The Skill FAQ - How can skillz pay the bills?

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

i have -27 and could care less, so take it for what its worth.

Maybe you should start caring. As we have stated in these threads, we are reviewing the status of posters with high amounts of negative skill. We spent alot of time and effort in developing the skill system and we are using it as a tool to improve the quality of the board.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Maybe you should start caring. As we have stated in these threads, we are reviewing the status of posters with high amounts of negative skill. We spent alot of time and effort in developing the skill system and we are using it as a tool to improve the quality of the board.

That was actually one of my questions. What kind of consequences do high negative skill points carry, or is this still being worked out?

[photon]

Eventually we'd just evaluate if we wanted the person to remain a member of the site or not, a subjective call by the moderation team. That's the extreme end, after the person would have been given opportunities to change their ways.

[Antithesis]

I am wondering if it is possible to see what posts received skill either positive or negative, either by clicking on the squares for people or as some kind of a list ... "Today's Skill-Rated Posts" or something. This way, the postings could be recognized either way. It could also perhaps be another layer of accountability for those handing out the skill points, if everyone was able to see the posts that got negatives or positives. Please note this is not me saying that the system is faulty or broken!

[photon]

Yeah, something like that would be kind of nice, unfortunately it's not really built into the software that I'm aware of

A meta-moderation system where the skill givers can review each others' skill allotments would be cool as well, but again without writing custom code to do it (and having to potentially adjust that code with every revision of forum software)...

[kipperfan]

I have held back saying anything about this "skill system" for a few months as I wanted to see how everything shook out, and attempt to understand what drives the system. Frankly I dont really care that much, although I do care a little, thus me taking to time to write this. I think it has been mentioned earlier by another poster that it seems some of the skill givers(whomever they may be) seem to be showing some favouritism.

Now the last thing I want is to sound like a whiny bugger who is upset he has a blue square, its not about that. But....the post I recieved negative skill for was so amazingly trivial its kinda funny. I can understand the arguement that my post didnt add anything to the board, and if that was the going standard for a blue square then I would have to quams with the blue. In fact why not just put it out there.....I highlighted a portion of someone's post(someone I wasnt having an arguement with or anything of the sort) and used a laughing smiley as the poster had said "tossing so and so's salad". And sure enough I got a blue. The problem I have with this lies in the fact that this was in a game thread, I could go through any GT this year and find 30 posts in everyone that are the exact same lame attempts at lightening the mood...and sure I dont know for sure those posters never recieved skill, but I can see their skill stays grey after the post....it doesnt take a brain surgeon to put two and two together. The thing that is very curoius about the entire incident is that before this post which I got negative skill I was engaged in a long argument with a few posters in the same thread, doing nothing that deserved blue skill, but definatley pissing some people off with my oppinions. Is it a coincidence that I recieved negative skill right afterwards for a post that really did not harm the board....maybe....but I find that a bit hard to believe.

All of that happened a month or two ago and I didnt want to publicly aire a grievence, I did PM a mod but never heard back. But the biggest problem I have lies in the fact that in these past months I have made(in my oppinion) many well thought out and solid posts and have recieved no positive skill, IMO these posts added far more to the board then my one lame attempt at humour in a crowded game thread took away. I may be out on a limb here but it seems to me that those posters(such as myself) that tend to disagree with another group of longtime posters on a consistant basis, have to do a heck of alot more to get into the red, and a heck of alot less to get into the blue.

The reason I posted this now is after reading Antithesis post, I got to thinking there should be some kind of accountability for the skill givers. I understand they have been identitified as long time trusted posters by the board admins, but that doesnt mean they arent human, and it doesnt mean they are always objective. I can think of a few other posters(no need to name names) off the top of my head that are in the blue, despite the fact they are always providing knowledgable level headed insight, and I dont think that is very fair and I am having a hard time seeing this "skill system" as an accurate evaluation of the posters on this board.

My 2 cents.

[fanforever1986]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Not to step on any Mod's toes, but to answer a couple of your questions, first, rep = skill... there is no difference. Those little boxes by your "Skill" indicator are your rep.

