Reading Current Events

You got four different choices of rating a post.

GREEN - for really well-written and thought out posts, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the author.(from the rules)

What does "really well-written" mean? Well-written is not about grammar, spelling or general use of the English language. It means its an outstanding post, one that makes you laugh or cry, one that makes you think or rethink your own opinions, one that you get really important information from, simply one that's touching your feelings. Which post really does?
Voting an article Green rewards the author with points to his score.

If you read 20 articles from one author everybody can determin which of his 20 posts are better than others. Noone writes on the same high level all the time. So for each single author there is a average quality post and outstanding ones. Those average qualities may differ from different users, so a post that deserves a Green for one author may only deserve a Yellow for another, just because the average level of his/her posts.

DONT vote Green because you just like what you read
DONT vote Green because you agree with the author's opinion
DONT vote Green because its your friend who wrote the post
DONT vote Green because the post is longer than average posts

YELLOW - for posts that are good reading, but nothing too special.(from the rules)

Rating Yellow is not a punishment or a downrating! Its the standard value of a "good post". It was okay to read this post, you liked it, you enjoyed reading it, simply a good article, no matter if you agree or disagree. But it was not an outstanding one!
Voting an article Yellow rewards the author with points to his score.

Vote Yellow if you liked what you read, if the article fits into the average quality level of the author, if you want to push the author on the score table.

DONT vote Yellow because you want to punish the author
DONT vote Yellow because you disagree with the author's opinion
DONT vote Yellow because you dont like the author (it helps him!)
DONT vote Yellow because the article consists of just one word or line

NO VOTE - if you don't really have any strong feelings towards the post, or simply don't care.(from the rules)

If you dont care about what you just read, or found it boring, or skipped half of the message, or dont like the author, or did not read the article at all, then don't vote!
Not voting scores no points for the author.

RED - for spam, flames, and real assholes. This is our main defense against truely abusive users.(from the rules)

Voting an article Red is a strong weapon, choose carfully when to use it. There is almost never a need to use a Red against any regular user. Red is just to block possible intruders from outside that only want to abuse NAO for their own purposes. Voting an article Red penalizes the author on his score table until he cannot post any articles or pager messages at all and therefore his account is blocked from using NAO.

DONT vote Red just because you feel like!
DONT vote Red because you disagree
DONT vote Red because you feel offended by a single post
DONT vote Red because you dont like the author

Basically the whole voting and scoring business is there to keep anybody we dont want or like to see at NAO out by user's request. Also it helps serious new users to climb up the ranks fast, so they get more power and more freedom on NAO.
The voting system was not invented to start a permanent competition. Once you've reached a special status on NAO there's no need anymore to earn more. And there's also no need to assume any other regular user wants to hurt or punish you by the way he or she rates your own posts.
You may have noticed there is no negative rating besides the Red one and since the Red is meant to be used only against spammers there is no "weapon" to rate you down. The worst that can happen to you is all your posts keep unrated and you dont increase your score. But who really cares once you are allowed to post more than 20 messages per day?
This is not an interpretation, but somewhat a guideline. If everybody makes his own interpretation of how to use the rating system, it'll end up in tears again and again like it did. Amen.

Have fun!

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

This post was edited by Martin on Sep 05, 2002.

Okay, Martin. I think that now you clarified things a bit. Thank you.

Though I still think that we should have another rating color in between yellow and red. I think it is only fair. If we don't like what someone keeps posting, but we don't think it is offensive or so forth, we should have the possibility of rating him down. Red would be too much and yellow would be too less. In medio stat virtus, right?

Un bacio è un'apostrofo rosa scritto tra le parole "ti amo".

I am also for a long time missing this "something between" yellow and red. Red is a punishment. But maybe I feel like this is a ill-considered post or a bit out of place. Something like that...

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Martin, your post didn't make me laugh or cry. So you deserve a yellow. Most every post I read doesn't make me laugh or cry, Martin, though they still deserve green ratings. Either the 2 people that rated you green laughed or they cried according to your definition, and I don't think they did.

I honestly believe they *liked* your post, so you got a green. That goes against your own words though, doesn't it? Maybe everyone that just *likes* each other's posts and not laugh or cry should be getting yellows again.

I'm emphasizing here that it isn't a black or white thing. Unfortunately, ratings are based upon whether you like the post or not. I imagine many people would have an opposite opinion of mine, and as a result, I might get more yellows than I would get had my opinion agreed with your own. That's just the world we live in. For me, a perfectionist, green is what I strive for.. not yellow or red. So sue me.

DONT vote Yellow because you want to punish the author

By this I assume Yellow is meant to represent something that could punish.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Sep 05, 2002.

By this I assume Yellow is meant to represent something that could punish.

Dude, for the 1000th fscking time.

A yellow vote is half a green one. A yellow vote is good. A yellow vote means your post is above average.

