Reading zane's journal

It started on this very same site. I for the first time viewed my profile page, and relize that I was missing a section of comments about myself. Deciding that I wanted to actualy discribe myself. (A rarity that I am ever this open) I came up with this. I was just curious if anyone else wanted to 'define themselfs'.

"I am a complex person, haunted by a past that I refuse to
forget, and driven by goals that wont be denied. I live in
the future of my mind, constantly reminding myself that
tommorow is not yet today. Grounded by the morals and
ethics which I have taken up myself. Forsaken by those
that don't understand. I am trusted by the honest,
disliked by the corrupt, and irate. I am never right nor
wrong. I am not exceptional, nor ignorant. I am not acting
alone, but am one singular person. I am not for everyone,
but for all. I am Grey. I am me. What defines you?"

No Flames Please. I really didn't think that much into it. Also my spelling sucks.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

This post was edited by zane on Jun 13, 2004.

It's cool if that's what you want, but I must say, mace has the best profile I've seen, and it has nothing to do with him. It's really great though.

the spelling is fine except 'Gray'... it's spelled Grey.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

Damn, I knew I misspelled a word. Wasnt sure which one though. Thanks.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

the spelling is fine except 'Gray'... it's spelled Grey.

both true and wrong: there a two different writing styles, the one is British, the other US English ;) so it is written correctly, no matter if you write it with 'e' or 'a' ;)

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

the spelling is fine except 'Gray'... it's spelled Grey.

Apologies, but my dictionary has both listed as valid. :)

Agreed; mace has the profile very much worth the trip over there.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Jun 16, 2004.

I live
in the
future
of
mind,
constantly
reminding
myself
tommorow
is not yet
today.

Grounded by
morals and
ethics
which I
have taken
up myself.

seems to me poetic

I really didn't think that much into it.

Well, perhaps you might give us a nice profile after you have given it thought. :)

I am Grey

is perhaps the closest you came to identifying yourself, as an object.
Rhetorical question: How does one define him/herself without the use of Names, lables, or titles?
Rhetorial answer: With difficulty.

Try it on people you know. Ask: Who are you? Define yourself without using a name, label, job description or title. (See what comes back.)

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Jun 16, 2004.

Try it on people you know. Ask: Who are you? Define yourself without using a name, label, job description or title. (See what comes back.)

heh heh heh, my standard response to this question is to make a range of barnyard animal noises. Worked like a charm in the middle of year nine Philosophy.

"Who are you?"
"BuuckeeEEK" (thats a chicken noise by the way)

-Mel :P

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

Who the hell would give a bad rating to something written that is not offensive, and is a journal article. Seriouslly...

Grow up people...

WOW!

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

I agree. We are not here to put each other down, but to seek freindships with random strangers under aliases predefined by those "aliasees". Either way to rate down a post like this is a sad thing for one to think people willing to do this on NAO is scary and sad but is something to be put up with, much like deiversity, sometimes uncomfortable but not always bad (always). It just means that other people do not like what you or I think is good. Oh well, besides I do likes bunk's profile I also like mine (it is responsible for way too many broken monitors).But yours is good, it is one of the few that is serious that I actually liked reading and made me think highly of the writer.

I should be ashamed of myself.

Who the hell would give a bad rating to something written that is not offensive, and is a journal article.

Which bad rating?

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Mine, 68% and some of the responses to this post...

All the response, both mine and other peoples are all on target for this post. This is something that is opionion. Ratings I though were to distiqunish between good and bad posters, by people that are posting crap, short no sense bunk, and people that are legit and posting things of importance, or intelectal conversation...

To be honest, I though journals were for this kind of stuff. I have seen much worse and pointless posts from other people not get rated down because of their activity and logevity on NAO.

I think journals should be the safe haven away from ratings...

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Which bad rating?

Mine, 68%

Duh. 68% is pretty good!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Maybe in ur opion...

But my point was not just my rating, as i commented on the people that had 50%.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Hmm... I'll chip in a bit here; I think it's my post that you were refering to.

