Respect Points

[otseng]

What do you think of having a "respect point system"?

The primary quality prized at this forum is respect. We have a system in place to punish people who breaks the rules. But I was thinking it would be nice to have a system to reward people who make respectful posts.

It'll be similar to tokens that we have now and it'll be displayed right below your token count. However, the only way you can get a respect point is when a moderator gives you one. If a moderator is impressed with your post, he/she will give you one respect point.

What do you think?

[Illyricum]

I like that idea (actually,I had an idea quite like that one). I think it will be good have a respect point system.

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

Sounds like a good thing to me. Since I don't have time to read all the posts that are made here, I would like to focus on the ones made by those who have proven themselves to be thoughtful and respectful debaters. But until now, I usually have to read several posts from each user to determine how much respect I have for them, and then I have to remember their name, which is not much better than having to read every post.

I wonder, however, if instead of accumulative points, the respect level could be expressed on some type of percentage or percentile scale, since it is the quality, rather that quantity, of posts that is being rated. This would enable new users to quickly gain a high respect rating if they so deserve.

[otseng]

I wonder, however, if instead of accumulative points, the respect level could be expressed on some type of percentage or percentile scale, since it is the quality, rather that quantity, of posts that is being rated. This would enable new users to quickly gain a high respect rating if they so deserve.

What I can do is add it to the statistics. There'll be a top 10 respect point users. And a top 10 "quality" users. Where quality is defined as (respect points * normalizing constant)/number of posts.

Since I don't have time to read all the posts that are made here, I would like to focus on the ones made by those who have proven themselves to be thoughtful and respectful debaters.

Or you can just add them to your buddy list.

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

Also, could the respect points be associated with the specific posts for which they were rewarded so that users can get an even better feel for what type posts are considered respectful?

[otseng]

Also, could the respect points be associated with the specific posts for which they were rewarded so that users can get an even better feel for what type posts are considered respectful?

That's a good idea. And also a moderator can add a comment to a post saying which moderator added a respect point. That way we all can know what posts impressed which moderators.

So, any suggestions now on what would be the criteria of receiving a respect point for a post?

[fried beef sandwich]

I'm not too hot on this idea. I know on other boards this type of thing can get pretty catty.

[otseng]

I'm not too hot on this idea. I know on other boards this type of thing can get pretty catty.

Could you explain more why you don't think this is a good idea? Could you also point me to other boards that do this so I can see how it's working (or not working) out for them? Thanks.

[fried beef sandwich]

IIRC, the RaptureReady bulletin boards (ww.rr-bb.com) used to have that sort of feature, but now it seems they've taken it off.

The TheologyWeb forums still have a "pearl" system where you give points to people. (See: www.theologyweb.com/forums )

Re: cattiness:

For a while, there was a guy called Socrates, who was none other than Young-Earth Creationist and Answers in Genesis guy Jonathan Safarti. He was extremely condescending, rude, and dismissive of everyone who disagreed with him. He had a doctorate in Chemistry, but did not hestitate to give his opinions regarding Biology, Astrophysics, Geology, Paleontology, Cultural and Physical anthropology, even though these were beyond his area of expertise.

Anyway, many people were more than willing to point out that his opinions were ill-informed and would point out flaws in his logic or try to correct his misconceptions. He would just rant and seethe and mock his detractors.

But the people on his side loved him, and kept giving him points (or pearls). Why they did that, I don't know, but I suspect it was because his followers were awarding him points just because he was on their side. It was a total cult of personality.

This type of exchange was typical:

Socrates: X about evolution/astronomy/etc is false! Ha ha! Answer that one.
Other dude: Well actually, saying X is a misinterpretation of the facts, blahblahblahblahblahblahblah
Socrates: Obviously, Other dude is incredibly biased and completely blind to the facts. Perhaps he should stop sucking on Richard Dawkin's teat and open his eyes to the world around him.
Other dude: That was incredibly insulting. I can't believe that post is still here. Mods?
Moderator: Other dude, watch your tone. I shall now edit your post without your permission and cut out the strongest part of your argument, making you sound stupid. And stop baiting Socrates.
Other dude: WTF?
SafartiLover: Amen to that Socrates. You're right as always <awards him a pearl>

What infuriated me was that Socrates aka Safarti would keep on getting pearls even though he was an asshole and totally not open to debating anything. My guess is that his fanbase would keep awarding him points, no matter what he said. He was their hero, their golden boy. He could do no wrong.

At the end of the day, you could compare the post:points ratio between christians and atheists, and you could easily see that Christians on that (majority Christian) board consistently had a higher points to post ratio than atheists or agnostics, even if the non-Christians were respectful, etc. My educated guess is that people were awarding points to others only if they agreed with their position. So you can see where problems might arise.

There are other boards out there that get along fine without the respect points thing. One notable one is the Internet Infidels (www.iidb.org). There are a lot of people who post stupid baiting questions just to instigate others, but most of us recognize those people for who they are and choose not to respond. You should check out their Political Discussion forums - there are some good debates going on there. As of late, it's developed a more anything-goes, rough and tumble atmosphere, but still.

Generally speaking, in a debate-heavy atmosphere, the quality of the arguments and the quality of the debate should remain a top priority. I personally feel that that goal would be compromised.

I think whatever someone has to say ought to be judged by its own merits. I don't want to get into the habit of reading something, being puzzled by it, and then checking out the respect points to see if they've got tenure or seniority before I decide to respect their opinion. The natural tendency is to automatically grant more credulence to someone with a higher point to post ratio, but like I alluded to earlier, it's really easy to distort that ratio if you've got groupies, or you like to post funny witty comments that don't advance the conversation, etc.

I figure if you've been around a board long enough, you'll get an idea of who knows their stuff and who doesn't. And looking at a user's post count should give you a pretty good idea of their "seniority" to begin with.

If you really want to incorporate a rating system, you can try doing a Slashdot.org type of thing and have a way for the users to rate posts on a scale of 0 to 5 points. That way you can isolate the posts with actual meat in them from the clever one-liners and such.

anyway, i'm rambling again. that's all.

[otseng]

Good points FRB. I think I will table the idea for now. I don't think the benefit cost ratio is high enough to justify having a respect point system right now. Perhaps later I might revisit the idea again.