As indicated previously, blue is bad, red is good. If you want to see where you are on the bad side (considering the numerous blues you have) check here... (listed in order of worst rep/skill at #1 )

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/memberl...n&pp=30&page=1

By that indication, you are right down there with MF...

Now, as a NON point giver/taker, I find it funny that you want to know who is giving/taking away skill points. Does it matter? I think those folks have done a pretty darn good job when I look at the overall impact since this has started. Good bet that the bulk of the forum viewers are seeing your posts for what they appear to be. To you this should read that the likelyhood that people find your posts non-contributing should be pretty high.

Perhaps you should word your posts better if you think they are being misunderstood and are in fact contributing to this site in a positive manner.

My 1/10 of a cent.. after taxes.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that, but I don't think it's your place.


To the mods, I disagree with the idea that it shouldn't matter who is giving you a skill point, or taking one away. If a member is given the responsibility of grading other posters, then they should also be accountable for that grade, and be able to justify it in a statement more detailed than "useless post"...or "Do not attack other members" (my personal favorite comment, given the post was not attacking anyone).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I have held back saying anything about this "skill system" for a few months as I wanted to see how everything shook out, and attempt to understand what drives the system. Frankly I dont really care that much, although I do care a little, thus me taking to time to write this. I think it has been mentioned earlier by another poster that it seems some of the skill givers(whomever they may be) seem to be showing some favouritism.

I don't agree with the favoritism part, but I do believe the system is flawed. Maybe this due to not having enough people to give out skill. I received a blue, and rightly so, for a bad post but I'm pretty sure I've made up for it by now with some quality posts. None of my posts are earth-shattering so they'll probably never get noticed, and I'm not the type of person to nominate my own posts for skill points. It just seems like it's a lot easier to get negative points because people are looking for bad posts more than they're looking for good posts.

There are a lot of posters here who do contribute and stimulate further quality discussion in threads, yet they get no credit. I've been trying to go out of my way to flag posts for the mods that I think deserve some points but I'm not totally sure if this helps the process.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It just seems like it's a lot easier to get negative points because people are looking for bad posts more than they're looking for good posts.
.

The last time Photon ran the stats there was actually more positive points given out than negative.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The last time Photon ran the stats there was actually more positive points given out than negative.

Okay, then I guess to address the issue of favoritism (which I don't really believe) it'd be nice to know how many were given to the same people.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

Thanks for taking the time to explain that, but I don't think it's your place.


To the mods, I disagree with the idea that it shouldn't matter who is giving you a skill point, or taking one away. If a member is given the responsibility of grading other posters, then they should also be accountable for that grade, and be able to justify it in a statement more detailed than "useless post"...or "Do not attack other members" (my personal favorite comment, given the post was not attacking anyone).

I would assume that they ARE accountable... when you report a skill given to dispute it, they would have to be accountable to whoever reviews the issue. Not making them accountable to you beyond the reason given for giving/taking skill protects them personally from the direct ire of those who feel slighted. I would also assume that, if they consistently give out judgements that the reviewers find lacking, they will be ousted. These are just assumptions, to be sure, but I think they are pretty fair ones.

[photon]

Shawnski's post was a good one.

The skill givers are accountable, to the moderation team. And yes they are human and subject to mistakes, just like anyone else, but it's not like a ban or anything is being given out, it's just a feedback on a post.

But I think that's a fair comment; even myself I find I don't give enough skill for the regular run of the mill good solid post. It's easy to give skill to the really outstanding good ones, and to the really poor ones. That's probably an area where there could be more done.

