How should the rating system be changed?

[Malacodor]

Now that "optimistic" and "old" have been removed as well, may I suggest again to use (i) as "idiotic"? :p

 

[Qweesdy]

I was under the impression that usage of alt accounts for illegitimate purposes (as opposed to doing a permanent shift to an alt account for privacy purposes) was a bannable offense. Might be wrong on that, but I'll have to check. Would really suck, though, to try to log on to your main account after doing all that work to boost its reputation, just to find it banned.

I thought so too, but wasn't sure. I checked the site's rules and can't find anything against it. Now I'm wondering how many people already have multiple accounts.

As for points B and C, doing such will simply damage any progress towards whatever ideas, features, and ends to discussions that you may want - so they're counterproductive.

Yes; but only in the short-term. The goal would be to reach "Community rater" status, where you'd get far more power to influence the ratings of others.

 

[Megacrafter127]

I thought so too, but wasn't sure. I checked the site's rules and can't find anything against it. Now I'm wondering how many people already have multiple accounts.



Yes; but only in the short-term. The goal would be to reach "Community rater" status, where you'd get far more power to influence the ratings of others.

It was stated in the rules, that making alternate accounts is a bannable offence, however, over the course of revamps that term was removed, if it still is active is not known to me. May a schine member bring light into this or fix a mistake.

 

[Winterhome]

It was stated in the rules, that making alternate accounts is a bannable offence, however, over the course of revamps that term was removed, if it still is active is not known to me. May a schine member bring light into this or fix a mistake.

There have been a few old members who have had to make alt accounts for personal reasons, but it wasn't for exploitation of anything.

I'd assume that it's reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Megacrafter127]

There have been a few old members who have had to make alt accounts for personal reasons, but it wasn't for exploitation of anything.

I'd assume that it's reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, schine did reserve the right to revoke that rule on a single-case basis.

 

[jorgekorke]

Negative ratings only bring negative feelings to the forums and community. I think we should avoid it.

 

[Malacodor]

Negative ratings only bring negative feelings to the forums and community. I think we should avoid it.

What about negative comments? Should we avoid these, too?

 

[Megacrafter127]

What about negative comments? Should we avoid these, too?

I agree that asking this question is a necessity.

 

[Winterhome]

Negative ratings only bring negative feelings to the forums and community. I think we should avoid it.

Negative feelings are here regardless of whether we have negative ratings or not.

Have you seen the arguments?

 

[MossyStone48]

negative commentary?
yes. please to avoid.

critical commentary? constructive, honest and conducive criticism?
please to be yes.

It's called feedback. And real feedback is very useful. (this leaves negative commentary in the 'useless' category.)

 

[jorgekorke]

What about negative comments? Should we avoid these, too?

Negative feelings are here regardless of whether we have negative ratings or not.

Have you seen the arguments?

Trust me, I've seen enough forums and communities ending up inside a lame drama show thanks to similar rating/recommendation systems... Users will always try to exploit the system just to piss off someone they hold grudges, add that to the faction grudges, and I think we will have just a counter-productive feature...
Though I see no harm in giving back some of the neutral ratings that were removed, such as the "Old" one.

Edit : Oh, I'm sorry. I just realized that "Disagree" was a neutral rating, not a negative (the ones that gave red numbers).

 

[DukeofRealms]

I was under the impression that usage of alt accounts for illegitimate purposes (as opposed to doing a permanent shift to an alt account for privacy purposes) was a bannable offense. Might be wrong on that, but I'll have to check. Would really suck, though, to try to log on to your main account after doing all that work to boost its reputation, just to find it banned.

As for points B and C, doing such will simply damage any progress towards whatever ideas, features, and ends to discussions that you may want - so they're counterproductive.

Yes bannable offense, alternative accounts is one of the only actions that can lead to an instant ban of an account (used to be stated as such in the rules, however I did not write the current ones so I'll have to check and revise them if not). The rule about alternative accounts was and still only applies if the account is abused, this results in both accounts being banned.

As for manipulating the rating system, if found out, it can lead to a wiping of all ratings received or issued. In some cases, it can lead to an instant ban of an account (again, I'll have to check and revise the new rules).

 

[Malacodor]

negative commentary?
yes. please to avoid.

critical commentary? constructive, honest and conducive criticism?
please to be yes.

