Toward a Better Tomorrow: A New Framework for Karma and Moderation

[quisitor]

...Q is back, with 2 interesting "User ratings"...Haven't completely read the post, but i assume Part 2 is coming up??..

“Toward a Better Tomorrow”—not “A Better Tomorrow”; no Part 2 and 3.

...hmm, could that be a reason for this new post/thread?!?..

That would seem to be the logical conclusion if “Q” were human and were ruled by ambition above all else.

I disagree with you on the subject of banning people, though it's a difficult issue and not something I'd enjoy discussing...I think I'll leave it at that,

When emotion triumphs intelligent reasoning, we often witness such statements.

does that mean you don't want to believe you can solve "the longstanding issues regarding string tension"? Or is it just a nice way of saying BC is being scensored?

Neither. Try again. If you wished you believe you could choose to insert a comma you could if you believe.

Hi quisitor,

Glad to read this thread... however, we could not understand why you did not post your thoughts in the original thread.

Why ask why?

Sometimes the latest trends in thinking can lead us to the wrong path.

The notion that the "majority is always right" should not be always true and/or correct.

Irrelevant to what you quoted.
We assume no loss of information from prior information sets. Since the archives of this forum are never deleted, this is a reasonable assumption.
Conditioning on the current information set is sufficient to take into account all past information.

In the original thread, it was hoped that karma points should be awarded to members who have done something good, but not to members who have said something good.

Disagree.
The original author suggests that the karma system is a proxy for the trustworthiness of what members write.
In any case, what have you said once again makes no sense.
This forum is a writing-based medium. “Good” or “bad” actions can only take place via a verbal medium. Not only is the object of karma points those members who have said something good or bad but the object would be the same even if we required a proxy for your portended latent variable of interest.

After all, if the karma system is a popularity contest, then kwun should have named it as our 'most popular members' system.

Try reading what other members have written in that thread. They clearly feel that the “karma system” has been mislabelled. What seems to be the basis for your repeated incomprehension?

It was hoped that our moderators could act like chairpersons at meetings without any bias towards any members, but to hold our discussions in order, keeping them fair and without prejudice.

Do you understand the concept of a public court of opinion and how any and all individuals regardless of their title are fallible? Do you understand the basis of the karma system?

Anyone against Badminton here at BC would have been banned immediately.

Once again irrelevant to anything I said—since you enjoy “why”s—why quote someone talking about one topic and then proceed to talk about something completely different?

Even if your statement was relevant, my reply would be:
And you know this because you are the administrator?
If trying to hold an intelligent discussion, one should almost never make such definitive statements. One, you are overstepping yourself and should not presume you know how the administration thinks or are in a position to speak for them. Two, you do the party (in this case the administration) an injustice by speaking for them as others may interpret your words to be their will when that may not be and/or they may not wish it spoken. Your statement is only acceptable if the administration has given you prior consent to speak for them, in which case you should clearly state that you are speaking on their behalf. Other then that, you may make such statements if you are part of the administration or have spoken on their behalf in the past as a communications liaison. You may also make such statements if you can find it in the Badminton Central charter/constitution/Terms of Service agreement/previous posts by the administrator.

If I seem unduly harsh, consider the following scenario: A football player or tennis player considers badminton to be a boring sport for the weak and is against it. He enters the forum only because there is a girl he’s interested in. He reads a bit to familiarize himself with the rules and find a racquet to purchase for the girl while publicly commenting that he does not feel badminton is a man’s sport. According to your statement, he would be banned immediately. Just because someone is at some point in their life against a particular sport does not mean they will always feel that way. Through education and learning, they may come to appreciate the sport and even one day become a spokesperson for it. I’m certain there are many badminton players and even members of this forum who at some point were against badminton—according to your statement they would/should have been banned immediately; they should never be welcomed/encouraged to explore their ignorance.

From what we have witnessed, those who have been banned are those who have violated BC's policies, like to for those who discriminated country, race, religion, gender, etc...

Who is “we”? And where is your “proof”? It’s easy to make broad sweeping statements without substance isn’t it? Some advice—read the entire message before replying. I presented two concrete cases, which make your statement look unintelligible.

I’m going to stop here. If you do not understand my post then your first step should be to re-read it. A second step would be to ask rather than assign whatever interpretations you wish.

the system itself has been developed not by me but the forum software writer from their experience with their hundreds of thousands of clients. again, i don't claim that it is perfect, but i don't think anyone will be able to come up with a perfect system, no matter how hard you try to reason and refine it.

