The "Karma"-system: A controversial debate

[BluePriest]

I like the karma. It goes great with the post count, because some people just spam posts, so you cant tell if they are helpful based on their posts. Then you can look at the Karma, and know if other people thought they were helpful. I dont look at Karma and say that if a person doesnt have a lot of Karma, then they arent helpful, because some peoples posts just arent viewed by people that give karma. However, if I see a person with NEGATIVE karma, then I usually dont look too carefuly at what they said, especially if it is critical of whatever I said.

Now on the other hand, I dont think Karma should be allowed to be given out for things that are not elements related. Yes, I think the person made an awesome forum game, or THey have really awesome perspective on religion, however, I dont think they should get Karma for it, because someone could have a lot of karma for forum games, however, they really know nothing about deckbuilding or actual elements related stuff.

Card art, relates to elements, so it should count, forum suggestions, I really dont feel should count, because that relates the forums alone, and not the game. I think that Karma should be for the Game related Elements activity only.

[miniwally]

I agree with some comments about disabling negative karma. On TWC (Total War Center) negative karma is disallowed due to being just giving negative karma repeatedly to people who disagreed with people or if they were trolls and just wanted to get on peoples nerves.

I can see why some people want to keep negative karma available as it does serve as a judge to whether the person is respected or not throughout the community but I want to make sure that karma bombing doesn't become something that regularly happens as in some cases it made lead to someone getting negative karma just for the reason that they disagreed with someone.

[Kurohami]

Wow, that's a whole lot of stuff to read, luckily, I survived.

I think that a Karma system is a good thing to have, it can encourage our civil instincts and generally change the community for the better. However, this particular karma system we have now might not be the most flawless we've seen. I don't feel as strongly about the issues expressed by Jangoo because those things have yet not happen to me, but I do see the problems that is there potentially. I think, as other people said before, that there should be a limit to the karma distribution at the very least. I'm thinking 1 allowed a day or something like that. I think negative karma might need to be changed/removed. The reason for that is people give negative karma for reasons that are not really legit. People give negative karma when they disagree with someone, that shouldn't happen because disagreeing with something is just their own opinion, and they shouldn't be able to punish the person that they don't agree with. People also give out negative karma when they: don't like someone, reply negative karma with negative karma, etc. These reasons are just ridiculous, and shouldn't be permitted. The only legit reason to give out negative karma really, is when someone is "being a jerk", which has a broad definition. If the action is bad enough that it has broken rules, the report to moderator option is enough, negative karma is not needed. If the action has not broken any rules, then it shouldn't be punished, be it a blunt comment or anything along that lines. After all, a person with bad attitude won't get too much good karma, that will be enough, negative karma is not needed. I voted for "there is a problem" and "it needs to be changed", I was surprised that I am in the minority. Oh well.

Sorry for the painful long post, just doing what everyone else is doing .

[Boingo]

If I get negative karma in this forum, will I be a lesser being in the next forum?

[DrunkDestroyer]

Lets be honest here. If at the time of posting, Jangoo had nevegative karma, I suspect many of the users would consider this a revenge attack or an attempt to be back normal.
But now that Jangoo has positive (or neutral at the time of posting) karma, people are taking this much more seriously (not to mention his highly ordered and well spelled/punctuated arguments.
The karma system is absoultely fine, to reward people for things that benefit the community, and inform them when their criticism is more destructive than constructive. The problem is the people. For example, if I created a card, and one person told me it wasn't worthy of being implemented in the game, I would be very tempted to give negative karma. In a way, it would be an indirect attack, as they would never know how it happened. The other problem if people judging based on karma. If this person did get negative karma, people will be less inclined to see his point of view, even if it is the same as before. Likewise, people seem much more happy to agree with a person with high karma (this is definitely not always the case though).

I think this debate will not reach a conclusion easily, as there are valid points on both sides. For now however, I will side with Jangoo, but to show the positive affects of karma, I think I will +1 him as well, for his strong arguments 

[Hobnob5000]

You would give someone negative Karma just because they disagreed with you? I suppose this would be justifiable, but it would depend on the situation entirely. If you were to design a new art for the Photon, and I said "I'm not sure it's gameworthy yet, I think it would be improved if the background colour was more vivid, it seems too dull" or whatever, would I receive negative Karma? Or would it have to be destructive criticism for my Karma to plummet. If it's the latter, then that's ok. However, too often(In different forums) have I seen someone disagreeing with someone, giving their opinion on how to possibly improve it. However, they spoke civilly and were very polite. However, just because they went against the general opinion, they received negative popularity points.
I do not believe this is so much of a problem here though, and no-one really has more than 4 or 5 negative karma nowadays. That sort of number is easy to recover from, which is why the Karma system is good as it is.

[Scaredgirl]

I'd like to add one more thing to this discussion.

Many people on this thread talk about how people spam Karma for wrong reasons, for example disagreeing with someone. However, I am the only person with access to Karma logs, all you others are just guessing and making up theories based on your own, very limited, experiences. You are basically talking about this thing without knowing the facts, mixing in pessimistic theories on what could happen in a worst case scenario.

There is no negative Karma spamming going on here. Huge majority of Karma given is positive, and those that are negative, are usually because the person was rude or something. How I know this? Because I can read the log! For example, I went to see the Karma log just now. The front page had 18 positive and only 2 negative Karma given. Next page had 17 positive and 3 Karma, etc. That's 87.5% positive, 12.5% negative.

So my question is this:
All this unjust Karma that some people have supposedly been spamming, where is it? Because it's not on the logs

We've had a handful a situations where the Karma given was totally uncalled for, or was given to a wrong person by mistake. I have fixed those errors, and will continue doing so.

