I requested of Matthew loonnggg ago that he add something to the reputation function to prevent misuse. Of course, it will always be possible to use a vote in a manner the system wasn't intended for, but I asked that he limit to what extent this was possible.

And so now, if you are the giver of an excessive amount of another user's likes or dislikes, you won't be able to vote for/against their posts until that percentage has come down (by other people voting). Specifically, you can't exceed 20% of a user's likes or 25% of their dislikes.

These limits don't apply for those with very few likes or dislikes.

As an example, say Mary has 100 likes and 100 dislikes. Joe thinks she's the smartest person he's ever met and likes everything she posts. If he has 'liked' her posts 20 times, he will no longer be able to do so until someone else increases her total number of likes. Likewise, if Tom thinks Mary is dumb as a rock and wishes she'd scram, he can only have given her 25 of her 100 total dislikes before receiving a message that his vote didn't process.

You'll just encourage them to register more accounts.  Which is probably what they're doing - waiting for some time to kill.

What is the meaning of the voting system ?

For me it looks like a democratic way for the majority of users deciding what's right and what's wrong. And that's wrong, because it's kind of the liberal motto the truth is the sum of all opinions. We hear that all day in the anti-christian world.

Since the majority of forum users can be (and often is) wrong on important matters, the votes can lead to very wrong impressions. I think some people will or already hold back to say uncomfortable truths because they fear to get voted down by anonymous users.

The majority of users even on a catholic forum don't automatically need to be right. For example there can be silent users who are not very catholic and use the vote system to discredit catholic posts or authors anonymously. Also, since the official SSPX is slipping towards liberal positions more and more (censoring Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers like Bishop Williamson; "elder brothers" Newchurch heresy; financial globalism (Krah); non-geocentrism, etc), so we can expect to see more SSPX catholics using the forum's voting system for more liberal positions. Again anonymously, which means no argumentation.

Having used your voting system at large for several months now, I came to the following conclusion: Let's cancel this democratic, anonymous voting system please.

Or let's use another system found on some forums called "Appreciate system". With it a user has the option to publicly appreciate a certain post by clicking on an icon next to it. The user's name will then be publicly tagged to that post so that all other users can see who appreciated that post.

I say we do away with the "like" dislike" functions altogether.

I think the likes and dislikes features really should go away. They're being abused by users who I suspect have multiple (as in like.. over 5) accounts.

It's not surprising that your post would be thumbed down, MD. Obviously someone genuinely doesn't like this.

Haha that is pathetically desperate for ratings! Does the moderator have a way to see the IP address that each person posts from?

What is the meaning of the voting system ?

For me it looks like a democratic way for the majority of users deciding what's right and what's wrong. And that's wrong, because it's kind of the liberal motto the truth is the sum of all opinions. We hear that all day in the anti-christian world.

Since the majority of forum users can be (and often is) wrong on important matters, the votes can lead to very wrong impressions. I think some people will or already hold back to say uncomfortable truths because they fear to get voted down by anonymous users.

The majority of users even on a catholic forum don't automatically need to be right. For example there can be silent users who are not very catholic and use the vote system to discredit catholic posts or authors anonymously. Also, since the official SSPX is slipping towards liberal positions more and more (censoring Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers like Bishop Williamson; "elder brothers" Newchurch heresy; financial globalism (Krah); non-geocentrism, etc), so we can expect to see more SSPX catholics using the forum's voting system for more liberal positions. Again anonymously, which means no argumentation.

Having used your voting system at large for several months now, I came to the following conclusion: Let's cancel this democratic, anonymous voting system please.

Or let's use another system found on some forums called "Appreciate system". With it a user has the option to publicly appreciate a certain post by clicking on an icon next to it. The user's name will then be publicly tagged to that post so that all other users can see who appreciated that post.

On CathInfo, the truth IS the sum of all opinions. We're good, serious, well-informed Catholics here. If we can't trust the CathInfo vote, then what can we trust?

I'm sorry, but in my experience when CathInfo members *seriously* downvote something, it's hogwash.  I'm not talking about 1 or 2 downvotes from a few personal enemies, I'm talking about 10 or 15 downvotes.

The same goes for upvotes. Anything less than 5 votes is the person's friends giving their friend an upvote. When you see a post with 8 or 9 upvotes, you should take time out of your busy schedule to read it, because it has a lot of new insight.

Please show me JUST ONE gem of truth or wisdom on CathInfo that has received an appreciable number of downvotes and I'll be proven wrong, and I'll apologize publicly.

All you could show me is something highly controversial at best, that is probably wrong (for example, that Marijuana is to be smoked by the Catholic faithful).

By the way, Ethelred -- I'm not worried about CathInfo becoming a hive of anti-Bishop Williamson types. Do you know anything about the influence of leaders? Do you know what influence a leader has? Don't you think a rector/leader/king/forum owner has any directing power or influence as to the character of the organization he has power over?

If you already know that, then you must not know anything at all about me.

This enchancement will help some I guess, but I still say the reputation feature is rigged by certain users...I mean, someone who's reputation went from 0 to 67 is less than 48 hours? Come on...

That's why I had to put in this new feature.

We noticed that Roscoe went from zilch to around 80 reputation in a couple days -- that "shouldn't be".

This enchancement will help some I guess, but I still say the reputation feature is rigged by certain users...I mean, someone who's reputation went from 0 to 67 in less than 48 hours? Come on...

This was certainly one of the anomalies looked into in order to make this little adjustment. Roscoe had not one, but two regular posters go to bat for him via their mouse rather than their keyboard. No biggie, imo, but I do think there should be a limit to the extent they can do so. One of the two didn't even exceed the threshold we just set.