Baby eaters?

[rubiks6]

The director of these forums (yes, Chompy, that's you, I'm sorry) has chosen to allow reputation points, and to assign certain words to those members with certain reputations. In particular, those members who have negative reputation points are called "baby eaters". It is understood, and I agree, that these members are not liked very much. But to call them "baby eaters", I think, is a bit too strong. I am, what some might call, a "peace maker". Even those whose reputations are "red" should be given a chance to redeem themselves. Let us not be so unkind as to call them "baby eaters". Perhaps simply saying "so-and-so is unpopular" would be sufficient.

Never let it be said that rubiks6 was not an advocate of newbies and folks whose opinions were less than popular.

- Cheers

P. S. Chompy - We could not actually be friends if we could not disagree, sometimes. I just want to give some of the "red rep" folks a bit of a break. Sometimes, I feel sorry for them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes?

 

[IdolFun]

They can get back from being red, share and/or participate in the forum and it will get back green slowly.

Or then can turn there Reputation Level off in there User CP.

 

[rubiks6]

Yes, I understand that it can be changed.

Yes, they can work their way back from being "baby eaters". But, damn. The slightest infraction, and they are given a very ugly title. Perhaps we could reserve "baby eater" for those who have really pissed off a lot of people, and not just apply it to anyone who has a negative reputation. It took only a single click from me to turn someone into a "baby eater". Damn ... I know I did not agree with his post, but damn. I did not want to turn him into a "baby eater". After giving him a bit of bad reputation, and seeing the impact I had, I must say - I felt bad. I didn't like what he did, but I did not want to turn him into a "baby eater".

P. S. Turning your reputation level off in your user CP only implies that it is not very good, anyway. (And anything less than good is a "baby eater". Wow. That's pretty harsh, in my opinion.)

 

[chompy]

TBH I didn't give too much thought to that. I haven't changed anything in the reputation settings in over 2 years (since long before the forum was popular, or the jr idol club was even add/moved here)

The reason I guess I don't give it too much thought is because I don't particularly value the reputation system as a barometer of anything :dunno: (Apparently I am a 'name known to all')

I think "eats babies" is set for anyone with a reputation below 0 (I believe the default is 10)

I admit the wording is a little loaded in a Jr foum, maybe even offensive. What would you suggest instead?

 

[redrooster]

perhaps...

..."is a Akiba-mole" or

..."still at the dark side of the force" or

..."employed at Akiba mining company".

 

[chompy]

Hmm... I quite like the "dark side of the force" suggestion, but it's not really a-o related

I actually just checked the vBuletin user manual, and apparently the default value is "is infamous around these parts".

I think that's pretty adequate. I've made the change anyway. It may take some time for it to propagate the entire forum, due to the levels of data caching we use.

 

[handyman]

Hmm... I quite like the "dark side of the force" suggestion, but it's not really a-o related

But some of us find the dark-side to be a good thing....

 

[rubiks6]

Thank you, Chompy.

I feel somewhat redeemed, now.
____________________________

How about the simple words "... has a bad reputation."
No. Never mind. Some members would think that was cool.

 

[Sakunyuusha]

I don't have a problem with changing it, but I'm surprised by rubiks6's originally-drawn connection between "baby-eater" and pederasty. Or at least, I'm assuming that that's the connection he's drawing. Because if it isn't, then I'm even more surprised by how offended he'd be by an Internet webmaster mockingly saying of him, "He eats babies! " ^_^;

But rubiks6 has touched on a very interesting idea: opening Akiba's doors to negative reputation. A rep war, rep padding, rep anything is the last thing I'd want to see overtake this community. ¬_¬ It's fine by me for people to care about their real reputations, sure, but not "rep." If Denamic or handyman don't like me, I want to know why they don't. I want to assess the situation and decide on what is hopefully the best course of action. If I have green rep, it doesn't mean I'm popular. And if I have red rep, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am unpopular, either! I could imagine certain members having red reputation because of how many people they piss off, but I love 'em all the same and a red rep bar would hardly change that. (For a HongFire example, I think of the controversial member Hayeate [sp] -- or our chompy, for that matter!)

