Whistle Blower Protocol for ATS

Yes, Yes!!! The idea of being able to "cancel" out someone's blue star is a good one.................

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I would prefer the ability to tag BS posts with a "black star"...

"Negative stars" (Black, Red, -X, etc.) aren't going to happen.

That said, it might be nice if... instead of merely being able to add a single "Blue Star", someone could also chose the option of clicking to remove one (only if/when a star is already present).

I don't think less blue stars is as effectual in conveying that you (the board) disagree as an alternate color star would be in conveying that.

In the instance of subtracting stars:

A 5 star message that got that way because 5 people agree would be displayed graphically the same as

a 5 star message that got that way because 10 people agreed and 5 disagreed.

That would be a graphical miscommunication of peer approval.

Why do you say so sternly that it "isn't going to happen" with regard to an additional star system? I

One would think, if the machine can tally blue stars, it can tally red stars too.

No?

I personally think boards such as this could be made much more interactive by creating 3-7 different star sytems... quality of writing star, agreement star, disagreement star, well cited post star, etc. and then in the member center one could self filter/moderate their own reading by not viewing posts that are flagged beyond their personal preference. It would create an emergent and self correcting system that may reduce the load on moderation by overtly discouraging poor behavior while applauding specific good behavior.

For example, the way things stand... if something is well written, but you disagree with its premise... do you give it a blue star?

I think the current star/flag sytem is vague and can be improved upon with a more complex graphical display that conveys more information and allows more user generated opinion to be cast.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Why do you say so sternly that it "isn't going to happen" with regard to an additional star system?

It's been discussed before, and the idea of any system that displays negative connotations has been turned down.

I can't remember which Amigo said it, if it was in a thread, or if it was said on ATS mix; however, the idea is a no go.

My idea would simply display Blue Stars, or no stars if enough people reject the notion.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I don't think less blue stars is as effectual in conveying that you (the board) disagree as an alternate color star would be in conveying that.

I understand what you're saying, and it's not that I necessarily disagree with you; however, I think the ability to reduce already present stars is the closest idea to a "negative" system that may still stand a chance of being implemented.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
For example, the way things stand... if something is well written, but you disagree with its premise... do you give it a blue star?

I have no hard rule on that one. Sometimes I have starred them, and sometimes I havn't.


Personally, my pet peeve is the continued political baiting, and off topic partisan banter. If someone starts a thread on how "Politican A did X" (generally something considered "wrong"), before long you see an off topic 7+ Starred one liner saying "BUT POLITICIAN B DID Y!" (generally also considered something "wrong") even though X and Y are completely unrelated, and two wrongs don't make a right. Also, it seems like the more stars such a post racks up the more people are tempted to go off topic to address it.

I think it would be nice for members to have a way to take such "off topic banter" down a notch without having to further derail the thread by making a direct response addressing "politician B", and/or "scenerio Y".

Although my idea won't give anyone the satisfaction of a visually "bad mark"; it would be able to reduce such drivel to "normal post" status (a.k.a. no stars).

[edit on 4/1/08 by redmage]

The problem I can envision with undoing stars is two fold.

1. You star because you believe it makes good point. I don't so I undo the star. I don't agree so you vote doesn't count.

2. No stars. Is it that no one sees something special or that it is evenly split between all readers. EX: 5 stars, 5 undo stars.

Actually a post opposing the stared one with its own stars can show the balance of the views on the subject, those pro and those con.

This, of course, does not mean it always works out in this fashion.

I do see that stars can cut down on 'I agree but have no more to add' posts in order to support the thought of the post.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The problem I can envision with undoing stars is two fold.

1. You star because you believe it makes good point. I don't so I undo the star. I don't agree so you vote doesn't count.

The way I see it both votes would still count, it's just that the general consensus would be that it was merely an "average post".

Originally posted by roadgravel
2. No stars. Is it that no one sees something special or that it is evenly split between all readers. EX: 5 stars, 5 undo stars.

I guess I would ask, does it really matter if it was +5, or +5 and -5? If the majority still agrees that it's a good post/point, then it will still gain stars, and they would be more reflective of the general community's opinion.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Actually a post opposing the stared one with its own stars can show the balance of the views on the subject, those pro and those con.

True, and I don't think that those will ever go away; however, they can also easily lead to a full-on thread derailment.

Tied into a "peer voted representative" system (for response to a "locked", primary, WB thread), such a system could also allow for members to change their "TSME" as time goes on.

[edit on 4/1/08 by redmage]

reply to post by redmage


Hi redmage! I like your ideas, and dont like to make a habit of shooting down ideas.. But this negtive star rating has been combed over much on here. The owners of this site even considered this.
However bottom line it could be abused to easy.

