The "negative comments" feature

[Lord Ash]

Okay, I really feel like they are not being used correctly.

In the Duke/Carolina exhibition thread, I said something along the lines of "No way the game should be on the NC Central campus; this should take place at the Dome or Cameron!" I got a comment about "Don't be dumb" and hit with points, rather than someone actually engaging in discussion about why that was a dumb thing to say. I would assume that would be the point of the message board, to discuss

Then, when I say that The Onion (which, if you read the article linked on the DBR front page, becomes just another in a long line of publications picking at Duke stereotypes, albeit this time in an attempt to be funny) is really not funny, rather than someone posting "Well I disagree, so on and so forth" I get dinged for another (this time unsigned) negative comment of "Well then don't read it".

I feel like maybe the negative comments are sort of circumventing the actual discussion to be had on a message board. I know it isn't a big deal, but it still feels off. I've rarely used them for anything other than commenting on the TONE of someones post, rather than the actual content... if I disagree with the content of a message I'll usually just post my disagreement.

[OldPhiKap]

Okay, I really feel like they are not being used correctly.

In the Duke/Carolina exhibition thread, I said something along the lines of "No way the game should be on the NC Central campus; this should take place at the Dome or Cameron!" I got a comment about "Don't be dumb" and hit with points, rather than someone actually engaging in discussion about why that was a dumb thing to say. I would assume that would be the point of the message board, to discuss

Then, when I say that The Onion (which, if you read the article linked on the DBR front page, becomes just another in a long line of publications picking at Duke stereotypes, albeit this time in an attempt to be funny) is really not funny, rather than someone posting "Well I disagree, so on and so forth" I get dinged for another (this time unsigned) negative comment of "Well then don't read it".

I feel like maybe the negative comments are sort of circumventing the actual discussion to be had on a message board. I know it isn't a big deal, but it still feels off. I've rarely used them for anything other than commenting on the TONE of someones post, rather than the actual content... if I disagree with the content of a message I'll usually just post my disagreement.

If there was a way to do it, I would make it so the commentor's name is listed. I try to sign all of mine, and I do not remember ever dinging anyone. Although I've been dinged plenty, always without signature.

It's part of the growing process of the board, I guess.

(Oh, and btw, The Onion is very funny. But I won't ding you for it. ;>) )

[moonpie23]

as amazed as i am that lord ash's post is still here, i'll take this nano second to agree...i've had just about every post deleted when i've called out negative anonymous commenters.

i must not be as eloquent.


that said, i've been told that the mods are looking for a way to eliminate the anonymous part...here's hoping...

[A-Tex Devil]

as amazed as i am that lord ash's post is still here, i'll take this nano second to agree...i've had just about every post deleted when i've called out negative anonymous commenters.

i must not be as eloquent.


that said, i've been told that the mods are looking for a way to eliminate the anonymous part...here's hoping...

How do you even tell if you've received an anonymous ding? I guess I haven't paid that much attention to it.

[OldPhiKap]

How do you even tell if you've received an anonymous ding? I guess I haven't paid that much attention to it.

If you click on "Settings" at the top right of the page, it will show you a page with the most recent comments made on your posts. Pitchfork is an "I agree" comment and you get positive points, a red something-or-other is negative and you lose points. Total points determines how many pitchforks are under your name.

If someone put their name on the post (or initials -- I put OPK) you know who gave you the positive or negative comment. If not, it's ananymous.

[dukebluelemur]

I ding a fair number of people, mostly because I tend to be petty and vindictive I guess. It's a nice way to register disagreement without taking a thread off on a tangent, or as a response to an early post in a thread that has moved on to other areas. That said, I always sign mine with my nick or just dbl (if i feel the context makes it clear who dbl is), even if they are stupid and immature dings. I did accidentally ding someone anon a while ago, but I actually pmed them to let them know it was me because I know how much I hate getting them unsigned. Also, I feel ok being fairly profligate with them since I know my dings don't do much damage.

I have no problem with an out-of-sight outlet for petty picking of nits, it keeps some of the dumber stuff off the threads themselves, but I do hate that it can be anonymous.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I ding a fair number of people, mostly because I tend to be petty and vindictive I guess. It's a nice way to register disagreement without taking a thread off on a tangent, or as a response to an early post in a thread that has moved on to other areas. That said, I always sign mine with my nick or just dbl (if i feel the context makes it clear who dbl is), even if they are stupid and immature dings. I did accidentally ding someone anon a while ago, but I actually pmed them to let them know it was me because I know how much I hate getting them unsigned. Also, I feel ok being fairly profligate with them since I know my dings don't do much damage.

