Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Funny Stuff for Catholics => Topic started by: Smedley Butler on June 10, 2018, 07:32:41 PM
-
I was inspired by what Pax Vobis wrote in the Sean Johson thread:
On social media everyone wants to be liked.
The reputation function is being abused by people here and is the biggest drawback of CI.
I propose:
Remove "reputation" but keep up/down votes for individual posts.
Then it means you only disagree with what a user wrote there. It does not become a "rating" following the user around, making it look like they are "unliked" as a person.
Thoughts?
-
Says the person with a 1:4 upvote/downvote ratio.
::)
This suggestion, if implemented, wouldn't help you out AT ALL, I know...this is purely for the good of CathInfo I'm sure.
:jester:
-
Seriously though, I don't know what gave you the idea that CathInfo is a democracy. Did Sean Johnson's recent impertinent topics give you the inspiration?
CathInfo doesn't have a board or a team of mods, or any kind of popular representation. It's a good old fashioned dictatorship or monarchy.
:cowboy: <--- I live in Texas though, so in lieu of a regular king's crown...
-
The way it is set up the system makes it seem like the older members are more popular than the newer ones. Like I have a score of +2859 -86. I apparently accuмulated a high reputation score before the system changed and afterwards I was downvoted a few times. But it makes it seem like I am ridiculously popular. New members were not given the time to accuмulate such a high reputation so there scores will be more like +100 -50. I never worried about the rating system on Cathinfo though.
-
Smedley,
Do not despair.
FYI, For $39.95, CI has a reputation score restoration program.
You fill out a brief application and after review, your popularity ratio is upwardly adjusted.
For $89.95, your reputation is totally cleansed and you become a super-hero member.
Uh.. I feel a thumbs-down coming even though this is a joke :jester:
-
The way it is set up the system makes it seem like the older members are more popular than the newer ones. Like I have a score of +2859 -86. I apparently accuмulated a high reputation score before the system changed and afterwards I was downvoted a few times. But it makes it seem like I am ridiculously popular. New members were not given the time to accuмulate such a high reputation so there scores will be more like +100 -50. I never worried about the rating system on Cathinfo though.
If only the Moderator knew this, so he could factor this into his calculations when he uses this data...
;)
-
Reputation means something, but not necessarily high reputation. I can't think of any regular members other than roscoe I enjoy reading who don't at least break even. There are occasional trolls I enjoy reading who have a low reputation.
-
Reputation means something, but not necessarily high reputation. I can't think of any regular members other than roscoe I enjoy reading who don't at least break even. There are occasional trolls I enjoy reading who have a low reputation.
There are very distorted reputations for institutional NO dialogue members.
For example, Poche. He's good at setting-up contrarian views, which allow us to debate and evangelize :incense:
It's pretty much educational, with no harm done.
The most brash marrano-troll I recall from long ago was "Ashmolean" on Ignis Ardens.
He had moderator protection, but eventually left after he was found to have posted anti-trad Catholic sentiments in a London news rag.
-
Seriously though, I don't know what gave you the idea that CathInfo is a democracy. Did Sean Johnson's recent impertinent topics give you the inspiration?
CathInfo doesn't have a board or a team of mods, or any kind of popular representation. It's a good old fashioned dictatorship or monarchy.
:cowboy: <--- I live in Texas though, so in lieu of a regular king's crown...
Says the guy who promptly obeyed Jaynek's "request" last week.
You made it seem like your monarchy was open to suggestion with that response.
My suggestion is sincere. It's not about me, or my rating, as I could not care less. I know my personal rating is completely related to one specific subject.
But Pax Vobis's observation is correct: people want to be liked on social media. Sean Johnson flipped out because he thinks downvotes mean he is unlikable.
My observation is also true: the "reputation" aspect of downvoting is being used punitively by users because it is under their name. The downvote is not always being used to disagree with what an individual post says.
I didn't expect you to do anything, but the discussion is valid and the abuse of the function is real.
-
Gee, I never thought Sean Johnson cared about his social media profile?
A bit ideological, maybe emotional and he likes to fight :boxer: These qualities have distracted him.
Sean should use his intellectual gifts to focus on topics that will help bolster the trad remnant's resolve to fight.
His "Sodalitium Pianum" blog was an excellent example of this.
-
He gave 3 reasons for his tantrum:
His increase in downvotes.
The flat earth discussion.
And the departure of gpod posters.
If you don't want to see a particular discussion, don't gp there. Simple. You don't see me hanging around at BOD.
As far as where did posters leave to, that's like asking where they go from our dying chapels
Who knows?