When your friend gives you a present that is worth 50 bucks, do you consider this a punishment because he could also have bought you something worth 100 bucks?
When your teacher/professor/whatever talks about your "good" work in class, do you think he doesn't like your work because he didn't use the word "excellent"?

Go read the rating rules. I mean, read them. Don't just open the page, ignore what you see and close the browser window. And then read Martin's explanation again.
Just don't try to force us to change the whole rating system just because you're not absolutely happy with the current one.

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

Dude, for the 1000th fscking time.

A yellow vote is half a green one. A yellow vote is good. A yellow vote means your post is above average.

And for the 1000th time, I don't settle for average. If yellow was above average, then that would imply red would be the average rating and it isn't.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Sep 05, 2002.

And for the 1000th time, I don't settle for average.

...which is perfectly okay, but not my problem if you fail.

If yellow was above average, then that would imply red would be the average rating and it isn't.

*sigh*

Yes, if you stubbornly ignore the fact the the rules state something completely different, and instead make up your own rules, you could of course come to that conclusion.

Don't give any vote...
if you don't really have any strong feelings towards the post, or simply don't care.

Only give a negative vote...
for spam, flames, and real assholes. This is our main defense against truely abusive users.
Do not rate a post down only because you disagree with it!

So:
Yellow - good
Green - very good (excellent)
No rating - average, or didn't read the post
Red rating - spam.

What part of this easy system don't you understand?

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

Martin, your post didn't make me laugh or cry. So you deserve a yellow. Most every post I read doesn't make me laugh or cry, Martin, though they still deserve green ratings. Either the 2 people that rated you green laughed or they cried according to your definition, and I don't think they did.

You are not only a perfectionist, but seem to be a pretty wilily guy as well! You just read what you want to read, right? I mentioned some more options for Green as laughter or tears....

We can keep talking about Greens and Yellows for ages, there is one thing you tend to forget: these are the rules as they are, I just tried to explain it in detail. We wont change it no matter how long and hard you insist in your point of view. Noone can force you to understand how it works and to act like that. If you wonna see it your way, alright, go ahead, but dont be surprised and keep complaining about Yellows. You know now how its meant to be. Whether or not you like it doesnt really interest anymore. I did my best to explain the mechanics. We wont change the rules that worked fine for a pretty long time just because one single guy refuses to understand it.

I said it before, during the last weeks there was an inflationary explosion of Greens, most of'em unwarranted. But still its a matter of taste. As well as you cannot demand Greens for your own "well-written" articles I cannot force anyone to NOT vote green. In my view just a handful of articles really deserved a green rating, but thats just my view. Here is the guideline for voting, what everybody makes of it really is not my cup of tea. But please, please stop crying about unfair voting behavior, you are close to passing the border to ridiculousness. And slowly I'm gettin sick of repeating myself again and again. Sometimes I think you never read anybody elses posts but your own!

After all those rules are not mine. Of course you are free to ask Jaz for a revision, but rest asured, unless he hasn't got an accident where he hits his head and forgets his name, these rules wont move a single inch. His primary goal by introducing the voting mechanics was to have a useful defence against spammers and lamers, and that works pretty fine. We were thinking about additional options before as you can see in older threads, but even if we ever decide to add some more detailed options there wont be any button to rate someone down but the Red. So, I guess if you do not like it, you may lump it.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Martin, I know you understand this. I'm not going for a perfect green rating here, but it is what I shoot for. I complain when I spend a good 45 minutes of my time looking at things on the internet and writing a well-written post only to get a yellow is all.

Again, I use the figure skating analogy. The judges give close to 10s on most all the competitors. Why do they do this? They could just as easily rate them 5s and 6s instead, but they rate them high. This is because the judges realize that all the competitors are very talented and deserve nothing but an excellent rank. The winner is just the minute differences between these excellent ranks. It is a sign of respect I wish we had here. We are all intellectuals here and really don't deserve less than greens 90% of the time. I vote accordingly. Vote however you want, Martin. All of you can vote how you want. There is nothing I can do to stop you, but no matter how you rank me, I will NEVER settle for less than the best.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

Who told you to spend 45 minutes on the Net to write a good post?
You are doing it for yourself, not for us.
So don't feel offended if we don't appreciate the time you spent.
Be lucky to be able to spend so much time on the Net.
Many of us don't have the leisure for it.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

I think there is a clear difference between a "perfectionist" and someone who is "perfect"!

Acoording to me (correct me if I am wrong) a perfectionist always tries to attain perfectionism, she tries to be perfect in the eyes of people she interacts with. In her own eyes she is not a perfectionist, but she is simply perfect.

Whenever someone understands the difference between the two definitions, things might make more sense. Now, a perfectionist will always put an extra 200% in achieving something so that it tends to be perfect in the eyes of others, but finally the judgement is left for others. Others are going to decide whether they like the effort or not. There is no way the perfectionist can say that I am perfect. If there is a group of 100 people and 99 say that you are excellent and 1 believes that there was still room for improvement, it means that the person is not perfect. Now, what would a perfectionist do? Feel bad for that 1 not-an-excellent-but-a-good-vote, or start working towards improvising his perfection?