I have no problem with an out-of-sight outlet for petty picking of nits, it keeps some of the dumber stuff off the threads themselves, but I do hate that it can be anonymous.

That's where I disagree. See...I could ding you for that, but I won't..lol. I'd much rather someone raise their objection in the thread. Leave it up to the mods to decide if it's worthy or not (dear mods, all posts are worthy) and don't worry about the thread moving too far offbase. It's disagreement that encourages a healthy debate, and a thread worth reading. I don't want to read a bunch of posts about how "so and so is the best guard on the floor", I want to read dissenting opinions from all sides. In fact, that's why I think the point system is set up, so we avoid the "I agree, well said" boredom. Come to think about it, most of my givings of sporks come with "Well said, I agree", because there is no sense in me wasting thread space saying so. Instead I throw a positive comment towards the user, their point total goes up and everyone is happy. I rarely give out negative points unless it's for something that I find offensive, which is how I feel the negatives should be used. If I see you say "you are a moron, I can't believe you think so and so is the best guard on the floor", I'm gonna nail you because that's not the way to chime in with your thoughts. However, if you think that so and so genuinely sucks and should be sitting behind Marshall on the bench, I want to read your views. One thing about anonymous posting...I wonder if anyone has dinged someone and then signed someone else's name. Is there a way for the mods to verify the source of comments?

[feldspar]

Wow I had no idea about the comment feature. Just went in and noticed a lot of really nice comments from posters all over the board. Somehow, though, I'm still a bench warmer.

I guess my question is does "dinging" a poster's post have negative repercussions on the poster's status on the board(s)? That is, if I get dinged too many times, can that result in an infraction, or are the two wholly separate?

[hurleyfor3]

I guess my question is does "dinging" a poster's post have negative repercussions on the poster's status on the board(s)? That is, if I get dinged too many times, can that result in an infraction, or are the two wholly separate?

No. More specifically, the like/dislike system is automatic as soon as a user gives one. Infractions and warnings can only be handed out by a mod.

[dukebluelemur]

That's where I disagree. See...I could ding you for that, but I won't..lol. I'd much rather someone raise their objection in the thread. Leave it up to the mods to decide if it's worthy or not (dear mods, all posts are worthy) and don't worry about the thread moving too far offbase. It's disagreement that encourages a healthy debate, and a thread worth reading. I don't want to read a bunch of posts about how "so and so is the best guard on the floor", I want to read dissenting opinions from all sides. In fact, that's why I think the point system is set up, so we avoid the "I agree, well said" boredom. Come to think about it, most of my givings of sporks come with "Well said, I agree", because there is no sense in me wasting thread space saying so. Instead I throw a positive comment towards the user, their point total goes up and everyone is happy. I rarely give out negative points unless it's for something that I find offensive, which is how I feel the negatives should be used. If I see you say "you are a moron, I can't believe you think so and so is the best guard on the floor", I'm gonna nail you because that's not the way to chime in with your thoughts. However, if you think that so and so genuinely sucks and should be sitting behind Marshall on the bench, I want to read your views. One thing about anonymous posting...I wonder if anyone has dinged someone and then signed someone else's name. Is there a way for the mods to verify the source of comments?

I can understand your point, but since these boards are fairly heavily moderated for posts that don't add any original thought, (I fact, if I recall correctly, it is actually against forum rules), the comments feature is useful for those simple "Right on!" or "Thats just insane!" that would most likely get deleted as spam in the actual thread. If the forum were more loosely moderated they wouldn't be as needed for that purpose, but honestly i like it the way it is. As long as people don't get too sensitive about pitchfork counts (and I haven't always been the best example of that) it shouldn't cause too much angst.

[jacone21]

I wish there was a real life equivalent. If you were in a staff meeting and Marvin the accountant said something dumb, wouldn't it be cool if you could ding him anonymously for his comment? And all of the staff members would earn gold stars or frowny faces depending on anonymous likes and dislikes of things they say all day at work? That would be awesome! Or maybe it would be petty and silly.

[Indoor66]

I wish there was a real life equivalent. If you were in a staff meeting and Marvin the accountant said something dumb, wouldn't it be cool if you could ding him anonymously for his comment? And all of the staff members would earn gold stars or frowny faces depending on anonymous likes and dislikes of things they say all day at work? That would be awesome! Or maybe it would be petty and silly.