“Karma” systems and the like have generally been developed with either the primary goal or at least the supplementary goal of rewarding those members who have been around longer and are more active in their posting. This is necessary for maintaining member loyalty, i.e. a strong user base, and also encouraging users to post more. Encouraging users to post more allows the size of a forum to grow more rapidly which may be useful for reasons such as advertising revenue or ownership ego.

I agree that no system is perfect but rather than accept this as a fact and maintain the status quo, when alternative solutions are presented (rather than the usual myriad of complaints and critiques), prudence suggests careful examination and critique of these alternative proposals. If you feel the proposed karma systems are inferior to the current karma system, you should state this and explain why.

and that's another reason why the actual value of the karma is not displayed, as the numbers are not very descriptive in itself, it is better to make it coarse and define ranges and classify them. otherwise, ppl will be fruitlessly trying to compare member A's 10.5 karma to member B's 10.75 karma value.

Seems silly to think people would be so childish, doesn’t it? But yes, I am in full concurrence with not displaying exact numbers.

The real questions are: Does the software provide sufficient flexibility to implement a new type of karma system? Or is the code open-source allowing for modifications? Or would the authors be receptive to adding a post-based rating system in future releases?

As I mentioned at the outset, if modification is possible then there are likely superior “karma” systems that can be developed—time and effort are obviously concerns but why implement a karma system in the first place that does not match your stated goals?

as for moderation, i do agree that more moderators are needed. we have been scouting for moderators but we haven't yet found member with the proper qualities and are willing to be one.

If you are able to bear the load then there is no urgency.

I asked for the following reason: People are usually banned for one of two reasons—one, they’ve done something terribly wrong—two, they’re “wasting people’s time”. The latter may occur when an individual’s posts are arcane/abstract/not easily comprehended and/or the administration lacks the patience to have to read through such things. Time is a valuable commodity—lacking patience is a sign that the moderator is overworked.

If the load becomes too heavy, you may choose to look beyond ‘perfect candidates’.

One, relax one of the qualities you’re looking for. E.g. perhaps you’d like a moderator who is non-partisan—well, most people do have some partisanship/association but though they may be enthusiastic fans of a certain country, they may be able to see things in a very objective/non-partisan manner when doing their duty as a moderator. Two, draft based on potential. Perhaps someone seems silly but you know that they take responsibility quite seriously; then they may be able to exhibit the moderator persona you were hoping for once they’ve been thrust into the role.

This is THE second longest post I've ever seen at BC. Ever.... but I have to agree that possibility of a post based Karma system to implemented is a good Idea....

You're only 14, right? It will serve as a good primer for you on some discourse techniques.

And, this one below definitely wins hands down, although it wasn't written by a BC member (i'm sure everyone's aware of this) :
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ad.php?t=32883

Bleh… beaten by an old man. You may look forward to my 100-page reply to Confucius due out Summer of ’08.

Alas, I heard gasps as heartbeats flutter at the mention possible new moderators being appointed. The lust for power is kindled in the hearts of those who aspire to share the glorious light of the ivory towers of Bcnia, each dreaming of escaping the monotone of being a nobody into a somebody that all shall worship and obey. I saw them dressed in their most beautiful of garments, prancing around the hallowed fields of Bcnia with trays laden with offerings to the powers-that-be and petitions of prayer, singing songs of praise hoping to be noticed and plucked from the sea of many as the scent of incense rises into the heavens, hopefully into the windows of the wielders of lightning and thunder.

- Tales of BCNia, "The Evolution" (2007) -

It was going so well but then fatigue set in.

Alas, I heard gasps as heartbeats flutter at the mention possible new moderators being appointed. The lust for power is kindled in the hearts of those who aspire to share the glorious light of the ivory towers of Bcnia, each dreaming of escaping the monotone of being a nobody into a somebody that all shall worship and obey. I saw them dressed in their most beautiful of garments, prancing around the hallowed fields of Bcnia with trays laden with offerings to the powers-that-be and petitions of prayer, singing songs of praise hoping to be noticed and plucked from the sea of many as the scent of incense rose into the heavens, hopefully into the windows of the wielders of lightning and thunder.

- Tales of BCNia, "The Evolution" (2007) -

With regards to new moderators, let us all stop speaking of such things.
Aside from wilfred’s reason, I would guess that a primary reason for not advertising the search is the administration’s sensitivity to potentially offending their friends. If people start applying for the position or it’s known that they’re actively searching for candidates, then if/when a new moderator is appointed, the others vying for the position may feel slighted. So we should let them continue their search in peace and quiet.