I tend to agree with null, 68%, although it looks low, is actually an above average 'Nice' rating, meaning your post was good, but not excellent (something you noted yourself).

As to my 50% rating... yeah I think it was kind of low. It wasn't badly written or insulting.

I know I recently called on people to rate posts more... but, if it's a short post that is just a link or a comment/agreement, and especially if it's in Journals, I think not rating at all if fine, in that case.

But there should still be SOME rating of Journals... because some of the stuff here really is worth reading and rating... and some of it isn't. :-p

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

As to my 50% rating... yeah I think it was kind of low. It wasn't badly written or insulting.

50% usually means you've got one 'nice' and one 'mediocre'. While I agree with you that the 'mediocre' wouldn't have been necessary, whoever rated you does have a right to their own opinion. It's like that free speech thing, you see. :-)
Don't worry tho. One single bad rating has virtually no influence on anything.

But there should still be SOME rating of Journals... because some of the stuff here really is worth reading and rating... and some of it isn't.

100% agree. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

But my point was not just my rating

Well, you mentioned it in reply to Jaz asking "which bad rating", so I had to assume your 68% were one of the bad ratings you're talking about.

But anyways,

Maybe in ur opion...

Well, see it this way, your or my opinion on the rating system is worth el zilcho. It's not up to you or me to define "good" or "bad". And you know what, that's exactly how it should be. This site has a rating system which is the same for all users, and it works damn well, and the main reason it works at all is that nobody (besides Jaz) can mess with it. Whether a rating is "good" or "bad" is solely defined by him, the designer (the "architect", duh huh), simply because there is no room for individuality: the meaning of a particular rating has to be exactly the same for all users, whether they agree with the numbers Jaz picked or not. (NAO has seen its share of people who wanted to re-design the rating system based upon their own ideas at all cost. Please don't join them.)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

First off I don't think it needs redesign. I was refering to the fact that you think 68% isnt bad. Pesonally I do. I also know that jaz is the designer. But incase you did not notice, your not speak as someone that has a 65% for their overall rating. I do because of posts like this. Now honestly I would like to see you say the same thing if your rating was this low. But as you might have notice, u put ur two sense into everyone business, which u are free to do, and don't get a bad rating. Maybe because you have been around so long, and people without even reading what you say rate you up. Or maybe because its you. While other people with equal things to say get a lower opion. I mean how can u get a higher rating, agreeing with someone that got a lower rating on a post makign the statement that you agreeded with. Honestly, if the persons statment that you are agreeing with is lower when all you post is "I Agree" and get a higher rating on the post. Something is off...

Not asking for a redesign. Just talking ethical. Please don't make any assumptions.

Fair or not, its not about the number jaz picked, its about the people rating other people.

It's not up to you or me to define "good" or "bad".

Ohh and in reference to that, I am not defining good or bad, merally stating my take on it. Hence my opion. Seriously, don't assume so much...

Don't take this as a attack on Jaz's design, which u are protective of. It is a attack on the ethics behind peoples ratings.

If I could make one suggestion, I would just writing guidlines to which you rate people.

For example when you sell a book on half.com or amazon.com or anything else, you rate its quality, NEW / Used - LIKE NEW / Used - Acceptable / ECT.

To each of these half.com and amazon and other site define what you base your rating on.

New - Never used, unopened, no scratchs or marks, contains everything...

ECT

Maybe make Excellent - Good Form in Posting, Relevent, not a wast of space, enjoyed reading.

Some type of guidlines, not saying the above should be it. That would be my only suggestion, and even then honestly, It would not matter to me. But I definatlly would not redo the system itself.

Once again, DON'T ASSUME THAT.

The above example isnt a attack at anyone specific, its just a oberservation in general.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Some type of guidlines, not saying the above should be it. That would be my only suggestion

Have you tried the NAO Help on rating and ranks?

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Yep, forgot about it though. But I remember why that didnt strike me.

Rating a post as Excellent will heavily help ranking up the respective post’s author and should be reserved for extremely good contributions.