Lets say member A has a problem, and goes and rounds up some friends from another forum. Member A and company decide to unrate and give tons of negtive type stars all around.
To much would simply be abused by this system..
However I do urge you keep up the good work

Originally posted by zysin5
Hi redmage! I like your ideas, and dont like to make a habit of shooting down ideas.. But this negtive star rating has been combed over much on here.

Thanks, and yes it has. That's why I don't think a Red/Black/Etc. Star system would stand a chance. The closest possibility would simply be to Star, or to be able to remove one that's already there. There would be no visual negative; it would only show positive, or neutral.

Also, I've found one of SO's posts where he addresses the issue. He touches upon the "star-down" concept. While I agree with the "focus on the good" premise, it's sometimes a bit tiring to see so many "bad" posts rack them up.

With no system to "correct" a post (back to a neutral minimum), it seems that the current system is just as abusable by simply "rounding up some friends".

[edit on 4/1/08 by redmage]

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by roadgravel
Actually a post opposing the stared one with its own stars can show the balance of the views on the subject, those pro and those con.

True, and I don't think that those will ever go away; however, they can also easily lead to a full-on thread derailment.

I am not sure it is a derail if the first post was on topic. The other side post would hopefully be on topic. But I can also see we there would be a constant entry of pro/con pairs of posts. May be that is what you are alluding to in derail.

May be the single star system you envision is a better idea and would actually work well. I still think it would be nice to see a total of the stars anyway.

Originally posted by roadgravel
I am not sure it is a derail if the first post was on topic.

That's the issue. Often, it isn't on-topic. Going back to my example of partisan diatribe; "But politician B did Y!". Most often, scenerio Y has nothing to do with scenerio X. The thread is not about "politician B" nor his/her experience with "scenerio Y", and two wrongs don't make a right.

If a thread is discussing the unusual trail-of-bodies left in Clinton's political wake, I don't want to hear about how Bush wouldn't testify under oath regarding Valerie Plame; likewise, if a thread is discussing Bush's plans in Iraq, I don't want to hear about Clinton lying under oath about a "BJ".

To see posts like those racking up stars tends to drive me nuts; alas, 'tis the nature of a pet peeve.

In relation to to the "user-voted representatives" concept (for posting access in a locked WB primary thread), I do think that a more dynamic starring system could be interesting, and allow for a better reflection of how the members feel regarding individual posts & how their representatives are presenting their questions & concerns.

Personally, I think that almost anything that gives members more choices/interactivity is a good thing. By making the starring system more dynamic, it may also motivate members to utilize it more often.

Of course, this is all just brainstorming. None of this may ever be implemented, but it certainly is an interesting thread.

[edit on 4/1/08 by redmage]

what about a reputation system like Vbulletin has?

you give pos/neg REP to a user, instead of their post which is usually done with the comment line filled in.

the user then earns a reputation "score" by several things:
1) by post count
2) by amount of positive rep previously given by other members.

it quickly shows who makes worthy posts that others have found useful, and if they have a low score they are either a newby or not well respected.


think of it as a Karma system!

well well well lets deny the first amendment. we all want things to be so fair on here. what about the possibility of stopping the actual most important thread thats ever been posted on here?
i know its not likely, but just,WHAT IF?
besides, all you naysayers musn't have that much to do ,if there was more than 15 pages of replies to the thread from 007! every thread in some way,offers something. some kind of information to open your mind ,bs or not.
censorship is wrong in any way. it is a form of denying intelligence.
how can anyone on here want to punish the many for the actions of a few fools?
i think it contradicts every thing this site stands for.
point systems are subject to everyone's differing opinion,and can be misused.
besides we're all supposed to be so intelligent,shouldn't we all make up our own minds?
i was reading a thread by quenn,she asked for 24 hours. the naysayers tore it up,couldn't wait. how about we go a little easier on ythe op's before we make these hasty decisions. this site is for the exchange and revelation of information. denial of ignorance also comes with tolerance. if not, we are just another site with a few peoples opinion.
LEAVE IT ALONE...IT WORKS

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by Spectre0o0


YIKES! What what got you so worked up? This is merely a brainstorming session, and there's no "hasty decisions" being made here.

Second, the first amendment is a U.S. "right", and this is an international, and privately owned board. Show some appreciation that our input is even asked for at all.

I find it interesting that you say "LEAVE IT ALONE...IT WORKS", yet complain that in Qwenn's thread "the naysayers tore it up"; so do you really think everything is working fine? Do you have any ideas that may improve such instances, or are you agreeing with intrepid that a little self restraint is all that's necessary?

Relax a bit and let us know what you think.

reply to post by redmage


yeah i guess i was trying to say that in a 3:00 am mode. i thought that a few of the posts were a little oveer the edge and i was tired.
right after that i fell off my soap box and went to sleep. sorry