!

I did not intend to insult the sciforums comunity, but if I did it was not directed to a particular person. (I find that very objectional.) By stating that much I wade thru is non scientific shit as I search for the few pearls that are here, I was stating my general impression of what often appears in a forum that is supposed to be related to science. The scientific content of the "insult wars" that frequently appear here is ZERO. One could reasonable suggest that they, not I, go to some other forum, but I am not doing this. This space is big enough for many different uses. Instead I only want an indicator after the names of other people who typically make what you must reguard as LONG BORING SHIT. i.e. post with rational arguments in support of a view.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and I am in no way trying to say that my typical post is "better" than yours, but I do think it usually is more related to science and often provides scientific information related to the thread, instead of (for example) the four short sentence insults you made as your ONLY comments to me:

1) "Oh poor you."
2) "You bourgeois snob!"
3) "You snake on SciForums' bosom!"
4) "Get thee behind me, you dingy person!"

For some people, perhaps the majority now active in this "science" forum, your posts and these type of comments are "better" than mine. I want everyone, not the moderators, to judge for themself which posts are shit and which are pearls. For many, by making these four comments as the only statements in a single post, your post is a wonderful concentration of pearls, but that is not my view of it. I came here to learn and teach (I am old retired physic professor, who still enjoys teaching.) some science.

Thanks for the concern about my memory failures - It is really is not failing. I was too busy to visit the sciforums for about 2 months, so I became uncertain about my opinion of a lot of names that still I remembered having read before. - Were they the ones I like to read or the ones that I want to not open? I.e. were they typically people just on ego trips, bosting their post count with short posts, insult wars, etc. and completely devoid of any scientific content or were they rich in scientific ideas supported by logical arguments?

Again let me stress that I do NOT want the more scientific post's content validity "judged" by anyone else. I very much enjoy reading well argued "crackpot views" (I am old enough to have become bored with the accepted positions.) When it comes to how we perceive and the possible existance of Free Will without miracles, I am definitely in the "crackpot camp" - 99.9% of all cognitive scientist would think so, despite the proofs I have given that their views are wrong. See attachment to my post in 761390 or 760671, but I warn you it is long and for most readers a very boring argument with proofs and facts, none of the clever quips, insults, etc. that you seem to prefer.

BTW You are missleading the reader in your post just below this one when you reproduce part of my post MADE IN REPLY TO INVERT_NEXTUS, not you, as if it were made to you. It is to invert_nextus that I said that although I remembered his name, I did not remember my view of him, however my opinion of him (invert_netxus) was now "tending to be positive" This misrepresentation (or should I say dishonesty) is increasing my view of your merit TO ME in the opposite direction.

I want my asterisks. Now. Lots of them. Give them to me, bitches.

(They will only apply in the Cesspol, right?)

Another forum I visit uses a reputation system, http://forum.bodybuilding.com/index.php?

Under their system you have what's called rep power that is based on a combination of post count, years you have been a member, and of course on the reputation you have gain from other members.

That said, I'm not sure whether this is a good idea or not. On the one hand, it could be a great tool to help people discern quality posters from trolls, but on the other, I worry that it may also turn into a popularity contest.

Does it get any more childish than this? I'll tell you how it'll go. Member 1 says: I give you +1 if you give me +1 --> cliques --> bullies. First of all, such rating is useless and destructive. Second of all, us, geeks, never did well with cliques. Third of all, we've been trying really hard to get rid of bullying, because we come here to escape it.

Does it get any more childish than this? I'll tell you how it'll go. Member 1 says: I give you +1 if you give me +1 --> cliques --> bullies. First of all, such rating is useless and destructive. Second of all, us, geeks, never did well with cliques. Third of all, we've been trying really hard to get rid of bullying, because we come here to escape it.

That's what would worry me about using reputation. The only way I could see it working is if it's heavily slanted to giving more rep power to moderators, and senior members. Even then, it's still probably not a good idea.

Here is an idea:

Use your brain to distinguish between quality posters and trolls.

Radical isn't it?

my god spurious monkey, you are a genius, *hands the monkey a trphy* :p

I did not intend to insult the sciforums comunity, but if I did it was not directed to a particular person. (I find that very objectional.)
By stating that much I wade thru is non scientific shit as I search for the few pearls that are here, I was stating my general impression of what often appears in a forum that is supposed to be related to science. The scientific content of the "insult wars" that frequently appear here is ZERO. One could reasonable suggest that they, not I, go to some other forum, but I am not doing this. This space is big enough for many different uses.