-
There are very distorted reputations for institutional NO dialogue members.
For example, Poche. He's good at setting-up contrarian views, which allow us to debate and evangelize :incense:
It's pretty much educational, with no harm done.
The most brash marrano-troll I recall from long ago was "Ashmolean" on Ignis Ardens.
He had moderator protection, but eventually left after he was found to have posted anti-trad Catholic sentiments in a London news rag.
I vaguely remember Ashmolean.
I agree on your point about poche, but I still find him tiresome. graceseeker performed a similar function. The best conversation starter I've ever seen was a guy named Rosarium over on Fisheaters. He posted here and on SuscipeDomine a bit.
-
Actually, who looks at thumbs up and down and reputation and like counts? Perhaps Matthew for purposes of monitoring the forums but, I see being concerned and upset by such things as purely a matter of pride and ego. It serves no wholesome purpose at all.
-
Says the guy who promptly obeyed Jaynek's "request" last week.
You made it seem like your monarchy was open to suggestion with that response.
.
No, he made it seem like his monarchy is responsive to a good idea suggested by a member, which it is.
-
He gave 3 reasons for his tantrum:
.
And how about your tantrum -- any reasons for you to be cranky? Or is that your normal state?
-
But it makes it seem like I am ridiculously popular.
But you are ridiculously popular, Matto!! :applause:
-
I love the feedback system in Cathinfo :jumping2:.
I think one of the many things that make the other forums quite boring is the lack of feedback.
I also love it that in CI you get to see how many members and guests are reading each particular thread at all times. It makes it a very active forum all day long. The other forums do not have that feature.
-
FYI, For $39.95, CI has a reputation score restoration program.
You fill out a brief application and after review, your popularity ratio is upwardly adjusted.
.
So THAT'S what Matthew is talking about when he says he's "a programmer?!?!"
.
Can I pay with PayPal? :clown:
-
.
No, he made it seem like his monarchy is responsive to a good idea suggested by a member, which it is.
I'd like to take credit for it, but Matthew had the good idea all by himself. His solution had never even occurred to me. All I did was express my concerns and ask him to think and pray about the problem. It turns out that he had already noticed it and been planning to do something.
My request only affected the timing of something that he was going to do anyhow. It was not accurate to characterize that as him obeying me.
-
.
And how about your tantrum -- any reasons for you to be cranky? Or is that your normal state?
What tantrum?
I made a suggestion.
Have I ever complained about my rating? No.
Jaynek's "suggestion" got an instant response. Mine is not a "good" one? Hardly.
Pax Vobis is right: people want to be liked. The "reputation" label under usernames gives bad/erroneous impressions.
All the flat earth members have skewed "reputations." And it isn't because they are "unlikable."
-
I'd like to take credit for it, but Matthew had the good idea all by himself. His solution had never even occurred to me. All I did was express my concerns and ask him to think and pray about the problem. It turns out that he had already noticed it and been planning to do something.
My request only affected the timing of something that he was going to do anyhow. It was not accurate to characterize that as him obeying me.
Oh, look!
It seems I am eligible to downvote you again.
It would be nice if my vote merely disagreed with what you said, rather than damaged your REPUTATION.
-
Oh, look!
It seems I am eligible to downvote you again.
I think the reputation system might carry a penalty for repeated downvotes. This was true on another board.
Honey bees also suffer by stinging others. After the honey bee stings, it dies.
In other words, Smedley, your positive reputation might have been much higher had you not chosen to use the downvote feature so often.
-
Mine are reserved for Neil & Jaynek in the ghetto.
-
I think the reputation system might carry a penalty for repeated downvotes. This was true on another board.
Honey bees also suffer by stinging others. After the honey bee stings, it dies.
In other words, Smedley, your positive reputation might have been much higher had you not chosen to use the downvote feature so often.
You just pm'ed me and told me not to start a thread about reputation because Matthew hss "pets?
-
All the flat earth members have skewed "reputations." And it isn't because they are "unlikable."
People on both sides of virtually every controversy on this forum get upvotes from those who agree and downvotes from those who disagree. Anyone engaging in debate here is "skewed" in this way. Except it isn't skewing, it is working the way it supposed to.
Your have the reputation you do because you are an extremely unpleasant poster. No other flat-earther has a score comparable to yours. There are enough flat-earthers giving out upvotes to each other to make decent scores possible. I don't think anyone on this forum besides you has a 4 to 1 down:up ratio.
-
You just pm'ed me and told me not to start a thread about reputation because Matthew hss "pets?