[Chemist]

I for one was just trying to say that the karma system isn't flawless, as well as that it may rub some people the wrong way just like they had rubbed someone the wrong way. Is it trully a good thing if the karma system makes some people post less because they feel unwelcome in the community? Though I'm merely guessing that it would have that kind of effect.

[Scaredgirl]

I for one was just trying to say that the karma system isn't flawless, as well as that it may rub some people the wrong way just like they had rubbed someone the wrong way. Is it trully a good thing if the karma system makes some people post less because they feel unwelcome in the community? Though I'm merely guessing that it would have that kind of effect.

This is why I have, ever since this system was installed, removed almost every single negative Karma that went to a new member, even if they kind of deserved it.

And nobody has ever said this Karma system is flawless. Or course there are minor problems, just like there are minor problems with every single other feature this forum has. But flawless or not, they get the job done which is all that matters.

[BluePriest]

This is why I have, ever since this system was installed, removed almost every single negative Karma that went to a new member, even if they kind of deserved it.

And thats why this Karma system is good, because it is reviewed, and not jus left alone for anyone who wants to spam or be mean.
However, I still stick to what I said earlier about where the karma is given.

[Jangoo]

This recently mentioned aspect is really (!!) touchy people, but I fear I still have to say this.
Please don't get me wrong on this one. I am not questioning the administration in person but the system of Karma-distribution itself:

So in the end, Karma isn't even an autonomous communal "verdict-summary" (however problematic that may already be) but the final judgement of a single person?

Apparently, I wasn't even aware how far down the rabbit-hole this could go, because in that case nobody is really a judge here like the whole idea of Karma implies, only Scaredgirl is.
The rest of us are merely a bunch of prosecutors, lawyers or jury-members trying to "convince" the real judge who is (unlike any judge should be) subjected to the Karma-system herself and most likely not unbiased.
As thoughful, nice, hard-working, awesome etc. Scaredgirl may be, I find that setup a bit odd, to say the least.

[BluePriest]

This recently mentioned aspect is really (!!) touchy people, but I fear I still have to say this.
Please don't get me wrong on this one. I am not questioning the administration in person but the system of Karma-distribution itself:

So in the end, Karma isn't even an autonomous communal "verdict-summary" (however problematic that may already be) but the final judgement of a single person?

Apparently, I wasn't even aware how far down the rabbit-hole this could go, because in that case nobody is really a judge here like the whole idea of Karma implies, only Scaredgirl is.
The rest of us are merely a bunch of prosecutors, lawyers or jury-members trying to "convince" the real judge who is (unlike any judge should be) subjected to the Karma-system herself and most likely not unbiased.
As thoughful, nice, hard-working, awesome etc. Scaredgirl may be, I find that setup a bit odd, to say the least.

being a mod on another forum and the game that it belongs to myself, I can say that SG is probably monitered, no matter how well her and Zanz know each other. So if she makes a decision not liked, then it will be noticed. If not by zanz, then by the community who would let zanz know.

And also, it seems that you just dont want there to be a karma system. Not that you think it has bugs in it.
Subjects Talked about
1)Karma Spammers
2)Newbies Getting bad Karma
3)Getting bad karma just because the person who gave it is a jerk/in a bad mood.
4)(-)Karma suggesting someone is "evil"

1)As SG pointed out, she sees the karma logs, not you. She will know if someone is spamming karma, not you. So you dont even know if such a thing happens. (Misconception 1 applies here)
2)Once again, as SG pointed out, the bad karma newbies get because they are being noobs, is often times removed. (Misconception 1)
3)if someone is being a jerk, then they dont get away with it. The mods do somethin about it. Thats why you say WHY you gave them the -karma. (Misconception 1)
4)I doubt anyone here thinks that -karma means they are evil. Its called Karma, not Alignment. Most people will just think the person has a tendency to be mean or overly critical.

Misconceptions
1)The staff doesnt just sit back and let people do whatever they want. They actually do have rules that they enforce.
2)There is other staff besides SG http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=staff (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=staff)
3)Refer to Misconception 1, as it is extra important.

2. That the users may choose to partake in the Karma-system or not. Why have Karma if you can choose not to use it, there would be no point in it, because if it doesnt apply to everyone, then people who use it, wont be able to use it as effectivly since some wont use it

3. That the Karma-system is renamed to something less misleading like "popularity index" or "mob-law-counter". ;-)
This is a possibility, but I dont feel it is right no make it a popularity thing, I feel its more of a helpfulness thing

4. That the option to deal out negative Karma is removed.What if someone was real nice, just to trick everyone, got 100 karma, then became a jerk. All the new people that he was a jerk to would think hes a horrible guy, but thats the kind of people liked here, since no one can give him - karma

5. That the Karma-log is fully visible for the member who received Karma, be it positive or negative. Possibly even fully visible Karmalogs of anyone for anyone if the technical side would allow this.
This is meant to prevent the "the number stands as it is"- effect and may allow anyone to check into the deeds-record of a member and form an opinion about the respective Karma-score for himself. Thats what staff are for. They handle this.

5b. That there is a strict limit for Karma-distribution.
"Feeling like" handing out Karma to various people all the time should not enable you to do so, expecially not multiple times to the same person for the same reason. Karma would then be considered like a daily vote in a truly just and democratic system: E.g., only one Karma-cast a day will make you think twice which "deed" deserves your attention instead of just "scolding that jerk" or "scratching someones back" along the way ... This is a good idea, however, unless it actually does become a problem, then I doubt it will be implemented.(just 1 person doing it can easily be fixed without implementing a whole system for it)