Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Bladestrom
Allowing people to flag positive (only) comments that adds to a score that contributes to a users 'valued member' profile would work IMO. The score deteriorates over time, but you cannot negatively score someone.

It doesn't. Players have already abused a similar system in LoL. It actually improved the community for a week or so, but then it quickly devolved into what it was before. You can grind it up through your friends to a point you give no value to a player who has "friendly" or "teamplayer" tags on their name.

+1 

Such a system doesn't identify the best members of the community, it identifies those who are best at gaming the system.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Bladestrom
Allowing people to flag positive (only) comments that adds to a score that contributes to a users 'valued member' profile would work IMO. The score deteriorates over time, but you cannot negatively score someone.

It doesn't. Players have already abused a similar system in LoL. It actually improved the community for a week or so, but then it quickly devolved into what it was before. You can grind it up through your friends to a point you give no value to a player who has "friendly" or "teamplayer" tags on their name.

+1 

Such a system doesn't identify the best members of the community, it identifies those who are best at gaming the system.

it doesnt matter, its not about finding the top dogs, they can do that if they wish.  What it does offer is a route for genuine posters to genuinly +1 great posts.  the author gets the benefit in this case, and why not!

i.e i abuse the system and get 1000 votes.  So what, means nothing.  However joe blogg posted a great post, and got a +1 for it = Auther of positive post feels rewarded and encouraged to contribute more.  Myself with my 1000 votes, hey im going for a million - still means nothing, il end up feeling a bit foolish.

Sometimes you have to get mean to people before they straighten out.  I've been guild master in several games, and an officer in just about any guild I join (I guess I'm just a natural leader...or I play way too much and I'm always online, so I get it by default lol).  I've noticed over the years people tend to respond easier to negative consequenses instead of positive ones.

In my guild in SWTOR, we had a policy that if you were a good player, you got to get free gear and loot, and you also got to come on operations and such with the guild.  Some people responded to this well, however, there were several that wouldn't behave themselves in order to get to do ops with us.  They would sit in chat and complain while the "good" members got to go raid.  This toxicity spreads and nearly killed the guild (lots of drama).  We instituted new policies, with warnings, and temporary op bans, leading upto guild expulsion or even perma-ban.  People were much better behaved upon the switch, and as far as I know (as of october) the guild is still doing great and thriving.

I guess to make the majority people behave and not be total idiots you have to treat them like the monkey and sloth in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFqjX9dMJQQ

Why does it need improving? It boils down to whether there are people you like and you can play with. WIth large population, there is always some. Just quit when you meet people you don't like.

You can't improve humans.

Originally posted by Bladestrom

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Bladestrom
Allowing people to flag positive (only) comments that adds to a score that contributes to a users 'valued member' profile would work IMO. The score deteriorates over time, but you cannot negatively score someone.

It doesn't. Players have already abused a similar system in LoL. It actually improved the community for a week or so, but then it quickly devolved into what it was before. You can grind it up through your friends to a point you give no value to a player who has "friendly" or "teamplayer" tags on their name.

+1 

Such a system doesn't identify the best members of the community, it identifies those who are best at gaming the system.

it doesnt matter, its not about finding the top dogs, they can do that if they wish.  What it does offer is a route for genuine posters to genuinly +1 great posts.  the author gets the benefit in this case, and why not!

 

i.e i abuse the system and get 1000 votes.  So what, means nothing.  However joe blogg posted a great post, and got a +1 for it = Auther of positive post feels rewarded and encouraged to contribute more.  Myself with my 1000 votes, hey im going for a million - still means nothing, il end up feeling a bit foolish.

That only works if the points system means something to them. I can see where you are going with that, but you're talking about a system that would have meaning to very few people, and of those people it may sway the behaviour of a tiny fraction, if at all.

Originally posted by Gravarg

Sometimes you have to get mean to people before they straighten out.  I've been guild master in several games, and an officer in just about any guild I join (I guess I'm just a natural leader...or I play way too much and I'm always online, so I get it by default lol).  I've noticed over the years people tend to respond easier to negative consequenses instead of positive ones.

 

In my guild in SWTOR, we had a policy that if you were a good player, you got to get free gear and loot, and you also got to come on operations and such with the guild.  Some people responded to this well, however, there were several that wouldn't behave themselves in order to get to do ops with us.  They would sit in chat and complain while the "good" members got to go raid.  This toxicity spreads and nearly killed the guild (lots of drama).  We instituted new policies, with warnings, and temporary op bans, leading upto guild expulsion or even perma-ban.  People were much better behaved upon the switch, and as far as I know (as of october) the guild is still doing great and thriving.

 

I guess to make the majority people behave and not be total idiots you have to treat them like the monkey and sloth in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFqjX9dMJQQ

Based on what you said, you are not a natural leader, so rule that out. If you were, you would know how to communicate to each individual instead of setting up "policies" and if you can't both come to an agreement, you kick them out or shouldn't have guild invited them in the first place.

That is what a real leader does. However, I suspect I know why this isn't being done.

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by NaughtyP

You can't change the world, but you can change who you game with.

I agree with this to a certain degree (despite the fact that being a soloist suggests some unflattering things about how I must see the rest of humanity).  But one of the primary draws of an MMO (or an MMO forum) is that it puts us in contact with strangers - we're all here in this discussion right now because we want to hear and be heard, we want interaction.  We just want it in a format we're comfortable with.