Rating a post as Nice will also help ranking up a user, although not as much as choosing Excellent. Rate a post as Nice if you believe it is good reading, just not something very special.

Voting for Mediocre will give the author’s rank a tiny push downwards. Rate a post as Mediocre if you believe that people short of time may as well skip this post because it is not really worth reading.

Finally you have the Spam / Flamebait option, which will heavily help ranking down the post’s author. This rating should be reserved for real cases of abusive or extremely impolite and aggressive posts.

Notice the italic parts. They just didn't strike me, as very speicif. Not all them. What defines extreamly good. Anyways, its a step in the right direction...

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Well I'm of the mind that a persons rank should be somehow effected by the way they rank others. Not totally sure how it would work but there should be some type of incentive for a person ranking others. After all there is a good deal of posts that don't get ranked at all. I'm not complaining but I will state one fact that I've had one white star for almost a year now. Should the ranking system be so hard to attain that you literally have to wait years to get a white star? Other peoples mileage may very but for some of us there is very little incentive to this rating game.

For the record I rate alot of posts. The majority of the time I give excellents. There are probably alot of users who simply do not rate at all. This is a crying shame. What's the purpose of a rating system if nobody really takes it seriously?

This post was edited by majic on Jun 28, 2004.

Very good point. Maybe after you read a post, you should have to rate it? Like it asks a question. Please rate. It will keep asking untill your ratings are empty. Or atleast give u the option. Maybe in the popup window, list all posts that arnt read by the user for that forum, and ask ratings, then they can just clikc the ones they want to rate, and the rating and click submit....

i don't know, but it is very difficult to get high ranks after the first few.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Maybe after you read a post, you should have to rate it?

I dont know...There are alot of posts which simply aren't worth rating. There is nothing wrong with them or anything like that, they could just be a quick two line joke or something like that. I do not view them as detracting from nao so i refuse to rate most of them mediocre or spam. Yet, it feels wrong if i were to rate that excellent or nice, when i could give the same rating to an extremely well thought out political response for example, or a journal entry where i can here the author's voice so clearly that i feel as if they're sitting in the next room...

And there is also the fact that i simply don't understand many of the posts here. Take the music forum for example, i still read it, mainly because i take homework procrastination to an all new art-form... But i often have no idea what people are talking about. I know nothing about heavy metal...Actually i know nothing about anything that was written in the past 15 years... And the same goes for the books forum amongst many others.

Maybe in the popup window, list all posts that aren't read by the user for that forum, and ask ratings, then they can just clikc the ones they want to rate, and the rating and click submit....

This has me a bit confused, i'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting. Some sort of list function where you just tick the appropriate rating for each post? I dont know... Wouldnt that encourage people who dont rate properly to just 'tick and giggle'?

Mind you, i dont actually have any suggestions about how to fix it...

My .02
-Mel

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

Honestly, if the persons statment that you are agreeing with is lower when all you post is "I Agree" and get a higher rating on the post. Something is off...

If the original post was riddled with typos, I could imagine such a situation.

I agree that the guidelines in the help would need some work and I am thankful for any revised versions sent into my direction.

However, even a perfect set of guidelines is not going to be followed by the word. Some are still bound to base their rating on wether they agree or not (I personally rate spelling and grammar alone). This is not so bad as long as, at the end of the day, users get ranked properly.

But I definatlly would not redo the system itself.

In fact it is being redone, but that will have to wait until October.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Mine, 68%

It's one Nice, one Excellent rating. Doesn't sound bad.

Ratings I though were to distiqunish between good and bad posters

At the end of the day, yes. But every post is to be rated on its own. You rate posts, not people. 'Legit' people can still post crap, or uncohesive posts full of spelling mistakes. It's also why there are not just two ratings, but four of them.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Jaz this wasnt a attack at the system. What i ment by the comment you quoted was that in theory, people that post crap get lower ratings. While people that deserve credit get it. But a lot of it comes down to opions. I was more speaking ethically, read above.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>