To me, "rep" is nothing more than a side-effect of what happens from when I thank others or others thank me. I don't ever click on the scale to the left of the Report Post button: either I hit the "Thanks" button or I don't. I hit Thanks to show thanks, not to give rep.

This is all just rep rambling because it's such a kneejerk reaction for me at this point (damn you, HF!), but yeah, I realize you were only meaning to point out that the title "baby-eater" was inappropriate.

EDIT: apparently I am "a glorious beacon of light." Snazzy. lol

 

[redrooster]

I know what you mean, I at least have got three people at HF who don´t like me (2 of them are numbers), so I dropped my activities there.

Reputation never was a reason for me to post something, I´m doing it for fun...

Reputations never tell something about the guy behind them...

 

[handyman]

...If Denamic or handyman don't like me, I want to know why they don't...

It's the bad-breath.
:snicker:

But joking aside, if I give anyone bad reputation (I think I've only done it 2 or 3 times) I will always give a reason. The trouble is, if the person giving good or bad rep has high rep themselves, it deducts a lot from the member on the recieving end.

 

[daredemonai]

I actually like the rep system, and I think "eats babies" is pretty funny. The whole idea is to make negative reputation undesirable, so giving it some sort of "diplomatic" name would defeat the purpose. And I think the rep system does tend to work, overall. Hopefully it makes people think twice before posting something offensive or obnoxious. Members who are consistently in the red tend to be people who refuse to be civil, so presumably they don't care about being in the red.

Yes, people who have very high rep can do massive damage to someone else's rep, but people with such high rep have earned it, and I don't think they abuse it. Back in a previous life, I had extremely high rep and used it two or three times on members who were extremely offensive, but only after trying to reason with them (or at least warn them) in a response to the offending post(s). I only regretted doing it it once (instantly plunging someone deep into the red), and in that case, as soon as I was able to, I used the scales icon to give the person good rep, bringing them back into the green again. In the long run, it works out pretty well, and, yes, I do think "rep" does say something about the person. To be sure, there are people who high rep because they post a lot of useful material, and they may not be particularly friendly or helpful, but at least you know that someone with high rep is not a total asshole. The inverse is that someone who is consistently in the red is basically not doing anything to earn thanks, while at the same time consistently pissing people off. So staying green is actually quite simple: Don't be an asshole, and once in a while post something (even if it's just information) that some people will be grateful for.

So, rubiks6, if you regret slamming the person in question, you can make up for it by using the scales to give him good rep (though you have to spread around a certain number of thanks before you can use the scales again).

 

[loveIdols]

Reputation system is flawed...

1. If I say for example that exploiting children is wrong, and people "disagree" with me I get red color, and I get called "baby eater".

2. If someone rude tells me to shut up and go away, and people "agree" with them, they get green color, and good reputation.

If you analyze the above two examples you will hopefully see that the right and wrong are not just that -- ultimate right or ultimate wrong, but are being defined by the crowd mentality.

Crowd mentality is the lowest, and most morale-lacking form of mentality. There are only a few people who can resist the pull of a crowd, and stand for truth and righteousness.

As for those who say "calling people names is good because it is making bad reputation undesireable" I ask you this:

Does that mean people should never voice their real opinion, but always side with what's popular at the moment?

Does 100 people saying something is right actually make it right?

What happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too"?

For the reputation system to work, every reputation given should be reviewed by someone impartial who would approve or disapprove it.

Since that is impractical/impossible, reputation system should only be taken as a measure of popularity of someone's views in this community, not as a measure who is good/bad, right/wrong, nice/mean, etc.

In my opinion, the reputation system should be modified to better reflect what it is actually showing, there is really no need to call anyone "baby eater". I for one find it insulting given the circumstances and how easy is to manipulate the system to make someone look bad.

EDIT: I see that chompy has already edited "eats babies" part and I thank him for that. Hopefully this post will still be usefull to someone.

 

[porkar]

Who was it who said, "I like children, I just can't eat a whole one" W.C.Fields?