Why? That would be expected. Don't accountants always say something dumb?

[weezie]

useful for th(at) simple "Right on!"

So true. We need more "Right ON!" and more disco dancing in here! Maybe even a few "FAR OUT"s.
I think that would cheer everybody up!

[nocilla]

I don't have anything useful to add but just wanted to share this anonymous negative comment;

"disagree. UNC-UK has been a big game for several years recently."

For those not familiar with the context of the thread, it was about other schools playing better teams than us. UK/UNC was an example given and I was just pointing out that UK was mediocre for about a decade before Calipari got there and then UNC was down when he first got to UK, resulting in the game lacking luster until recently.

I have no problem if the commentor disagrees, since it can be argued that the game is still big regardless of their records. However, I am still trying to figure out the "several years recently" part. I have determined that it is an oxymoron but I don't know if the commentor intended it to be or not.

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't have anything useful to add but just wanted to share this anonymous negative comment;

"disagree. UNC-UK has been a big game for several years recently."

For those not familiar with the context of the thread, it was about other schools playing better teams than us. UK/UNC was an example given and I was just pointing out that UK was mediocre for about a decade before Calipari got there and then UNC was down when he first got to UK, resulting in the game lacking luster until recently.

I have no problem if the commentor disagrees, since it can be argued that the game is still big regardless of their records. However, I am still trying to figure out the "several years recently" part. I have determined that it is an oxymoron but I don't know if the commentor intended it to be or not.

I think the real question is who values the pitchforks/flames as informative? I only even notice it when (1) someone has a flame and (2) someone has like 50 pitchforks, and even then, only when I disagree with what they are saying (so I know whether to answer in a constructive way or just say "Nuh-uh!!").

Otherwise, they are pretty superfluous to me.

[Lord Ash]

Likewise... for me it is much more about the principle of it than the actual impact... the negative comments didn't change anything; I just felt like they were either A) a bit rude or B) involved a discussion that should be had in the actual thread.

[PSurprise]

Like Feldspar, I had no idea about the whole comment section. It's like a forum inside a forum! Forum Inception. I will have to check this out some more (Of course, that would mean I have to post more...)

[moonpie23]

i don't like it because you can be attacked with no recourse...i hate that...

[Jarhead]

i don't like it because you can be attacked with no recourse...i hate that...

100% agreement! I'll bet that a large share of negative comments are made because of disagreement with a post. That's the part I hate, and it's worse when the comment is anonymous. These comments can wrack up bad points against someone, should be changed.
A lot of nice people, back in the day, got burned at the stake because of negative comments made about them.

[Newton_14]

That's where I disagree. See...I could ding you for that, but I won't..lol. I'd much rather someone raise their objection in the thread. Leave it up to the mods to decide if it's worthy or not (dear mods, all posts are worthy) and don't worry about the thread moving too far offbase. It's disagreement that encourages a healthy debate, and a thread worth reading. I don't want to read a bunch of posts about how "so and so is the best guard on the floor", I want to read dissenting opinions from all sides. In fact, that's why I think the point system is set up, so we avoid the "I agree, well said" boredom. Come to think about it, most of my givings of sporks come with "Well said, I agree", because there is no sense in me wasting thread space saying so. Instead I throw a positive comment towards the user, their point total goes up and everyone is happy. I rarely give out negative points unless it's for something that I find offensive, which is how I feel the negatives should be used. If I see you say "you are a moron, I can't believe you think so and so is the best guard on the floor", I'm gonna nail you because that's not the way to chime in with your thoughts. However, if you think that so and so genuinely sucks and should be sitting behind Marshall on the bench, I want to read your views. One thing about anonymous posting...I wonder if anyone has dinged someone and then signed someone else's name. Is there a way for the mods to verify the source of comments?

The bolded part is one of the key ideas (but certainly not the only one) behind the system. We do want to eliminate posts that say "This" "lol", "I agree", "Well said" etc. Just say that in a comment rather than cluttering up a thread with a comment that does not add anything of real value or advance the discussion.

As for the anon negative comments, the idea of the system (and note the comments are a feature of the SW, not something DBR created. Any site using this SW can choose to use the comments feature) is to allow a poster to be honest if he/she feels the post is bad/ding worthy without fear of a revenge comment. I can understand that. I too, however, dislike the feature and would much prefer comments that are auto-signed. It's a catch-22 for sure, as we should not hit a fellow poster with a negative comment just because they hit us. The flip side is the inability to defend/debate the matter due to having no clue who you are dealing with. Which stinks.