Negative Rep

[Wisteria]

Johnlvs2run: I reported a neg that was given to me by an unknown person who commented "This post is purposely misleading". Neither of those were true and I reported the neg for removal. #1 my post was not misleading because it was substantiated by fact, that is not only known commonly but that I also stated in my message "some people believe that... " etc. #2 I intended for my message to get across clearly - and had NO intention of it being misleading at all. #3 it couldn't have been purposely misleading anyway because it was based on things that have happened - nothing misleading about it at all.

When I reported this, the senior mod who was mentioned here - as you have brought up a few times - agreed with me BUT said the neg couldn't be removed because the person who GAVE it believed the post was intentionally misleading. That what I had posted was intentionally truthful didn't make any difference.

Maybe there's a negative troll here -- I received almost the same exact wording with a post that was not at all misleading, but was in fact quite truthful and factual. However, the individual thought it was "misleading," and how can it be misleading if, in fact, it is truthful and factual?? I reported mine, also, because my post was based on fact, however, it was not removed either.

And Blue also just received a negative rep, again with no identification. It's making me think that there is a troll here. It just doesn't make sense, because most of the posters I've seen here understand that there are people with different experiences, and valid experiences, and they post what their experiences are from a point of view of realistically living in a place, being in that environment, living in the weather for years at a time, or working there.
That's what I look for, in particular, when I want to see what a place is like. I want to know what it's really like from someone who actually lived in a place for a longer period of time, and, preferably, if they have also lived in other places and can compare.

These "misleading" posts seem suspect to me -- I have no idea who is doing it, if it's the same person or not, but it doesn't make sense that someone would invalidate another person's actual experience and call it "misleading," and not even post a response about why it is "misleading" -- that's what I find odd -- no follow-up replies or posts to explain how so many people are being "misled." And then there is no signature from them.

I don't know, I just have a suspicion that someone may either be very upset about something personal, or they just are intentionally leaving negative remarks based on nothing factual -- but seemingly their own discontent.

Obviously, I don't know who is doing this, or if it's more than one person, however, the people who say they are getting negative reps for being "misleading" based on the poster's factual life experience, seems very suspect. Most people I have encountered here have been respectful, often give very detailed and thoughtful replies, and seem to care about how they post and word things.

Anyway, if there is some strange negative rep troll, or very discontented member, then I hope that the mods are able to figure it out. I'm surprised to see posters I respect getting these negative reps.

Thanks -- and remember, it's just IMHO.

[Marka]

Just to make things clear: I am not an automatic neg points removing device. I do not remove any points just because the receiver feels they're unwarranted, which happens all the time.

I certainly will remove a neg with an offensive comment, justified or not. We do not tolerate insults anywhere here. Other than that, I check the posting and repping history of both sides. When it's clear that the author uses the rep system as a means of telling people they disagree with them, instead of debating on the boards, I will remove the neg. If they do it repeatedly, I downgrade their own reputation, too. Bottom line is, only those negative points will be removed which had been given with violation of the forum rules.

I did not remove your negative point, john, because none of the above happened. I don't remember agreeing with you on anything. I simply stated that you have the right to disagree with the comment you received but the person who left it also had the right to do it. There was no violation of rules, hence the point stands.

Wisteria, I don't recall getting a PM reporting a neg from you, Are you sure you reported it?

[Wisteria]

Hi Markablue.

I didn't know at the time to whom to report it, so I went into the supposedly misleading post of mine (since I could figure it out from the red rep), and I hit that little red "report a post" thingy, and I think it was Waterlily who "edited" it but didn't respond to me or anything. And I just went in and looked now, and, apparently, you must have heard about it, and I see it was edited by you now as being "off-topic." I'm not sure now which part was considered "off-topic," but it may have been where I spoke directly to the OP and used his name....and clarified that I had experienced thus and so...because I see on his post where he used my name that his is now edited as being "off topic."

My posts are generally pretty well-informed, and I do try to give relevant information, so I was pretty confused about it all. I do see, though, that the original post that was reported is now not edited.....which is confusing to me. Originally, there was something there by Waterlily saying it was "cut."

The reality is, that we do develop a rapport with some of the posters, and I know that we use their names, and sometimes honestly direct a post to them. I don't think that should be considered off-topic. I mean, heck, Rance and Sweden met each other in person! That should show the power of posts and the power of rapport with a poster.

My opinion is that the person giving these "misleading" neg rep points seems to be doing it out of some kind of anger. Obviously, I don't know for sure, but it does seem odd.

Anyway, I usually get really nice feedback and I very much appreciate that! (Thank you, everyone who gives me that! )

If the neg rep thing was eliminated, then it would be less work for the moderators, too, to have to go around and figure out what's happening. Most of us are pretty good at staying on topic, giving accurate information (based on our own experiences), and are respectful of each other. I am actually quite impressed by the people here. It seems that most people on this board are educated, well-traveled, and wise. That's why I like it -- I learn a lot from people, and it is helping me to narrow down my searches -- I am taking a lot of this information I've obtained with me on my trip through the southwest this summer. It is very valuable!

