The Iwaku Ratings

[Lewi]

I am unfortunately one of those sensitive babies that gets upset by things like negative ratings and downscoring. I never pitch a fit about it, but I'm so eager to please everybody that I get internal sads when it happens.

Same here

 

[Lady B]

I've never gotten a negative rating (.... Am I jinxing myself?) I have no idea how xD I guess I'm just not active enough in the discussion topics haha It seems like that's where all the negative ratings are when people disagree with each other.

None of my negative ratings come from posts I made in the discussion section, lol. Literally like three or four of them are from this one guy who misunderstood something I wrote in an RP as attacking someone else and just smite'd a couple of my posts. When I explained everything to him he was like 'Talk to me when your civilized enough to have a conversation and own up to yourself'... :/

 

[redblood]

None of my negative ratings come from posts I made in the discussion section, lol. Literally like three or four of them are from this one guy who misunderstood something I wrote in an RP as attacking someone else and just smite'd a couple of my posts. When I explained everything to him he was like 'Talk to me when your civilized enough to have a conversation and own up to yourself'... :/

Yeah, sometimes people come across those who just seems to misunderstand or just want to fuel negativity and then don't want to listen to explanations. :/ I've probably been fortunate not to come across those types, or maybe I just write in a way that is hard to misunderstand or misinterpret even if one tries.

But if it comes from people like that, it's best not to take it to heart. If they don't want to listen to explanations and sees everything that contradicts their world view as aggressive behavior, then it's (usually) best to ignore them. Not always the easiest thing to do, but it's probably better not to fuel them as it kind makes them believe that they have a point to think people are aggressive towards them (or others) simply because people don't like them for their own behaviors.

 

[Fijoli]

Personally I don't give negative ratings.

This is wonderful advice, though we should let members know when something isn't acceptable its good to remember that just one negative rating gets the message across, Its good to notice what ratings are already given and make the judgement call from there.
I am someone who always gives hearts, thank yous, likes, and neutral ratings. I also rarely get to an untouched thread.

I am unfortunately one of those sensitive babies that gets upset by things like negative ratings and down scoring. I never pitch a fit about it, but I'm so eager to please everybody that I get internal sads when it happens.

Being sensitive is absolutely ok. I've seen you around the general chat your input is as valid as anyone's.

At first it hurt me when people gave me negative ratings because they did it to be mean or without good reason, and it broke my heart to see that I was one of the most negatively rated members after not having been active for that long. But I guess I've sorta moved on now. I'm still a bit confuzzled over what ratings count as negative and what counts as positive. I mean dislike doesn't count as negative, and you get a cookie sound positive although I do't know if it counts as a positive rating.

I'm gonna say that. in general, if you are going to negatively rate, this is a good example of if you are going to rate a post negatively, I believe its common courtesy to explain. Mandatory? no, Respectable? Yes.

It leaves no room for imagination to take hold an collect demons.

Thank you for sharing that with us you guys. You made excellent points imho.

 

[Diana]

Don't be scared to report someone if they are giving you negative ratings and it's seeming unfair or they are being rude about it. Especially if they are serially downvoting multiple posts. >> That usually means the person is being petty, and it might be someone that is giving other members trouble too.

And if it's not, well. We'll just explain to you why you got the bad ratings!

 

[unanun]

I've never liked rating systems whether they were positive or not. Before, all I did was read Asmodeus' posts and enjoy them. Now, my anxiety level is directly related to whether I can get the same amount of ratings as he did, GM'ing ilium. I see groups of people that only like or love each other's writing, when there is objectively better material that deserves accolade. Or they only rate posts when it involves their character. Members treat likings, or likes/posts ratio as some sort of qualification of their skill.

Ratings become tools of passive-aggression on websites that get big enough, like Reddit. On another tech reviews site with comments, the introduction of up and down thumbs allowed anonymous voters to be petty with their opinions.

Ratings promote easily digestible content that is simple and quick to amuse. It doesn't reward anything else. I found myself writing 'epic' things, using limited writing tools, and going for quick twists and big events to keep ratings high. Ratings take away from my enjoyment of writing, and I admit I find myself checking the alerts more than I should. It's horrible.

From now on I will never rate posts on iwaku again.

 

[Edwin Felspar]

-giggles childishly as he gives the OP a "bad" rating-

Edit, well, okay, neutral rating...

