ATS Points & Star System Overhaul

Originally posted by Skyfloating
2. We want positive reinforcement

Greetings

Of course you want positive reinforcements.

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012

Of course you want positive reinforcements.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Seriously, I wonder with a red star negative rating system, how many would I have collected in that thread?

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012

Seriously, I wonder with a red star negative rating system, how many would I have collected in that thread?

You´re doing what a conspiracy-theorist is supposed to do: Question everything and everyone.

But there´s also the remotest of possibilities that we flag and applaud stuff because we like it.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Possibly, but there is also a remote possibility that you do it because of long term exposure to positive reinforcements and implanted suggestions and behaviors.

Do you really like it, do you do it because others are??

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012


That is for your thread. Let's keep to the topic on this one.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


And somehow he has more than 4000 posts on ATS! I couldn't spot a post in a thread i would choose to read and you really have to wonder how much of the traffic volume on ATS comes from this sort of nonsense. Maybe they should just change ATS to OATS (Occasionally Above Top Secret) to reflect what has/is happening to the site?

Since i am not here to make friends i am very much in favor of a rating system where negative sentiments can be displayed ( individually or thread ) and i am more than willing to pay a certain cost in points to add some notice of my disapproval while i contribute to the threat in the normal manner. In respect to that there should be separate allocations for points earned trough actual participation and points earned trough aiding in the administration of the site itself as well as for tinwiki/podcasts and all such multimedia. At this point you can't tell much by the points beside that the posted did his best to get them or created a few threads that drew a great deal of attention and often for all the wrong reason.

There are better ways but obviously a great many toes will get crushed in the process so i'm not holding out much hope....

Stellar

reply to post by Skyfloating


And if you pick your moderators properly they will thus applaud all the stuff 'they like' ( your not serious are you?) resulting in the type of reinforcement you had in mind? If i see what mostly draws applause on this site you can but wonder if mods are selected for their mostly very conventional thinking or just because they don't make waves;i certainly deserve more applause but thankfully i am not 18 and 'needy' enough to require pointers as to which direction i should be thinking in.

I understand the benefits of positive reinforcement and yet i think that for a website to set itself apart it will have to choose between emotionally unstable people, who need pointers, or a website where mods act as referee's to set boundaries when the remaining contenders get too 'physical'. The last thing i consider a worthy aim is to attempt to protect ego's when the majority of them needs a good crushing on a wide variety of issues.

Whatever happens i am sticking around to see if this thing sinks or floats.

Stellar

The way it is, is brilliant! Why fix something that works perfectly well?

I have enough post with no replys, no flags and no stars that lets me know - nobody likes it for whatever reason, so I move on and try to come up with something better. Now, you would like to demean me further with mean anti-stars so I feel like a real loser? Ouch, man - I don't like it.

No doubt allot of crappy post get lots of attention, but so do criminals on the evening news. I think we can decide for ourselves why they got the attention. Besides I don't see them as rewards - just interesting or controversial.

Thank you for this thread.

I am embarrassed to have made serious contributions recently to what I now understand to have been a troll thread.

The OP made three similar threads in about a week, one of which I would have found offensive had it not shown up that OP in their true colours.

On the thread I contributed to s/he made disparaging remarks about the contributors but got round the T&C by generalising and not making an attack on any individual.

I have been in a few 'spats' in my short time on this forum, but mostly it has just been a laugh and, as far as I know, no-one has gone away with hard feelings. At least both parties have been able to have their say.

In the thread I have mentioned, I felt I was in a very awkward position. I didn't want to be the 'class snitch' and complain, and I didn't want to look paranoid either. I decided to deal with the individual courteously, because that is how I prefer to deal with people.

Currently 'hoax' threads are labelled clearly as hoaxes. Could 'troll' threads not be labelled in the same way? Or, if it starts to become obvious what is going on, could a moderator make a post stating their suspicions?
Once that sort of post had been made, would-be contributors might think better of posting.

reply to post by berenike


I dont think this is such a great idea.
I like the system just the way it is!
Its the posters own faults if they kep posting after it was a proved hoax anyway.

Sincerely,
joshedis


[edit on 31-7-2008 by joshedis]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If you don't like a thread topic, don't reply and don't flag.

Pretty much as simple as it gets right there, I have seen countless threads about this very subject. and it all boils down to this above statement. Thats all that needs to be done. Ignore the troll and it will starve and go away. Feed it and you will see the beast grow.

People flag threads they like, they star threads they like. It is a user generated content ecosystem. So it's the members that make or break the board. It's up to you to not get sucked into these threads. ignore them and they will go away.

Instead of wasting energy on threads you do not like, how about contributing to well thought out posts that seem to get very few replies? (not mine obviously, cause they suck) Find the really well deserving threads and only post and flag, tag, star, and digg them

From "whatukno"

... Ignore the troll and it will starve and go away. Feed it and you will see the beast grow.