Thanks!

[EarthUp]

I would not waste the moderators time with this, whether a rep is called for or not. I run several forums and I made it clear I am not a judge. I am not taking sides when there are business disputes and it's not my job to make members like each others. If you don't like each others, use PM or rep to express it. Better than having a 3 page flame war going on.

[Marka]

Any personal remarks are off topic on the local boards, that's why your post was edited. I must have been reacting to some reported post (not necessarily yours) because I don't moderate that forum on a regular basis. Probably that's why I wasn't paying much attention to what I was reading.

OK, I checked this negative point of yours now. I'm sorry but there was no violation of any kind there. The person who gave it to you has the right to believe it was misleading just as you have the right to disagree with this opinion. It wasn't a troll, no rules broken, the point remains.

[southernlady5464]

Just to make things clear: I am not an automatic neg points removing device.

You aren't????? J/K Of course you aren't. But it is nice to know that there is a review process for those received in error.

Btw, thank you for being there to review any of those you do review, whether you do end up deleting them or not. Liz

[Wisteria]

Markablue: OK, I checked this negative point of yours now. I'm sorry but there was no violation of any kind there. The person who gave it to you has the right to believe it was misleading just as you have the right to disagree with this opinion. It wasn't a troll, no rules broken, the point remains.

Okay. Well, I still think it is wrong if the information you give IS correct AND accurate ... it is only "misleading" if the individual has NOT experienced that same thing.....and in this case, it was apparent this was the case (maybe they visited a place but did not spend any long amount of years in a place to know how it is after the first initial honeymoon stage of living in a new place). It is still a personal bias and opinion from the individual who disagrees...however, when there is actual reality to the post, then I think the negative poster is misleading....Plus to not post a reply on how others are being misled then leads me to to think that they just do it as a retaliatory act, or out of some other negative feeling.

That particular negative rep person obviously did not live in those areas, otherwise they, like the others who agreed in their positive reps, would have also said the same thing. So, in fact, the repper was the misleading one and intentionally did that.

I stand by my integrity, and it is disturbing to read posts about someone who may have spent two weeks in an area and claims something about how it is to live there -- whereas someone who actually lived in the area is dissed. I've seen that happen a bunch of times on the board. My personal feeling is that maybe that two-week vacation was really nice, and it's hard for people to reconcile the reality of living in a place because it ruins the fantasy of their pleasurable trip.

I realized that the person didn't know what the reality was -- which is why I still feel it was not given to really point out anything misleading, because it wasn't misleading. I also realize this is not "real life," however, I also know that in real life I am highly regarded as extremely ethical and honest. (Not to mention I work in law enforcement and am very aware of honesty and values.)

So.....stay it must. However, I do think this rep system should not be based on personal opinions (which these "misleading" reps are if the poster actually has experienced these things and really does have valid information). Now, a post, on the other hand, IS a vehicle for stating an opposite point of view -- but not to penalize the person with whom they do not agree.....that is why I disagree with the negative rep thing. A post of disagreement is normal, and should be fully accepted -- that is where some really good dialogue and questions get started -- and eventually good information emerges.

It seems that you know who that negative rep poster is, and, quite honestly, I'd really, for my own personal knowledge like to know why they feel I was misleading when it was based on factual experience?? That is what is so confusing to me. Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate moderators coming in and breaking up a virtual school yard fight, but I also think that this board is for people who have experienced various places to give the inside viewpoint, so that it is helpful to others.

I just think that the system is skewed in that way (people who seem to have issues and are negatively repping -- otherwise they'd post and/or identify themselves), and I, personally, feel that it would be much nicer to just do away with the negative thing. What point is there for it when the repper doesn't identify themselves, nor do they post what is misleading, and all they do is just leave a nasty message? It doesn't make sense.

I try really hard to give good and valid information, and I must admit when my integrity and honesty are put into question it makes me feel very, very bad -- because it's just not the truth that I am dishonest -- nor misleading, and to me, that is the bottom line. I stand by my honesty and directness -- these are qualities in real life that have been highly regarded by people who know me.

Thanks for letting me give my feedback.

[shuke]

All this brouhaha about one negative rep point? That's just pitiful.

[anonymous]

This is why some boards (i.e. slashdot.org) have something called "meta-moderation" - or in our case you'd call it meta-reputation. Outside of the repper and the repee, you have a neutral 3rd party that can pull up a random list of repped comments, and agree or disagree with how it has been repped.

Although I understand if the C-D board does not have that feature.

[Marka]

Unfortunately, to verify whether or not particular information was in fact misleading, we would have to hire cohorts of experts knowing everything about each single spot throughout the country. It is not likely to happen any time soon. Therefore we won't be evaluating validity of the posts. The only service we can offer is checking whether a negative point was given with accordance to the rules.