Revealing information from pms is considered dishonourable. This is the sort of thing that has lead to the score you have. It is not because you are a flat earther. You deserve your repuation.
-
Oh, look!
It seems I am eligible to downvote you again.
It would be nice if my vote merely disagreed with what you said, rather than damaged your REPUTATION.
If any people care about my reputation score (and that is a big if) they probably also realize that the vast majority of my downvotes come from disgruntled flat-earthers. Why would it matter to me?
-
For what it is worth, Smed Butler was a Quaker heretic. What is this guy doing here anyway?? :confused:
And btw-- i have never used the thumbs function or paid very much attention to it..
-
Revealing information from pms is considered dishonourable. This is the sort of thing that has lead to the score you have. It is not because you are a flat earther. You deserve your repuation.
Likewise.
It was interesting to hear your condescending know it all reputation precedes you for years across other boards.
Why is Maria Regina claiming Matthew has "pets" then shows up here to bash me? That's dishonorable.Is she his pet? Are you his pet?
My suggestion was a good one, even if you and she don't like it.
-
My “want to be liked” comment was more related to social media and many people’s incessant need for approval. While I do think the “thumbs up/down” button is related to this, it’s not the same since you can’t see who voted for/against you. And many times a post gets no feedback, unlike the goal of social media which is feedback on EVERYTHING. It’s somewhat similar but not really.
Personally, it’s nice to see some posts get upvoted if I spent some time with research and writing it. Otherwise I don’t care.
-
Come on, we need to get over this. If I went on a Sedevacantist forum and started promoting R&R, I'd be sure to get a 1:5000 reputation there. If you post Flat Earth stuff anywhere except on a Flat Earth forum, you'd get a similar ratio. 90% of reputation depends on the position you take vs. the majority position on the forum. Sure, this can go up or down marginally depending on whether or not you take a harsh tone, but most of it has to do with the subject at hand. There are people who have extremely high reputations, but most often it's because they won't take a stand on any of the controversial issues. If I were to do nothing but post articles in praise of Our Lady, then I'd get very few downvotes and have a stellar reputation. Men here in particular, it's an incredibly effeminate trait to be concerned about what people think of you and to take things personally. If I were to go on a Prot forum, promote the Catholic Church, and get a 1:1,000,000 reputation, that would be a badge of honor. So if you're convinced that you're right and most others are wrong, then you should take consolation in the backlash.
That's why Matthew rightly considers it to be merely an indicator of how well you fit in among the other members of the forum.
-
You just pm'ed me and told me not to start a thread about reputation because Matthew hss "pets?
As in "pet" projects.
My son is also a programmer, and his favorite "pet" is Ubuntu.
By the way, I do not know a single programmer who likes Bill Gates' Microsoft. That man is so evil with his Third World vaccination program, where in India, women are being given the three-part Tetanus program which makes them sterile due to the antibodies it contains. Then there is Gardasil, which puts many young ladies in premature menopause, and which has left many killed or paralyzed. Young men are also at risk, some being left paralyzed. All these vaccination programs in India, Africa, Mexico, the Philippines, and in other Third World Countries are being done under the umbrella of WHO and are being funded largely by Gates.
But programmers do not like the expensive and extensive systemic problems associated with Microsoft, which includes susceptibility to viruses, so that it needs another fix within a few years of having launched a new system. Planned obsolescence to make billions shows his greed.
-
It is a great cross at first to shoulder to simply stop visiting first, places like zerohedge and drudgereport, and then to progress to any other site including novusordowatch which I visit rarely which causes static. This site wouldn't except for the reputation, almost certainly. Guess what I always do? I always cover with my hand the left hand side of the page if I do come here.
The site should be benign. We have a right to be benign and to encourage. To process without distraction.
Here's what I always thought best. Just do up votes, and on individual posts only.
I have to cover the left hand side just to maintain my innocence, which is very very mportant to me.
When I visited and read here, I always felt... kind of.... empathy for those I understood were strong enough to inspire 'hate' or 'love' from others with some opinion or other... and that's as far as it went.
Forexfactory has a ingenious way of showing traders whose input is valuable - there's a way to subscribe. If one has above a certain number of subscribers the little flag appears next to the name and it changes color as more do. I did get subscribers but years passed before I even noticed the little flag! The site has strong skilled policing because traders from all over the world interact there. Here, it would be like subscribing to a person whose thinking, in general, you like - but it is designed to actually help traders trade better because the high impact traders have the darkest little flag.
Here, we are not materialistic in that way. Let's just digest in peace.
And let each other be in peace.
Otherwise, it's distracting, and grays out the site.