I am new here but I believe that nails it for me. I saw it stated in previous posts.

Negative comments can be received positively where the ego is concerned. We all have egos to feed and placing any importance, good or bad will just make it grow. The system in place seems to work fine.

Originally posted by joshedis
reply to post by berenike

 

I dont think this is such a great idea.
I like the system just the way it is!
Its the posters own faults if they kep posting after it was a proved hoax anyway.

Sincerely,
joshedis


Hi,

I like the system too. You're right about it being the posters own fault if they keep posting in hoax threads after the thread has been labelled 'hoax' or proved to be a hoax.

It's the troll threads that, I think, aren't being labelled as 'troll'. I'm very new here and don't always 'get' what trolling is. If a mod recognised a thread as being such a thing and said so, it would help people like me and perhaps dissuade the OP from continuing to do it.

Having said that, I've read a thread or two where people complain about threads they think are a joke. I usually defend the 'fun' threads, I enjoy them.

Hi Peeps,

I thoroughly appreciate everyones points of view. But if you go into UFOs/Aliens now and you count the ratio of serious threads to the complete trash threads, the trash wins hands down.

It's getting harder and harder to find a decent thread to contribute to... and to be honest, I personally feel my interest start to wain... as do many others.

The best part of being at ATS for me is that I've become more of a skeptic and this is squarely due to trolls, liars, hoaxers and mentally unstable people that are destroying the serious research into the phenomena whilst at the same time doing absolutely nothing to improve the stereotypical image of UFOlogy, thus keeping us in the wacko bin with the rest of them - the laughing stock of all the Joe Publics.

I believe less now than I ever did! So if anyone ever blames me for being skeptical of their story, it's not really my fault but more due to the mechanisms in play here at the forum. The sheer amount of obvious crap that fills the boards in an unfettered fashion.

Thankyou ATS for making me wiser and a far more critical thinker! I will do my best to go on denying ignorance... as should we all.

To wrap up, I feel it is slightly ignorant to believe we have a perfect system. You can point to many analogs in history where societies, businesses, monarchies, governments and religions felt the same way and all of them eventually fail in some way or another.

Nothing in this world is perfect and everyone, even the Three Amigos (whom I respect greatly) should be open to change. It's sad that I haven't seen that displayed here... not even the slightest consideration but more a steadfast stance solidified in mortar. A shame to be sure.

IRM

Originally posted by StellarX
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

And somehow he has more than 4000 posts on ATS! I couldn't spot a post in a thread i would choose to read and you really have to wonder how much of the traffic volume on ATS comes from this sort of nonsense.

Are you referring to me and my points? In case you are (which you may not be), I would like to point out that I have not made 4000+ posts. The exact number can be found in everyones profile page, which I would gather you would be familiar with already, no?

Many of my points have come through applause from Mods for making valuable contributions to threads.

Nuff Said!

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


I was in fact referring to the one line poster you chose to berate as well. If you read my posts again you will find it makes a whole lot of sense in that context....

Stellar

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
The way it is, is brilliant! Why fix something that works perfectly well?

Because it's isn't brilliant ( lets call it functional) and doesn't work perfectly well?

I have enough post with no replys, no flags and no stars that lets me know - nobody likes it for whatever reason, so I move on and try to come up with something better.

So where does the the objective truth and your own opinion/ideas feature in your search for getting stars/applause or flags? Just wondering....

Now, you would like to demean me further with mean anti-stars so I feel like a real loser? Ouch, man - I don't like it.

We are human and we all involve our ego's in our beliefs but basically you shouldn't discuss a issue if you could not at least consider the possibility that your somehow wrong. If drawing negative attention makes you feel like a 'loser' i suggest you go back to the books or just abandon the whole process until have arrived at a point in your life where discussions on online forums don't affect your emotional stability.

No doubt allot of crappy post get lots of attention, but so do criminals on the evening news.

And neither is a coincidence given the type of societies we live in.

I think we can decide for ourselves why they got the attention. Besides I don't see them as rewards - just interesting or controversial.

So why do you then have a problem with people objecting to what your saying? Don't you think that would give you a far better idea of what people think of your comments? Wouldn't that allow you to conform even better to expectations of the consensus? There are obviously ways to abuse such a addition but just like democracy we can't abandon it because it would not be good for everyone.

Stellar

ATS promotes positive and healthy discussion.

Someone saying "this post sucks!!!!!!!!" is not positive and healthy.

If this was a good idea - i think the 3 wisemen would've implemented it already.


case in point

This thread, alone, would have a lot of red stars....that would do 1 of 2 things


Instigate a negative reaction out of you

or

Make you leave ATS


neither one are something we want to see happen.

[edit on 8/1/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

I have to agree with the majority that the system in place is pretty good.
I don't think there needs to be negative points or voting and the system at the moment kind of incorporates that anyway.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it..