There has been some recent discussion around a closed thread that was in General and likely should have been in Off Topic.

Most of the complaints that seemed to matter were related to karma/thanks etc. (I seek not to put words into peoples' mouths, so correct me if you see otherwise).

After some thought, I decided to put up this thread in General because it discusses a proposed change to how the system works, and is open for discussion.

There has been a large influx of new contributors to the site. I actually see this is a good thing, and it's also to be expected given the wider appeal of the N900 over the iTs. But, such brings its own problems, and not least, a potential clash of civilizations between those who develop and understand in one way and those who use and understand in another. This, also, is a good thing.

Tensions will inevitably occur. As will flames, insults and offenses (real or perceived).

In another post (http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...651#post352651), I followed up on a thought about 'no thanks' and I think it's a good idea:

A 'No Thanks' or a 'Flag' button, when clicked by a member, does the following:

- removes all thanks given to this post
- flags the post as 'objectionable' in some way (the member can justify)
- is open to appeal by the poster (via a link only they can see?)
- is open to arbitration by a moderator.

I don't actually think this is that different from the 'Report' link in many ways, just more open, perhaps (maybe making the 'No Thanks' posters evident would be opening up flame/karma wars. but maybe it's a good thing too?)

So, to discuss, if you like: should we have a No Thanks/FLag link on all posts just like there's a 'Thanks' link? More to the point, perhaps, can it be done?

As an example start, perhaps the 'Report This' link can be changed to 'No THanks' and put whrre the other links are at the bottom of the post?

Thanks for listening...

I would click No Thanks on this thread then. People will be clicking No Thanks like crazy like when they just simply disagree with what is said... and then the poster will appeal and Reggie will have to deal with every single last one of these.

It's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that it doesn't work in implementation.

And there's also the fact that it's negative re-enforcement which will lead to more butthurt and people leaving and so on...

We're just better off without it, honestly.

It really depends on what the powers-that-be intend for T.M.O to become. If it's to be a general Maemo/Nxx0 user site, i think more "checks and balances" need to be implemented for the forum to prevent unproductive chaos and low s/n.

Rather than a one-strike idea as you suggest, i would prefer something that would be both incremental and cumulative:
-No Thanks would subtract one from the Thanks count
-A filter that could hide individual posts below some threshold
-A filter that could hide all posts by a person below some threshold

This is not only great for allowing community-balanced moderation, it lets people choose the volume of talk they want to see.

I just realized that i've largely described slashdot. Horrors. Don't let that distract you from the good points, though.

Edit: i have to say that for the first time in my life i have added entries to my block list. I come here mostly for informative discussion so i guess my tolerance of useless and acerbic chatter is lower than usual. If i feel that way, i'm sure there are many others who would like to see this problem nipped in the bud.

No. The current thanks button is a nice way to quickly thank someone, and it works. Turning it into a negative thing will result in more ill will, more karma whoring, and will do nothing to discourage trolls.

There are no good points. Slashdot is the sole exception, because they have the scale and the right thread model. Few other sites do.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I tend to think more highly of people than that, but perhaps I'm just a silly old optimist.

You seem to misunderstand the 'No Thanks' - why would one 'No Thanks' a thread/post they disagreed with? Makes no sense to me. Now, posts that were in some way 'challenging', perhaps? IN other words, why would you say 'No Thanks' to this thread, just out of interest? Cos it's a stupid idea? Perhaps. I hope it didn't offend your sensibilities

Trust (sic) me when I say: reputation systems can work in two directions in order to manage what is said, and the community is that which can manage these things. Thanks is a one way street. Just like email at the start of the internet, it works because people are nice. Not everyone is, and communities can police themselves. The Slashdot model isn't terribly bad, btw, and takes a lot of the load from e.g. Reggie: there's more than one moderator around, don't forget.

This doesn't make sense... If we can trust people to not misuse a negative karma system, what would we need it for in the first place?

I think a negative vote isn't a good concept to implement in a community because it can easily foster ill will and many tit-for-tat fights.

I'd suggest reducing the karmic value of basic 'thanks' to 1/5th of its current value, and adding a 'Useful' button\flag that has the value of current Thanks.

This way we can still pass on our 'thanks' for those friendly and entertaining posts but have the option of giving a more weighty 'Useful' post that we deem more worthy.

It worked. It didn't work so well in the aforementioned thread.

I can see your point about ill will etc. This is of course why anonymity, for the thumbs up (thanks) and thumbs down (no thanks) is probably more than worthwhile. Especially from the 'whoring' pov.

[Related: I must say, I find it a little odd to see who thanked me, or allow people to see who I thanked in such a public manner. Now *that* can only encourage the 'whoring' you mention, surely?...]

No, anonymity (or perceived anonymity) will also remove the sense of accountability. Just check the ridiculous tags on 'that thread' for example.