It's called feedback. And real feedback is very useful. (this leaves negative commentary in the 'useless' category.)

Sometimes critical commentary IS negative. Sometimes being honest is perceived as insult.

 

[Qweesdy]

Yes bannable offense, alternative accounts is one of the only actions that can lead to an instant ban of an account (used to be stated as such in the rules, however I did not write the current ones so I'll have to check and revise them if not). The rule about alternative accounts was and still only applies if the account is abused, this results in both accounts being banned.

As for manipulating the rating system, if found out, it can lead to a wiping of all ratings received or issued. In some cases, it can lead to an instant ban of an account (again, I'll have to check and revise the new rules).

If there's a rule against using multiple accounts, then that just means people using multiple accounts make sure nobody finds out, and doesn't prevent the use of multiple accounts. In a similar way, if there's a rule against "gaming" the reputation system, then that just means people doing that make sure nobody finds out, and doesn't prevent it.

For both cases, the rule only really prevents honest people from doing things that they wouldn't have done anyway. Rules don't effect the dishonest people unless you can reliably detect people breaking them.


I think the key to avoiding this sort of thing is to remove the incentive. More specifically, make sure people aren't rewarded with extra powers if/when they obtain a certain score (which is part of at least 2 of the proposals I've seen). If the reputation is "just a number" then very few people are going to bother with finding ways to artificially inflate their score.

Of course if reputation is "just a number", then how it's calculated doesn't effect much, and there's no real reason to change the current system.

 

[Megacrafter127]

If there's a rule against using multiple accounts, then that just means people using multiple accounts make sure nobody finds out, and doesn't prevent the use of multiple accounts. In a similar way, if there's a rule against "gaming" the reputation system, then that just means people doing that make sure nobody finds out, and doesn't prevent it.

For both cases, the rule only really prevents honest people from doing things that they wouldn't have done anyway. Rules don't effect the dishonest people unless you can reliably detect people breaking them.

Tell me how to avoid email and IP comparers, paired with honest players reporting abuses of the system.

(This is a rethorical statement, I do not expect an answer)

 

[MossyStone48]

Sometimes critical commentary IS negative. Sometimes being honest is perceived as insult.

if someone is a native user of their language then they should be able to, with a little effort, leave feedback that cannot be taken out of context. they can leave a comment that will not incite, insult or draw the ire of the recipient. you say you can't think of a way to put it nicely? then don't post it. not expressing your opinion isn't going to suddenly cause a backup of unexpressed citations and turn you into a fluffy white rabbit with a pocket watch and punctuality issues.

not putting the effort into communicating well really does beg a few questions. is what you are about to post worth the time of the reader? is the posted too direct and over focused? would the piece be any less valid and functionally less polarizing with changing a few "you"s, "your"s, "you're"ses into "they"s, "theirs"s and "they're"ses? can you bothered to go back, proofread your work, secure a personal level of certainty in the post? is it the appropriate combination of topical, concise and fully realized? if you have not satisfied those issues then the likelihood the post has any validity as a critique evaporates like amanda byne's credibility on any day ending with a Y.

TL : DR; If someone's commentary can be perceived as negative and insulting then they didn't make an effort. Everyone involved would be better off if that someone simply hadn't posted at all.

 

[Qweesdy]

Tell me how to avoid email and IP comparers, paired with honest players reporting abuses of the system.

It's relatively simple to get multiple email addresses. I've probably got 4 of them for various reasons (the one I use, one from my ISP that I never use, one left over from Uni, and one I was using for testing something a few years ago). I'd also assume that a lot of people have one for work/school and one for home/personal. There are also web-based email providers that will just give you an email address (gmail, hotmail, etc). Then there's web sites that will give you a "disposable" email that's valid for about an hour and then ceases to exist (enough to use for registering accounts, etc). Then there's people (including me) that administer a web/ftp/whatever server on the internet, where it's trivial to set the server up as email provider and have as many email addresses as you like (and really, anyone can get hold of a virtual server "somewhere in the world" for almost nothing if they don't need much processing power or fast internet).

For IP addresses, for historical reasons (IPv4 and its limited number of IP addresses) a lot of people have dynamic IP addresses. For example, I can press the reset button in my ADSL router and get a different IP address in less than 30 seconds. The new IP address will be in the range assigned to the largest internet provider in my country. Of course even without dynamic IP addresses, a lot of people have multiple internet providers - e.g. one at work or school, one at home, and a third on their smartphone.