St. Terese of Jesus, the ardent communicator
St. Terese of Jesus wouldn't up vote and down vote the person; she'd probably want the reputation removed.
I'm sure she is interested; she was a great communicator and loved interacting with others... but understood only when she gained liberty of soul that God was right meaning meant her best when he told her:
'I want you to communicate with angels, not men' during a period of great stress because her reputation had been hurt in the monastery when the portress reported that some 'learned men' as St. Terese of Jesus called the Jesuits she felt she needed to confide in, and others, not only misconstrued what she confided thinking she was deluded, but also, spread the information she had entrusted to them - this was not breaking the seal of confession ... she was very humble and only understood from that that God wanted her to suffer at that time. But... it was then that Our Lord intervened and told her the above quoted desire of his.
You can find details in The Life of St Terese by herself.
-
My suggestion was a good one, even if you and she don't like it.
.
Your tantrum is escalating and your suggestion/complaint was a piece of trash, like the rest of your posts are.
-
Guess what I always do? I always cover with my hand the left hand side of the page if I do come here.
The site should be benign. We have a right to be benign and to encourage. To process without distraction.
.
You could use a couple of post-its on your screen, and then you can type with two hands! 8) .
.
-
.
Your tantrum is escalating and your suggestion/complaint was a piece of trash, like the rest of your posts are.
Your blind hatred of flat earth shows. You're so unhinged by it you are incapable of having a discussion of something unrelated.
Thank you for proving my point.
-
90% of reputation depends on the position you take vs. the majority position on the forum. Sure, this can go up or down marginally depending on whether or not you take a harsh tone, but most of it has to do with the subject
Exactly.
-
The nastiness here unbelievable.
We are to LIVE our Catholic Faith every moment of every day.
“Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things.
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.”
― st. Teresa of Ávila
-
Exactly.
.
Exactly: a few more trash posts for Smedley today, keeping the nastiness factor going strong!
Doing your best to drag the reputation of the whole forum into the gutter?
"Exactly," says Smedley.
-
I am back here having turned the computer on after having turned it off to retire for the night, some reading and prayer. But! I just remembered having caught a glimpse that Ladislaus mentioned in the ex cathedra Francis thread that someone stalks and down votes everything he writes. Rather than respond there I'll try to put the topic where it belongs.
This is a shout out for Ladislaus. But his only reward from me is that I know he is a hero in my own life on a small level - it's isolating over here with no one to talk to or relate with - actually people in Honolulu are rather isolated from one another because for one thing, there are multiple races here. But getting back to the subject: Ladislaus.
He is the kind person who welcomed me to the site. There is something about the way he welcomed me that I have never forgotten nor will I ever - I even hope to meet him some day over there in Ohio. He is a Hero Member and I suppose others are too, but to me, he is a hero.
I always assume anything he writes has merit... but I am not a follower of any kind of dialogue on any kind of issue ... it simply seems for me to be a matter of posting what I find useful for myself and letting the chips fall where they may. I don't do well with controversy but that does not by any means mean that others are not much better equipped than I am to engage.
Maybe that's the reason I think reputation grays out the site. I just don't think marking a reputation score is necessary! But I already wrote that earlier. So.... over and out.
-
Maybe that's the reason I think reputation grays out the site. I just don't think marking a reputation score is necessary! But I already wrote that earlier. So.... over and out.
Your opinion (and mine) will not be duly-noted as common sense suggestions are not welcome.
The uncharitable unCatholic stalking and abuse of the system will freely continue.
-
Your opinion (and mine) will not be duly-noted as common sense suggestions are not welcome.
The uncharitable unCatholic stalking and abuse of the system will freely continue.
My stalker, Neil Dumbstat, should be arriving in 3...2...1...
-
People who worry about their social media reputation must have void lives, especially when their identity is basically anonymous.
The past 4 days, I've literally received over 600 down thumbs from pathological women and soy boy simps. :laugh1:
I relish the fact that I live rent-free inside their heads so much that they went out of their ways to thumb down my comments. :laugh2:
Because they value their CathInfo reputation so much, I returned the gesture to some of them as a means to torture them. :laugh2:
Put down the smart dumb phone; get off the computer and do something meaningful; get outside; make a real life for yourself. :farmer:
-
Put down the smart dumb phone; get off the computer and do something meaningful; get outside; make a real life for yourself. :farmer:
.
Says the poster who has an average of 1.23 posts per day...
-
.
Says the poster who has an average of 1.23 posts per day...
Says the stalker who pathologically down thumbs my posts. :laugh1:
Your home life & marriage must be very miserable. But don't take it out on me because you're dissatisfied with your husband, and you know, deep down, what I say is true.
