New karma post...

[psoTFX]

It amuses me how some people are going on about Karma in this topic as if it was going to bring about the end of civilisation So, let's go over a few points:

1) Karma is by no means a dead cert for inclusion

2) The system to be deployed should Karma survive to completion is also undecided

3) If Karma is included it can be disabled with no obvious performance impact

4) Karma is not "bad" because it "hides" posts ... the very idea of Karma is that it allows users to give feedback on other users. If applied properly it downgrades timewasters allowing those who choose to ignore posts made by said users.

I think it's clear one or two people don't like the idea of Karma, that's fine, message understood. But please, don't degrade discussion about it just because you (as in all those who don't want to see Karma included) don't much like it.

[andrew johnson]

It amuses me how some people are going on about Karma in this topic as if it was going to bring about the end of civilisation So, let's go over a few points:

1) Karma is by no means a dead cert for inclusion

2) The system to be deployed should Karma survive to completion is also undecided

3) If Karma is included it can be disabled with no obvious performance impact

4) Karma is not "bad" because it "hides" posts ... the very idea of Karma is that it allows users to give feedback on other users. If applied properly it downgrades timewasters allowing those who choose to ignore posts made by said users.

I think it's clear one or two people don't like the idea of Karma, that's fine, message understood. But please, don't degrade discussion about it just because you (as in all those who don't want to see Karma included) don't much like it.

i agree with you

[grrrlromeo]

Oh I understand that I can turn it off...I just wanted to make sure I understood what it did before I turned it off. I'm sure in certain circumstances for certain types of communities the feature would be handy.

[Ptirhiik_]

Is this degrading a discussion to be precise on what implies such a feature ? Well... And also, the choice to see or not posts belongs to the admin with the default threshold sat, as common users very rarely set their preferences in their profiles. This has been already experimented here, the result was dumb discussions because the poster didn't figure someone was replying to his topic, until someone mentioned it to him. Even then, the user hasn't be able to reactivated the display of the gaps (lack of curiosity ? Who knows). This is not especially linked to my toast, but are facts.

There comes my feelings about this : I agree to the point the karma is not (only) bad because it hides posts blindly with no act of the reader, but (mainly) because it is a public judgement on users by users : this is another way to engage some flamewar in a very insidious way. Even if restricted to moderators, this will imply a pre-judgement on the user before even verifying the posting (snowball effect). At this time, I haven't found any healthy pro's to it. That's why this feature makes me uncomfortable as a standard one if included.

[psoTFX]

For the final time ... I won't say this again ... it does NOT blindly hide posts. For starters it can be disabled entirely by the admin. Secondly the USER decides the threshold for hiding posts. I get the real impression you're trying to "bully" us into dumping this feature ... believe me, that won't work. You've made your point as have others both for and against, we will weigh up the situation and make a decision. Continuing to post rubbishing the idea will achieve absolutely nothing.

[Ptirhiik_]

(../..)the choice to see or not posts belongs to the admin with the default threshold sat, as common users very rarely set their preferences in their profiles. This has been already experimented here, the result was dumb discussions because the poster didn't figure someone was replying to his topic, until someone mentioned it to him. Even then, the user hasn't be able to reactivated the display of the gaps (lack of curiosity ? Who knows).(../..)

Did I say something different ? I'm not trying to "rubbish" the karma thing, I'm sure it will appears however as a mod (some people like this kind of things ). I'm neither trying to convince anyone, just to describe the results.

[psoTFX]

huh? You stated, quite clearly more than once that Karma "blindly" removes the users ability to see posts ... that's a nonsense. Just because a former in development schema set the default min karma to zero meant nothing. I'm well aware of the "results", do you not think we've given some thought to them already? As I said, we get the idea, yourself and others do not like the idea of Karma. We will weigh up the situation for ourselves and ultimately make a decision as to how to proceed.

[Roberdin]

Blindly/silently hides posts? Whatever the user's minimum threshold, there is a message where the post should be that says something like: "This post is hidden because this user's Karma is lower than your minimum threshold. Click HERE to view the post."

IMHO, if a user can't spot that kind of obvious message, that's they're problem.

[coolio]

RIGHT. Man whats wrong everyone?? Karma is not the end of the world, just as psoTFX said. psoTFX is right - look at his karma level

I mean, dont complain about like IF statements when they take no noticable
time to complete -

KARMA DOES NOT BLINDLY HIDE POSTS -
You have to go in and set what karma to allow in your UCP

I dunno, but I think it should be included in release. It amazes me how people
come up with complaints like "it will take too much processing to be disabled"

[mansuetus]

I think you did not get right our ( just my ? ) arguments :

• the aim of the karma is to hide bad posts.
• the karma (now) has nothing to do with posts : it is just a way to say "I like this poster in general" or "I hate that guy".

I mean : (I repeat myself trying to be more clear)
if tomorow psoTFX says :
"hkjfhdsfhds" in a thread just to tell he does not approve what was said : everyone will (well, should at least) use the "bad" button. psoTFX's Karma will get down (4/5 for instance) and this lame post will still be viewable. Why ? just because he was good elsewhere ! (because, psoTFX usually says interesting stuffs )

In the perfect world to my own poor opinion :

• users rate POSTS not users : each post has a karma_post.
• users get positive user_karma when their posts have good marks, but their lame posts still gets hidden !
• users with usual lame posts (negative user_karmas) making a good one will have the good one shown.

or even, if you think people with good karmas deserve things :
post_karma = user_karma before users vote ! (this is the case now, except user_karma = post_karma all the time )

please tell you UNDERSTAND what I try to figure out (and say you do not agree if you do not ! But say why you prefer lame posts from good users to be shown and good posts from bad guys to be hidden... )