 

[newsn]

Baby eaters, halarious!.

 

[rubiks6]

Where did you get that?

I don't have a problem with changing it, but I'm surprised by rubiks6's originally-drawn connection between "baby-eater" and pederasty. Or at least, I'm assuming that that's the connection he's drawing. Because if it isn't, then I'm even more surprised by how offended he'd be by an Internet webmaster mockingly saying of him, "He eats babies! ...

Huh? Who? What? Where? How? I didn't understand any of that paragraph. I had to look "pederasty" up in the dictionary ...

"Love and sexual relationships between adult men and pubescent boys."​

Ew. Definitely not my cup of tea. (Careful or I'll give you bad rep. jk)
So, where or how did you see that in my post???

To me, "rep" is nothing more than a side-effect of what happens from when I thank others or others thank me. I don't ever click on the scale to the left of the Report Post button: either I hit the "Thanks" button or I don't. I hit Thanks to show thanks, not to give rep.

and also

if I give anyone bad reputation (I think I've only done it 2 or 3 times) ...

Me, too.

A couple of days ago I had a disagreement with another member. To show my dissatisfaction I clicked on the little scale and gave him bad rep. It was, perhaps, the second or third time I had ever done that. When I saw how my one click turned him from an ordinary (green) person, into a "baby eater" I felt bad. I had to ask a mod to remove the bad rep I had put on the guy.

In the future, I will be much more careful about using the scales.

 

[Sakunyuusha]

I thought that was what you were going for: "eating" (i.e. performing cunnilingus on) a baby, hence "baby-eater." Which I agree is disgusting, but that was the more logical conclusion to draw between two choices:

(a) you meant that, or
(b) you meant that you were offended merely by the label "baby-eater"

I think B is actually more ridiculous. No offense: for the last 300 years, English-speaking people the world over have joked about baby eating, so I was startled to see your horror.

 

[daredemonai]

loveIdols raises a good point. It is true that the rep system tends to indicate the popularity of someone in this community. But I disagree that it reflects the popularity of a person's views. There are many people who have expressed the same sentiment loveIdols offers as an example, yet who have high reputation. And there are others who have expressed the opposite view, yet have negative reputation. Unless the content is over-the-top offensive, I find that most members use the scales to give bad reputation based not on what a person says but rather on how they say it, or, to be more precise, the recipient's pattern of behavior. People who are consistently obnoxious and annoying, yet contribute little to the community, tend to end up consistently in the red. (Note that I'm speaking here about the AO community; I have no idea what the situation is on other forums that use the rep system.)

There are only a handful of people on this huge forum who have the ability to plunge someone into the red to such a degree that it would take that person quite a while to get back into the green. See the "Members List" menu at the top of the screen? Click on that, then sort the (massive) members list by "Reputation." Of the many thousands of registered members, the only ones who have that kind of power are those few who appear on that first page. And those people, in my experience, simply don't abuse that power by slamming someone for his or her views (unless, as I said earlier, that view is beyond the pale).

If you are consistently in the red for an extended period of time, yet haven't been slammed by one of those top-ranked members, it's probably because your tone is consistently obnoxious, yet you haven't done anything to earn much thanks here. Just looking at the data by your name, I see that as of now you have posted 57 times and earned 14 thanks, which averages out to 0.25 thanks per post. I would have to do a search and look at all your posts to figure out why you are in the red, but I'm guessing it has more to do with tone than with your views.

If there's a crowd mentality on AO, I haven't seen it. The only point of commonality is an interest in some aspect Japanese popular culture. Even on the JI forum, if you look through the threads that address issues of "right and wrong," you will see there is a huge range of opinion, and that there is no correlation between opinion and reputation. The only exception is people who argue that it should be legal and acceptable for adults to have sex with children. Those people (and I have only encountered a handful, and they tend to be transient) are generally met with contempt.

 

[daredemonai]

Who was it who said, "I like children, I just can't eat a whole one" W.C.Fields?

What he said was, "I like children...fried."

 

[porkar]

What he said was, "I like children...fried."

OK, someone else said the other one then.