-
.
Says the poster who has an average of 1.23 posts per day...
You're not far behind him with .979 posts per day. :popcorn:
And what does that say about me with 2.181 posts per day. Surely I don't post more than Croix.
Oh oh! I just raised my posts score. :fryingpan:
-
Smedley,
Do not despair.
FYI, For $39.95, CI has a reputation score restoration program.
You fill out a brief application and after review, your popularity ratio is upwardly adjusted.
For $89.95, your reputation is totally cleansed and you become a super-hero member.
Uh.. I feel a thumbs-down coming even though this is a joke :jester:
.
Incredulous demonstrates how to acquire an easy 9 approvals from the crowd.
And Smugley flat-earthdown-syndrome Butler demonstrates how to get a fast 8 disapprovals at the very same time!
-
I accidentally saw the left hand side!!! Oh, Horrors! ;D Yes, really, in the process of revising coloring text in the post I just posted and using 'modify' a couple of times saw the left hand side and the numbers.
The last I recall, before I realized I needed to cover the page or around there, there were something like 38 up votes and 2 or 4 down votes on the left hand side. Now, there are 20 up votes, and 4 down votes. So, it seems that a whole bunch of people wrote to Matthew and rescinded their votes because something else I posted wasn't liked or else it is possible to rescind without bothering Matthew, which probably, it is.
All this is just interesting; I'm not complaining and this is just for the record.
-
In case of error of recollection, it matters to say: I do recall seeing '33' just before I decided to stop looking at or to cover the left hand side.
What's really great is that Ladislaus said in the very beginning more or less that he hoped I wouldn't be eaten up by the site when he welcomed me to it and later as for himself, that he has a thick skin.
The point of writing at all again? Just to leave it in some doubt; I could be wrong. In any case - maybe I will have to weigh in again, because it may become clearer why the system is wrong as it stands, on a higher level of reality we might say. Sorry for the term 'higher level of reality.' It's vague but I do see. It could be good to have a system where people can actually say how they react to another individual and say, I do or don't like that person because I assume they are whatever.
On Mark Zuckerberg's facebook, which I never joined seeing it for what it is and hating the very idea of continuous sharing of trivia (yes, it seems trivial if enjoyable, consoling, etc. - because it is all coming from other people - a sure way to deviate from one's path). That's why we are 'meant' to reflect, and not weigh in - the need to weigh in is the problem. But this site is what it is and has its own simplicity.
Ladislaus is a rare soul and there are others like him I am sure, but he was the one who came out and welcomed so I will be forever grateful to him for that - for just being who he is actually. But that doesn't mean I up vote.
On facebook one can create and participate in continuous distraction without end, in a similar way to what the left hand side does on this site. Some have quit facebook entirely recognizing that something was lost and needs to be found.
[Even if you THINK it does not affect you, and is only useful, It Is Not. I am sure of that.]
I hope to keep rather than lose, or rather not struggle. I am just not on the level on this site of those who soldier on. As in everything else, I am only my voice; the rest is soaked in a peculiar kind of lower simply from having been born outside.
-
This is so good at describing where I actually stand about the left-hand side that I took it from a Silence! thread I just added to. Me reappearing here is an example of something I try really hard to curb... and ... how hard do people using social media work to prevent themselves from posting without waiting at least a few ninutes preferably a few hours? So, here is an indictment of social media - and the left hand side ressembles it too much for my comfort ONLY because... I basically am someone who tremendously likes, and can see into in a positive manner, other people! It has always been like that and it has taken me a long time to understand how damaging to my own soul, is getting too involved with others' joys sorrows news and lives. So: here! And by the way this is a lead up to a much more important person's assessment, St. Terese of Avila describing... well, go look at Silence! And no this is not shameless promotion. I really am posting here for exactly the reason I stated above.
This reflects how it is when I was teaching.... distracted by a thousand worldly cares and thoughts and how it can be using social media - which is the only reason I have ever condemned it. Of course I understand it is consoling and fun to learn of a first tooth in a relative or an acceptance to a certain college, etc. but it is on a lower level of what someone like St. Terese recognized was necessary = she who tormented herself for a long period of time by recognizing that, for her, her social media, which was conversations with those visiting the convent for example, was in fact a mortal sin - it ruined her soul so it fit the definition. Here on the next page from yesterday, is a little more... on social media, I always felt about it that a better way of conveying information is with the distance of the time it takes to find a time to call, and actually speak with someone, or: wow, to write a hard copy letter. E-mail being a poor substitute.