 

[Fijoli]

 

[Diana]

If you're writing posts FOR ratings and your objective is TO get notice and praise from other people - you are doing it wrong! It's no wonder you'd get anxiety and a complex about it. We should never be going through our hobbies and passions with the intent of seeking other people's approval. You should be doing it for yourself and for the love of your crafting!

 

[unanun]

Absolutely. But the dog didn't ask Pavlov if he would kindly stop ringing the bell every time he fed him, nor did the pigeon ask Skinner to stop shocking it when it did certain actions. The mere presence of a rating system is poisonous - it is misused, promotes the wrong kind of content, and it is never used to promote good content.

Additionally, I argue that writing is, in fact, 99% for others and 1% for yourself. You write for an audience. Writing for yourself and posting it expecting others to read it is selfish. The definition of the GM's job is to please others.

 

[Fijoli]

Once you put ratings on the pedastool of psychological validation it becomes dangerous for yourself and others, and I suggest not even pay attention to the rating system if this is how you feel because it is a valid point.

I'm an artist on a role playing website, I love to get hearts on my work, I work very hard on my artwork and I don't ask for money, it's something I love to do for others.
The hearts and Likes I get don't make me a good artist, and they are not payment for my work nor do they make me any less or more productive. I feel good when I get them, but I value them more for the insight it offers into my audience and clients.

For those who do choose to use the ratings;

Abuse of the rating system is not tolerated, can be reported, and handled like any other member disputes. No one has to feel obligated or Arsed to deal with it.
The choice is yours to make. The value, you as an individual put into to something is what you make of it.

 

[RiverNotch]

Absolutely. But the dog didn't ask Pavlov if he would kindly stop ringing the bell every time he fed him, nor did the pigeon ask Skinner to stop shocking it when it did certain actions. The mere presence of a rating system is poisonous - it is misused, promotes the wrong kind of content, and it is never used to promote good content.

I agree that there's always the issue of what the ratings system itself generally represents. Some people rate positively because they like something; others rate positively because they think it is exceptional; others still do so to show good spirits (I've honestly rated with the intention of all three). And, in essence, the same thing applies to "neutral" and "negative" ratings. The system's too ambiguous to really be taken seriously by the ratings-recipient; for the most part, it's not really "misused" per se, but it is most certainly impossible to actually interpret (I'd say the only real misuse of it would be in using it in personal attacks, since that's something that's not only clearly out of the scope of the ratings system, but also something that's just plain not done here, in Iwaku).

That said, I believe that without the system, people would begin expressing these little opinions in other, less constructive ways, like posting tons of fairly meaningless posts in serious discussion threads, or privately pestering an especially opinionated author for being *wrong*. So, however arbitrary it may be in terms of expression, in terms of making Iwaku more inclusive and, er, internet-friendly, I have to say that the ratings system is very important.

Additionally, I argue that writing is, in fact, 99% for others and 1% for yourself. You write for an audience. Writing for yourself and posting it expecting others to read it is selfish. The definition of the GM's job is to please others.

I half-and-half disagree with this. Writing is a multi-purposed affair, so it can't really be wholly defined as for an audience. Some people, for instance, write solely for themselves, and only publish not for the pandering to an audience, but for some sort of psychological release; a sort of mass-therapy, if you will, following the idea of letting it all out. Others still write for writing's sake, publishing to somehow make bigger their talents, or to make whatever living they can with what they've made, without necessarily pandering to the needs of an audience (sort of like doing something that you do for it's own sake, but that you hope, and only hope, will give you a piece of pie on the side).

As for the GM's job, I completely disagree with your statement on it. The GM's supposed to handle the game to whatever specifications the game has already been set; whether those specifications are up to the players, the GM himself, or some handbook, depends on the game. They're not solely meant to please others; if they were, games would lack that element of unpredictability and failure that make them fun to play. The GM's also, in certain cases, meant to flesh out the world, and that also doesn't conform to the pleasure of others; if the others really, truly desire jetpacks in a strictly medieval fantasy game, should the GM pander to them?

EDIT: But heck, this is a discussion for another thread, isn't it?

 

[TatsukiNoka]

Not bothered by it, I mean at the end of my online session I'm going to get offline, go to sleep without worrying about ratings.

 

[Peter Feels]

Is this new? When did we get a rating system?

 

[Titanium]

I'd like to say that even if you may get a negative it is totally possible it was done by accident while scrolling. Cause I did it once! so it should totally be possible for others! >,< thank the iwaku gods for the take back option.