Detection can't work for these cases; so you have to fall back on heuristics that only give you a (mostly useless) probability. Are the IP addresses for the 2 accounts in the same country? Are the accounts used at the same/similar times of day? If "yes" for both of these then there's a slightly higher chance it might be the same person (but that's far too little to matter). A better approach is comparing writing styles. For example, I tend to use "of course" and "therefore" and "however" and "for example" more than other people do; and use more punctuation (hyphenation, sometimes excessive use of quotation marks); I almost never use slang or "leet speak"; and there are various spelling mistakes that I seem to repeat ("seperately" is one - I know it's wrong, but my typing fingers have developed bad habits all on their own). This is a much better heuristic; but it's also easily fooled if a person is self-aware.

The best way to determine if the same person is using multiple accounts would be comparing credit card numbers. This only works for people that have purchased the game; and still isn't "proof" (e.g. people buying accounts for their children, etc); and I very much doubt that StarMade keeps people's credit card numbers at all (and it would create privacy/security concerns if they did).

For a simple exercise; I know I'm not you, and you know you're not me; but how can someone else prove that?

 

[DukeofRealms]

- snip -

Easy, alternative accounts by themselves aren't against the rules. However, if you break a rule with one account, and we find that you have others, all of them will be banned. It's really simple to find alternative accounts, I can think of multiple ways that don't involve an IP address or an email.

As for the rating system, they have no weight by themselves. It's what other users and the user who has received the rating take from it. In terms of post value, people can indicate the value of a post through the ratings it got, and how many. Detecting manipulation of the system is really easy as well, if it comes to a point where it is a problem, we can look into it and find out what's happening easily.

 

[Malacodor]

if someone is a native user of their language then they should be able to, with a little effort, leave feedback that cannot be taken out of context. they can leave a comment that will not incite, insult or draw the ire of the recipient. you say you can't think of a way to put it nicely? then don't post it. not expressing your opinion isn't going to suddenly cause a backup of unexpressed citations and turn you into a fluffy white rabbit with a pocket watch and punctuality issues.

not putting the effort into communicating well really does beg a few questions. is what you are about to post worth the time of the reader? is the posted too direct and over focused? would the piece be any less valid and functionally less polarizing with changing a few "you"s, "your"s, "you're"ses into "they"s, "theirs"s and "they're"ses? can you bothered to go back, proofread your work, secure a personal level of certainty in the post? is it the appropriate combination of topical, concise and fully realized? if you have not satisfied those issues then the likelihood the post has any validity as a critique evaporates like amanda byne's credibility on any day ending with a Y.

TL : DR; If someone's commentary can be perceived as negative and insulting then they didn't make an effort. Everyone involved would be better off if that someone simply hadn't posted at all.

If I politely disgree with someone is this negative or not? It's not really different from a disagree rating, which was perceived as negative. And who is Amanda Byne?

 

[der_scheme]

The ratings we had so far can be divided into two categories:

1. How the rater feels about a post (emotional): Like, Agree, Disagree
   
2. Describing a property of a post

It was obvious with the Disagree rating that people would easily give those away when they didn't like what they were reading, even when there was nothing to disagree with (like facts without associated opinion). If you take a closer look, you can see similar behavior with the Agree rating. People tend to agree with posts that are emotional, not (only) with those with valid arguments.
I don't particularly like these traits about emotional ratings, which is why I'm a huge fan of the other ones. A post can be of different usefulness to different people, having not everyone rate a post equally, but a general usefulness usually cannot be argued about—which makes these ratings less prone to misconduct, too.
In any case I'm against the Disagree rating, here's why.

Also, if you're thinking about disabling negative/neutral ratings in the factions forum, you should disable rating there in general, imho. There's not much difference to me between hate rating and upvoting just because someone is an ally of yours.

…

That is an interesting concept, but I'd rather like to see that on a meta-level. For instance I once suggested a box giving a better overview on useful posts in a thread. This usefulness could be determined by two things: reputation of the poster and reputation of the ratees.

Anyway. I need the following ratings (back):

• Unrelated: For off-topic and people who can't even read the OP, posting solutions to issues the OP doesn't have.
• Old
• Unfriendly/Flamebait/whatever
• I'd also like the current ones to stay.