[Hemi-Cuda]

what i have a problem with is the negative skill points being used for those posts that a single person may disagree with, or are in a grey area. i just noticed that i was knocked for posting my personal opinion on how this team has fared this season in the 70 game comparison thread. i didn't attack anyone personally, nor did i just give a two or three word reply without backing up my opinion. i did however post my honest feelings, which may have come across as somewhat callous. so was that the problem? if i'm going to say something negative about this team do i have to walk on egg shells for fear of hurting someone's feelings?

my point is that i think that it's too easy to earn negative skill when you're being critical of the Flames, whereas all those who simply post how great the Flames are and how annoyed they get when others question that are given a free pass. having two points of view is what makes for good discussion, and i think it'd be pretty boring around here if everything was sunshine and happiness all the time

[fanforever1986]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

what i have a problem with is the negative skill points being used for those posts that a single person may disagree with, or are in a grey area. i just noticed that i was knocked for posting my personal opinion on how this team has fared this season in the 70 game comparison thread. i didn't attack anyone personally, nor did i just give a two or three word reply without backing up my opinion. i did however post my honest feelings, which may have come across as somewhat callous. so was that the problem? if i'm going to say something negative about this team do i have to walk on egg shells for fear of hurting someone's feelings?

my point is that i think that it's too easy to earn negative skill when you're being critical of the Flames, whereas all those who simply post how great the Flames are and how annoyed they get when others question that are given a free pass. having two points of view is what makes for good discussion, and i think it'd be pretty boring around here if everything was sunshine and happiness all the time

I've gotten negative skill with the comment saying something like "thats a glass half empty perspective''.

[photon]

You know, I don't mind the feedback on the skill system. It can help the skill givers improve.

But ff1986 you continually misrepresent the skill you are given to make it appear it wasn't justified. For example, you never received a skill that said "thats a glass half empty perspective".

You've made your point, I'm going to ask you to stop posting on this thread. If you have any more questions, PM them to me directly.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I have held back saying anything about this "skill system" for a few months as I wanted to see how everything shook out, and attempt to understand what drives the system. Frankly I dont really care that much, although I do care a little, thus me taking to time to write this. I think it has been mentioned earlier by another poster that it seems some of the skill givers(whomever they may be) seem to be showing some favouritism.

Now the last thing I want is to sound like a whiny bugger who is upset he has a blue square, its not about that. But....the post I recieved negative skill for was so amazingly trivial its kinda funny. I can understand the arguement that my post didnt add anything to the board, and if that was the going standard for a blue square then I would have to quams with the blue. In fact why not just put it out there.....I highlighted a portion of someone's post(someone I wasnt having an arguement with or anything of the sort) and used a laughing smiley as the poster had said "tossing so and so's salad". And sure enough I got a blue. The problem I have with this lies in the fact that this was in a game thread, I could go through any GT this year and find 30 posts in everyone that are the exact same lame attempts at lightening the mood...and sure I dont know for sure those posters never recieved skill, but I can see their skill stays grey after the post....it doesnt take a brain surgeon to put two and two together. The thing that is very curoius about the entire incident is that before this post which I got negative skill I was engaged in a long argument with a few posters in the same thread, doing nothing that deserved blue skill, but definatley pissing some people off with my oppinions. Is it a coincidence that I recieved negative skill right afterwards for a post that really did not harm the board....maybe....but I find that a bit hard to believe.

All of that happened a month or two ago and I didnt want to publicly aire a grievence, I did PM a mod but never heard back. But the biggest problem I have lies in the fact that in these past months I have made(in my oppinion) many well thought out and solid posts and have recieved no positive skill, IMO these posts added far more to the board then my one lame attempt at humour in a crowded game thread took away. I may be out on a limb here but it seems to me that those posters(such as myself) that tend to disagree with another group of longtime posters on a consistant basis, have to do a heck of alot more to get into the red, and a heck of alot less to get into the blue.

The reason I posted this now is after reading Antithesis post, I got to thinking there should be some kind of accountability for the skill givers. I understand they have been identitified as long time trusted posters by the board admins, but that doesnt mean they arent human, and it doesnt mean they are always objective. I can think of a few other posters(no need to name names) off the top of my head that are in the blue, despite the fact they are always providing knowledgable level headed insight, and I dont think that is very fair and I am having a hard time seeing this "skill system" as an accurate evaluation of the posters on this board.

My 2 cents.

I have a decent skill level and I have had the same seemingly arbitrary treatment. Once, long ago, I posted a sarcastic, joking response to a post regarding some spelling issues. It might have been in a game thread as well, with the same cryptic:

"doesn't really add anything" and then -7 or -9 in rep.