You came here, newbie, and said "The asterisk system would reduce the amount of shit I wade thru to find the few pearls that are here."

You said that there is a lot of shit on this board.

To me, this is an offensive statement to this board -- which is in fact worse than insulting a particular person. Worse for you.



Instead I only want an indicator after the names of other people who typically make what you must reguard as LONG BORING SHIT. i.e. post with rational arguments in support of a view.

Sarky, huh?



We are all entitled to our opinions, and I am in no way trying to say that my typical post is "better" than yours, but I do think it usually is more related to science and often provides scientific information related to the thread, instead of (for example) the four short sentence insults you made as your ONLY comments to me:

1. This is a thread in Open Government, not in one of the science forums.
2. Thusly, you saying that my contribution to you here is "less related to science than yours" is misplaced.
3. You came here, and most people were displeased with your idea. *This* board does not like your idea. Does that ring a bell?



For some people, perhaps the majority now active in this "science" forum, your posts and these type of comments are "better" than mine.

What the hell is your problem?! Do you have an inferiority complex, mingled with megalomania?!

This forum is indeed called SciForums, yes, but as you can see, there is a variety of sections, and about a half of them isn't what would be regarded strict science.
Apparently, you do not know this place well enough.



I want everyone, not the moderators, to judge for themself which posts are shit and which are pearls.

Yes, exactly. So why don't you do it too?



I came here to learn and teach (I am old retired physic professor, who still enjoys teaching.) some science.

In that case, you need one hell of a better attitude. -- This is your part to learn.

Nobody likes a self-appointed teacher.



Thanks for the concern about my memory failures - It is really is not failing. I was too busy to visit the sciforums for about 2 months, so I became uncertain about my opinion of a lot of names that still I remembered having read before. - Were they the ones I like to read or the ones that I want to not open? I.e. were they typically people just on ego trips, bosting their post count with short posts, insult wars, etc. and completely devoid of any scientific content or were they rich in scientific ideas supported by logical arguments?

Again, it is YOU who doesn't remember, so it is YOUR problem.

And YOU are taking a very, very unsuccessful way to solve it.
Get off of that high horse of yours, the sooner, the better.
This is NOT Johns Hopkins.



See attachment to my post in 761390 or 760671, but I warn you it is long and for most readers a very boring argument with proofs and facts, none of the clever quips, insults, etc. that you seem to prefer.

Insinuating again ...



BTW You are missleading the reader in your post just below this one when you reproduce part of my post MADE IN REPLY TO INVERT_NEXTUS, not you, as if it were made to you.

No, I am not misleading anyone. I can quote whatever I find relevant.
The part I quoted was of general use -- showing your attitude and giving information about your state.

Unless you now wish to say that
"It is memory, not thinking, I need help with. /.../" is something you have only concerning Invert Nexus, and *nobody* else.

You said, "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."
So you need the asterisk system to be an aid to your memory problems and limited time. Those are YOUR problems, not this board's.



however my opinion of him (invert_netxus) was now "tending to be positive"

So you come here to bless us with your presence, and maybe, just maybe, we might earn a bit of your mercy?



This misrepresentation (or should I say dishonesty) is increasing my view of your merit TO ME in the opposite direction.

Sweetie, you need to learn something about respect. It is earned, and you have come here with a great deficit.
You do not have much reputation here, but you act as if you were some authority in science *here*, on SciForums. First you need to get that reputation, and then we'll see what we can do with your asterisk evaluation system.


And right now, I really do not care how you feel about me. But I will not have you slander this forum with the purpose of covering up your own shortcomings and lack of attention.

BILLY T,

Suggestion - read some posts.

It takes about ten readings (fewer actually) to figure out which members are worth reading. Then, depending on the situation, day, mood, etc., even the people not worth listening to can have something good to say (or at least interesting).

There is an investment of time required to figure this out, but getting to know the people here (and there do seem to be more real than fictitious personalities here), is part of the attraction. (E.g., water's use of overtly religious wording in this thread was funny if you have some background, offensive if you mistakenly think she is a bible-banger.)

Let's not waste time with yet another useless level of conversation, i.e., a beauty contest of posters. You can tell which people make the most sense by what they write.

Edit -
P.S. Water, you have to admit there is a fair amount of pure epithet on these threads that is not enlightening at all.

Edit -
P.S. Water, you have to admit there is a fair amount of pure epithet on these threads that is not enlightening at all.

Like, I love you too?

I say: Many forums have rating systems. It's just ass kissing for moderators. People who stick around and make quality posts are recognized.