So although retreating into my like-minded niche is a solution vs the most toxic environments (I'm still feeling pretty drained from the UO community flamewars even years after I stopped playing), there's another side to the equation.  We want to be around people, so how can games better introduce two random people with very different personalities and preferences and give them a world in which they can see each other as a friend, without asking one person or the other to simply assimilate to the other's way of playing/thinking.  

I guess my point is bad people will be bad if they want to no matter what sort of system you have in place. People could find ways to grief in almost any game if they try hard enough. Developers will do everything in their power to make things safe and friendly, but at the end of the day it is a social problem that cannot be overcome by technical means. I've seen this before in my line of work where people think technology can fix social problems. It just can't! I don't know the solution, but I do know what the solution is not.

Originally posted by maplestone

 

I agree with this to a certain degree (despite the fact that being a soloist suggests some unflattering things about how I must see the rest of humanity).  But one of the primary draws of an MMO (or an MMO forum) is that it puts us in contact with strangers - we're all here in this discussion right now because we want to hear and be heard, we want interaction.  We just want it in a format we're comfortable with.

So although retreating into my like-minded niche is a solution vs the most toxic environments (I'm still feeling pretty drained from the UO community flamewars even years after I stopped playing), there's another side to the equation.  We want to be around people, so how can games better introduce two random people with very different personalities and preferences and give them a world in which they can see each other as a friend, without asking one person or the other to simply assimilate to the other's way of playing/thinking.  

 

There are millions of players. You don't need to make friends with any random players you meet. There are more than enough to make friends with.

The only thing games need to do .. is to make sure you can match up with random people quick, and that you can quit playing with them any time. So you can move on till you find someone you like.

Improving the MMO community is about as possible as improving the weed smokers community, or the gamblers community, or the porno watchers community, or the bar hoppers community.  When the only thing that's holding us together is vice, how can we expect us not to show our own vices?

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Improving the MMO community is about as possible as improving the weed smokers community, or the gamblers community, or the porno watchers community, or the bar hoppers community.  When the only thing that's holding us together is vice, how can we expect us not to show our own vices?

I feel like this should be written down in a book of good quotes somewhere. Thought I would let you know.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Improving the MMO community is about as possible as improving the weed smokers community, or the gamblers community, or the porno watchers community, or the bar hoppers community.  When the only thing that's holding us together is vice, how can we expect us not to show our own vices?

Well... At least you didn't mix us in with politicians or banksters... ^^  I personally, wouldn't consider games to be a vice, but then I'm biased.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Improving the MMO community is about as possible as improving the weed smokers community, or the gamblers community, or the porno watchers community, or the bar hoppers community.  When the only thing that's holding us together is vice, how can we expect us not to show our own vices?

Indeed! The industry has been working for years to attract more and more people from all walks of life. And now that there are millions of us involved we are finding that as a whole we don't like each other all that much because besides a penchant for self entertainment through gaming, we have little else in common.

Now on the subject of improving the community. The only person who's actions you have any control over is yourself. Don't like how the gaming, or any other community is going? Police yourself. Don't let yourself be sucked into fights you don't want. The main thing a person out to ruin your good time online craves is your attention. Deny them that and they starve.

Stop supporting bullies, see one of them abusing another player, refuse to play with them, and this goes for everyone, not just the poor person being attacked. If someone is obnoxious in chat, use the ignore feature, encourge others you know to do likewise.

If you are unwilling to do this and instead decide to try to beat them at their own game, you've just given them power over you and have lost. Not to mention every time you do this you are helping to make your community that much more toxic.

In short your community is what you make of it. Not what you let others make you make of it.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

 

it doesnt matter, its not about finding the top dogs, they can do that if they wish.  What it does offer is a route for genuine posters to genuinly +1 great posts.  the author gets the benefit in this case, and why not!

 

i.e i abuse the system and get 1000 votes.  So what, means nothing.  However joe blogg posted a great post, and got a +1 for it = Auther of positive post feels rewarded and encouraged to contribute more.  Myself with my 1000 votes, hey im going for a million - still means nothing, il end up feeling a bit foolish.

That only works if the points system means something to them. I can see where you are going with that, but you're talking about a system that would have meaning to very few people, and of those people it may sway the behaviour of a tiny fraction, if at all.

Like Loktofeit already suggested, you get exactly what you measure. The posts which gather the most points may not be the best replies, only ones that gather most points. And in the MMORPG.com's case it would be old-schoolers voting against modern views and vice versa.

I'm quite sure it would not work the way you intend, Bladestorm.

Originally posted by Bladestrom
It's perfectly true the best posts will not get the most points, but that's thinking about in terms of a competition to be won where if a bad post gets abused with lots of +1s it will destroy the model. But that is not the point, the point is that genuinely good posts get +1'd regardless of silly abuses by people who go out to ruin forums. It's the equiv of the spotlight poster mechanism but on a much finer scale.

Spotlight Poster is very different. It is decided by an overseeing group, not the userbase.

Originally posted by Bladestrom
Put it this way, if you read a great post, wouldn't it be nice to tick a box to say great post, I would.

Or put it this way. If you read a post opposite to your opinion, wouldn't it be nice to tick a box to say "bad" post, to take a down a notch?