Just my 2 cents.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

I think a perfectionist doesn't really care too much about what other people think, except to get feedback at times. They usually kinda get a bit more radical on negative feedback....true.
But they are really in competition with themselves....trying to attain a goal no one can really achieve.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Could it be that people rate Martin green because he always brings up some very good arguments?
Green has nothing to do with: I like the post, it is more an expression of: Man, the author knows how to write, explain and comment or whatever.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Could it be that people rate Martin green because he always brings up some very good arguments?

Oh, I rate him green simply because there is no rating to say its an above-excellent post, so I have to satisfy by just the green.

Sometimes, his posts deserve multiple greens and my heart saddens to see just 1 or 2 of 'em. Well, but that's what others felt about his posts, it's their opinion, I can't do anything about it, and shouldn't care.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

uuhhmmmm....wellll....<blush>....thanks, both of you.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Okay, please lets get back to some constructive criticism.

I think we can take these "guidelines" as kinda FAQ null and RCD proposed. Since I'm not the one who's making the rules here, lets talk about it.

Is there anything missing? Any statements I should add or remove?
If we can settle on certain wordings I'll go back to the original and edit it.

But please, keep the discussion to the status quo, remember the FAQ describes the situation we HAVE, not what we want or what we'd prefer or what we dont have. Thank you.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

I wouldn't change too much. To me it looks just fine the way it is.

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

Ditto.

Maybe what needs to change is the text that appears whenever someone wants to click on the rating buttons. The text can be rephrased to have better explanations - maybe a list of the reasons why one should or should not click on it. The explanations that Martin has given in so many of his earlier posts can be used to reconstruct the pop-up explanation texts for the rating buttons...

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

So just because I'm trying to obtain an unobtainable goal, that makes me wrong somehow? What's wrong with a little dreaming?

Where would we be if JFK didn't dream of space travel, or Mark Twain didn't dream of racial equality? At the time, they were both unatainable goals, but they strived for them anyway. Had one of these dreamers come on netalive, I presume him wanting the best rating would be continually insulted and dumped on until everyone comes to a consensus that they are right and the dreamer is wrong.

I'm not a Mark Twain, but I'm a dreamer. Let me clarify something for all of you if you haven't caught it before in my previous posts.. I'm not trying to get everyone to vote green all the time. Ideally, this would be so. It would be a utopia of sorts (hence the name of the thread). A utopia has never existed either has it? This should tell you something. You don't have to accept that my posts are that great, but you owe it to me to accept that I want the best for myself and loved ones.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

So just because I'm trying to obtain an unobtainable goal, that makes me wrong somehow? What's wrong with a little dreaming?

You know, Hawkeye, there is a time for dreaming, a time for explanations, a time for anger, a time for constructive talking and many others. If the two people talking together are in different modes a serious exchange of thoughts seems impossible. I wish you had - just for moment - come down from your cloud above us unworthy earthlings, it might have become interesting to hear your thoughts, too. If you'll ever find the ladder let us know. I expressly asked for constructive criticism in this thread, thank you.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

You don't have to accept that my posts are that great, but you owe it to me to accept that I want the best for myself and loved ones.

We accept that you want to be the best.
But you were not satisfied with that. You also wanted everyone of us to find every post you wrote as great as you found it.
And you just can't demand that.

Or have you changed your mind now?

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

This post was edited by Orchid on Sep 07, 2002.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

You don't have to accept that my posts are that great, but you owe it to me to accept that I want the best for myself and loved ones.

Funny enough, this reminds me of a scene of Monty Python's "The Life Of Brian" (where Stan wants to be called "Loretta")...

Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But...you can't have babies!
Loretta: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?
Loretta: Sniff.
Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Rogers: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Trumpets: [Fanfares]
Audience: [Applause]

;)

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

This post was edited by MrCrash on Sep 07, 2002.

What meanas this "ho jumbo..." thing?

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

This is Pimperanto and means: The elephant is an animal with 4 knees.
Ask null about it... ;)

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

And what the heck is "Pimperanto"? Sounds quite...uuhm...funny as a german word! :-)

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Do you happen to know Walter Moers?
Well, I guess I'll have to scan some pages and put them on the web for an appropriate explanation... ;)
I'll post it under ROFL, maybe tomorrow...

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

http://mitglied.lycos.de/dianaonline/newpage2.html

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

Thanx a lot!
But it's even funnier with pictures... ;)

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

Maybe what needs to change is the text that appears whenever someone wants to click on the rating buttons.

Which text???

My 0.2: I don't think we should change this text. It worked well before. Everybody can find the explanation on the rating info page. It's all clear and easy.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.