For reference—here, a virtual nobody suggested a preference for merely reading certain members’ posts and the result was carnage from the sensitive egos of forum members.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ad.php?t=39023

Just think how bad the fallout could be for the administration to annoint a contested position of power to some member.

[wilfredlgf]

It was going so well but then fatigue set in.

Me English's never been the dog's dangly bits liiike.

To be honest I'm on my second reading of the original post to try to comprehend the outspoken, subtle and metaphysical aspects of the whole thing but am not ashamed to admit that I'm no closer to reaching a conclusion about your comments on the karma system.

[chris-ccc]

In any case, what have you said once again makes no sense.

This forum is a writing-based medium. “Good” or “bad” actions can only take place via a verbal medium.

Hi quisitor,

Unfortunately, you and I are not on the same wavelength.

To me, this forum is not only a writing-based medium, but also a verbal medium.

I usually start with "Hi so-and-so" , and then, end with "Cheers... chris@ccc".

Cheers... chris@ccc

[LazyBuddy]

It’s been suggested that reviewers should not be allowed to give negative karma—only moderators should be allowed to do so. This is a ridiculous notion on several fronts. The first being that we have long progressed from a society that is force-fed propaganda on the merits of many while conveniently ignoring the destructiveness of others. If we are allowed to witness those who we consider knowledgeable then we also ought to be allowed to witness those who we consider lacking. Distributing negative karma is required for equitability, fairness and informative purposes. As a new member I would want to know which members the community has determined lack substance.

A second point is that human nature, community and concepts of karma in its traditional sense are such that members are likely to give more positive karma then negative karma. If this is the case then long-terms trends of karma for active users will be upward trending over time. Eliminating the ability to give recipients negative karma would only further accelerate this upward trend. Karma rating would then further become a measure of longevity, activity and popularity on the forum rather than post quality. A new user might sign up-- an expert in badminton-- but due to everyone else’s over-inflated karma ratings, the new user’s posts might not receive their proper acclaim. Another new user-- new to the sport-- might not realize this expert’s trustworthiness. In order for the expert to attain a “normal” positive karma rating among active members, she might need to post for a year. Under the new proposed karma system, this issue is alleviated.

A third point is the notion of infallibility on the part of moderators. By asking moderators to be responsible for assigning negative karma we are in essence asking them to “hold our hands” since we lack the ability to discern substance-less posts. Further, we are assuming that moderators are omniscient beings who are infallible in judgment and not prone to the sway of human emotion and bias.

Ok, seems there's a significant section reviewing my suggestion regarding "not allow negative karma from members". I understand everyone has his/her own preference, and I am open to any suggestions. However, I just want to clarify something 1st.

1. The main reason I proposed the "no negative karma" solution, is because I see some cases that some members were abusing the karma system. The karma system should be used to identify whether a person's post is "informative" or not, but not "agree vs. disagree". As of myself, sometimes, I give positive karmas to ppl, even if his/her solution / suggestion / technique might not be my favorite. However, I still think him/her contribute some useful ideas to the community. Even though, his/her idea might not be the "meat" or even the "poison" to me, but overall, I still consider that's fair statement. However, some other members just rate the karma as "positive = I like ur idea" and "negative = I don't agree".

2. In theory, the difference between 10 and 3 vs. 5 and -2 are the same. However, I don't want to be rated as "negative". You can say I over concerned about the system, but no one want to be embarrassed, especially if him/her is a victim of the "abuse" as I mentioned in #1. Therefore, I would prefer to distiguish the "superior" and "normal" with positive only, but not positive vs. negative.

3. I don't understand what's wrong with "hold our hands". The moderators are the leaders for our community. They should be the ones trusted by everyone. They represent the fairness and standard. It's like, if there's a dispute among you and me in daily life, we go to the court, and let the judge to determine the case, but not someone randomly off the street, or to be worse, someone from either your or my own family. You should not give me a "bad record", because you are under emotion, and of course, I should not do the same. Therefore, if you feel I am crossing the board, you can report, and let the moderators to determine whether it's the case or not. This way, the result should be fair, and the system gets less chance to be abused.

[twobeer]

I am indecisive, should i re-read quistors posts, or re-read Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky...

decisions, decisions...

/Twobeer

[cappy75]

This is quite 'enlightening' to say the least... about Quisitor.

[wilfredlgf]

Let's adopt this song as BC's theme song.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=poSEND5N_lk

[ctjcad]

Bleh… beaten by an old man. You may look forward to my 100-page reply to Confucius due out Summer of ’08.

....hmmm, a 100-page reply to Confucius due out in Summer '08??..I'm sure our Sir Linus, azabaz_ipoh & chris@cccare looking forward to that post.....

