[BrandyHagz]

Many of you have asked that we change our settings to require the signing of Reputation Comments. This poll is to determine if this is a feeling felt across the board by the majority of our members or if this is an isolated request.

The results of this poll will affect the current settings – if our members vote to have ID’s shown on the Reputation Comments – then I will make that change. If our members vote to continue as is – no changes will be made.

You have the ability to affect the current function of our community, so please take a minute to participate in this anonymous poll!

Members can vote one time – one choice and their vote is not public. I would prefer that we not turn this into a nasty debate – but healthy debate is welcome regarding the Pro’s and Con’s of each choice.

Please feel free to pass the URL of this poll onto our other members!

To answer some questions before they are posted:

YES – this change would be “retroactive” – meaning ALL of the comments that are showing on your UserCP would be “signed” if the setting were turned on. The moderators WILL NOT go back into your rep history to tell you who left what – if this setting is turned on, it will only affect the reps you can currently see.

The “setting” adds a field to the UserCP between the “Date” and the “Comment” that says, “Posted By” – the users name would appear there. Members would not have to type in their name.

If the poll out come is YES – we will post an announcement on the forums advising members of the change and then the change will take place approximately one month later.

[Shoshana]

No. I think that if ID's are posted, people will be much less likely to post negative reps. The purpose of the rep system, at least as I interpet it, is to provide members with the ability of providing feedback. Sometimes, people are not comfortable being direct and would not post genuine negative feedback if it were not anonymous.

I think one of the issues that is triggering this question is that some people use the rep system as an outlet for rudeness and vindictiveness. Surely, that subgroup is not representative of us all. There is a mechanism in place for reporting rude reps and the members who violate the TOS are dealt with.

Just my two cents.

[ddhuab]

Some posters who WANT to see id's of rep comments justify it by saying that they want to be able to answer or explain the original post which was "misunderstood" (or what have you).

However, that one-sidedness can be seen as part of "beauty" of the reputation system as a detour from long, angry combative threads. Reputation is a sort of shouting into the wind... no one can answer, and the "argument" dies before it really starts.

With ID's, people will may start arguing with one another (Maybe in PM's). Still, at least the argument would stay between the two people (maybe) and not have twenty or more other posters jumping in to defend/attack.

I come down on the "yes" side, though. I think people will be more likely to obey TOS if they are identifyable. It will be a pain though, because sometimes I just want to disagree without taking the time to justify my disagreement... and that is easily done in the current rep system!

D.

[wenrl]

I think it is unnecesary to display who left what points. I always sign mine anyway. Some people may want their feedback to be anonymous and so what?

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I voted no. Im not a big user of the neg rep... it has to really upset me (which is probably when it shouldnt be used.. ). Most of the time Im ok with disagreeing on the thread itself.

One issue that I see is that sometimes people actually use the rep system to agree or disagree with people... one post they may totally agree with... and then later down the line the same person may disagree...

Having the reps signed lets the recipient know who is doing that agreeing and disagreeing and hard feelings may be held or like someone else said, no one will ever disagree and people will falsly think that every word out of their mouth is agreed with and embraced by all. Which may open the door to people erroneously(sp?) thinking that they speak for everyone.

Having reps name stamped, IMO, would all but eliminate disagreement -- which would negate the point of the whole system. Instead, I suggest a warning to people that breaking the TOS in reputation comments will result in the negation of a person's ability to affect someone's reputation.

If that makes sense.

[Poolside]

Although adding for future posts wouldn't necessarily be bad, I think making it retroactive would not be fair.

I'm sure it's a system limitation, but I just don't think it's fair to go back and add user names to something that was intended to be anonomous.

[dpen6]

If negative rep points are used as they were intended and the disagreement phrased with respect then I would think that one leaving an ID would not be a problem. It the intent is to do 'A drive by insult, bash.." then the person doing it does not want to be named. The negative reps IMO are a means to just vent ones anger...not disagreement...and not be ided....IMO its cowardly. I think I may have given 2 neg. reps in all the time I have been here....I don't see the point. I often give positives.

[AwaitingBeloved]

I agree with dpen, if the negs are used respectfully, what's the harm in having your name shown?

That's what they are their for, to show disagreement. Not the bashing that sometimes happens. IMO.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I think if only positives are given.. then the whole system should be done away with.

It doesnt have to be a drive-by insult for people to keep tabs on who is disagreeing with them.

[Shoshana]

I missed that part!

Brandy, if the signing of reps becomes retroactive, then I would have a real problem with it and I think it's completely unfair.

Yes, I've given negative reps, not many, and never sarcastic or disrespectful. I would never have given ONE of them if I had known they would have been signed. If that does happen, and I'm saying this not to make an idle threat (who would care anyway!) but I will very likely leave this site. I just say it because I want to make clear how strongly I disagree with this possibility.

[BrandyHagz]

Yes, the retroactive aspect is a system limitation which is why, if in ten days, the majority votes to turn it on, we will post an announcement that the option will be turned on in 30 days and then members have 30 days to get ready for the change

[wvamom]

In our local newspaper, there is a "vent line" that readers can use to call and leave a message about anything they want, good or bad. They don't have to identify themselves. However, I tend to attribute much less credibility to "vent line" comments than to signed letters to the editor, since an anonymous caller shows that he or she is not even willing to stand by his or her own comments.

Likewise, if people are unwilling to identify themselves, I would not tend to attribute much credibility to their expressed opinions. The forum, however, attributes both positive and negative weight to feedback, regardless of whether the participant is willing to identify him/herself. Thus, the forum lends what is perhaps undeserved credibility to an individual who is not willing to take responsibility for his or her comments.

That is the reason I would encourage a system whereby feedback, in order to "count" for or against someone's rep, be required to include screen name info. Otherwise, if a poster wants to leave anonymous feedback, it shouldn't "count" for or against the person's reputation.

BTW, I believe I have signed every feedback posting I have made. (Just so no one thinks I am inconsistent in this position).

Thanks for encouraging our input!
Carolyn

[Alison_inPA]

I don't think it's fair if the change has to be retroactive. Other than general fairness, I think there's another consideration here, too. The reputation system is confusing and misleading in some ways. When you click on the icon to leave a comment to someone, it asks you whether you agree or disagree with the post. If you disagree, it leaves negative points. I think it's a sad comment on our community if merely disagreeing with someone gives them negative points that affect their reputation score. There are plenty of people here that I like and respect but whose occasional posts I disagree with. So I rarely use the reputation point system anyway.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I dig that "vent line" view... BUT a vent line is public. If the rep remarks were public I would agree... then everyone could see..well there is an issue there because that person disagrees with what that other person says.

Since rep marks are private feedback viewed only THAT person, having them signed provides ammo for the user to buddy up to (on the pos rep side) or team up against (on the neg side) a particular person... without anyone else knowing what is going on.

[Vicki H]

In my honest opinion, this is only going to cause problems. I feel that this is going to cause annamosity among those who may not have gotten along in the past , but have overcome differences.

I feel this could also cause more gossip , as some members may decide to tell other members who is giving them negative rep points.

How retro would this go also, as I believe I can only see about 5 or 6 reps now?

Vicki