For reference—here, a virtual nobody suggested a preference for merely reading certain members’ posts and the result was carnage from the sensitive egos of forum members.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ad.php?t=39023

Just think how bad the fallout could be for the administration to annoint a contested position of power to some member.

..exactly, or like Master NGP/DinkAlot likes to say "Egg-zachary"...Do you know why or what's the reason why so many member' posted a reply and eventually led to that thread being locked ??..
Again, BC is what it is, "perfectly imperfect"..And if it wasn't for what it's been all about, then i doubt this forum would be as popular as it has been..

Hi quisitor,

Unfortunately, you and I are not on the same wavelength.

This is quite 'enlightening' to say the least... about Quisitor.

..tell me about it...
Anyways, this thread sounds like somewhat of a continuation from that thread...Hopefully, this thread won't go that route..

[ants]

So what is the conclusion now?

[wilfredlgf]

Nothing much really. We're not intelligent enough for this thread apparently.

[kwun]

As I mentioned at the outset, if modification is possible then there are likely superior “karma” systems that can be developed—time and effort are obviously concerns but why implement a karma system in the first place that does not match your stated goals?

no one currently know what type system will match the goal. what was implemented was an available system that has been developed over the years by the forum software designer who has experience over tens of thousands of their clients. to me that sounds more reliable than a few of us trying to guess what a fitting mechanism can look like.

I asked for the following reason: People are usually banned for one of two reasons—one, they’ve done something terribly wrong—two, they’re “wasting people’s time”. The latter may occur when an individual’s posts are arcane/abstract/not easily comprehended and/or the administration lacks the patience to have to read through such things. Time is a valuable commodity—lacking patience is a sign that the moderator is overworked.

you can quote me on that, but we never ban someone without reading through their posts.

One, relax one of the qualities you’re looking for. E.g. perhaps you’d like a moderator who is non-partisan—well, most people do have some partisanship/association but though they may be enthusiastic fans of a certain country, they may be able to see things in a very objective/non-partisan manner when doing their duty as a moderator. Two, draft based on potential. Perhaps someone seems silly but you know that they take responsibility quite seriously; then they may be able to exhibit the moderator persona you were hoping for once they’ve been thrust into the role.

in my view, choosing the wrong moderator is far worse than using a wrong Karma system. the negative impact to the forum itself can potentially destroy the forum socially.

[kwun]

Nothing much really. We're not intelligent enough for this thread apparently.

i might need to hire a moderator just to respond to qui's long posts. wilfred do you want to take this job?

[chris-ccc]

....hmmm, a 100-page reply to Confucius due out in Summer '08??..

I'm sure our Sir Linus, azabaz_ipoh & chris@ccc are looking forward to that post.....

Hi ctjcad,

Yes... finally, we now have a post from quisitor in that Confucius thread, as located at:
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...837#post657837

Cheers... chris@ccc

[chris-ccc]

no one currently know what type system will match the goal. what was implemented was an available system that has been developed over the years by the forum software designer who has experience over tens of thousands of their clients. to me that sounds more reliable than a few of us trying to guess what a fitting mechanism can look like.

Hi kwun,

I think that our karma system is going fine, although many of our members think that they are not interested in it.

And some, including myself, are just trying to discourage members from giving negative karma points when disagreement arises.

This is because each of us are entitled to have different opinions on different matters. And who is to decide which opinion is correct ???

It is deeds, not words, that matter most.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[ctjcad]

i might need to hire a moderator just to respond to qui's long posts. wilfred do you want to take this job?

..i would second that also..But i'm afraid, once wilfredlgf takes that position, *there will be no turning back*...

Hi ctjcad,

Yes... finally, we now have a post from quisitor in that Confucius thread, as located at:
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...837#post657837

Cheers... chris@ccc

..yes, i saw Q's initial reply in that thread...However, remember, that is an *unofficial* reply/post..Q mentioned we'll probably see the 100-page reply sometimes next summer...yeah, just in time for the '08 Olympics Games..

[wilfredlgf]

i might need to hire a moderator just to respond to qui's long posts. wilfred do you want to take this job?

Do I get medical benefits, allowances and provident fund deductions? It's to fund for the brain upgrade I'll be needing to understand his posts beforehand.

(And future psychiatrist appointments).

[ctjcad]

Do I get medical benefits, allowances and provident fund deductions? It's to fund for the brain upgrade I'll be needing to understand his posts beforehand.

(And future psychiatrist appointments).

..we, BCers, will come & back you up whenever you need help...Just call us, IN CASE OF EMERGENCY..