If anything, gamethreads should be exempt from such requirements. Gamethreads are a real-time jungle of emotion and quick posts in response to game action or feelings and frustration. You cannot apply the same standard there. Gamethreads are even locked right after each game is done so there is little issue with problem posts spilling over into a innapropriate discussions or arguments. They should be exempt from anything but the most severe issues being moderated.

Also, there needs to be some leeway for sarcasm/humour, and the value of a short succinct post or reply. Sometimes it's better to say little, add an emoticon, etc. than a long post that "adds something" or is simply judged on the basis of the percieved qualitative or quantitative aspects of a post. You need those things to lighten the mood, especially if the team is doing badly. I feel that this might be lacking in the consideration of the current system. In my opinion, a witty jab at somebody (if intelligent, tasteful, and hilarious) or quirky character (Where is Polly Peena these days? ) and flair do "add" to the board. This also includes calling out somebody or teasing them for claims or guarantees they made in the past, etc. In my view, spelling habits should fall under this as well.

I understand the feeling that many people seem to be expressing - that something they posted, considered by the poster to be relatively casual and innocent - is in effect sort of criminalized without prior warning or explanation. It's just not a good feeling having that stigma or being told you did something wrong and not understanding the aegis or justification behind it. If you've ever recieved a negative feedback on ebay, you know it hurts. There needs to perhaps be wider discretion on casual posts or conversations that are going on...or relatively innocent comments, etc. Focus the negative skill more on the severe problems such poor behavior but don't subtract from a post just because of a lack of percieved qualitative value or value-adding substance. What's happening might impose a chilling effect, in which the sometimes seemingly arbitrary treatment of posts leads to people choosing not to post at all because they don't know what's permissible or not or have no idea how something might be interpreted.

But whatever, it's all posts on an internet message board. Chill out people.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I have a decent skill level and I have had the same seemingly arbitrary treatment. Once, long ago, I posted a sarcastic, joking response to a post regarding some spelling issues. It might have been in a game thread as well, with the same cryptic:

"doesn't really add anything" and then -7 or -9 in rep.

If anything, gamethreads should be exempt from such requirements. Gamethreads are a real-time jungle of emotion and quick posts in response to game action or feelings and frustration. You cannot apply the same standard there. Gamethreads are even locked right after each game is done so there is little issue with problem posts spilling over into a innapropriate discussions or arguments. They should be exempt from anything but the most severe issues being moderated.

Also, there needs to be some leeway for sarcasm/humour, and the value of a short succinct post or reply. Sometimes it's better to say little, add an emoticon, etc. than a long post that "adds something" or is simply judged on the basis of the percieved qualitative or quantitative aspects of a post. You need those things to lighten the mood, especially if the team is doing badly. I feel that this might be lacking in the consideration of the current system. In my opinion, a witty jab at somebody (if intelligent, tasteful, and hilarious) or quirky character (Where is Polly Peena these days? ) and flair do "add" to the board. This also includes calling out somebody or teasing them for claims or guarantees they made in the past, etc. In my view, spelling habits should fall under this as well.

I understand the feeling that many people seem to be expressing - that something they posted, considered by the poster to be relatively casual and innocent - is in effect sort of criminalized without prior warning or explanation. It's just not a good feeling having that stigma or being told you did something wrong and not understanding the aegis or justification behind it. If you've ever recieved a negative feedback on ebay, you know it hurts. There needs to perhaps be wider discretion on casual posts or conversations that are going on...or relatively innocent comments, etc. Focus the negative skill more on the severe problems such poor behavior but don't subtract from a post just because of a lack of percieved qualitative value or value-adding substance. What's happening might impose a chilling effect, in which the sometimes seemingly arbitrary treatment of posts leads to people choosing not to post at all because they don't know what's permissible or not or have no idea how something might be interpreted.

But whatever, it's all posts on an internet message board. Chill out people.

Very good post...that should get you more skill!

Honestly though.....thats very much how I feel, you just said it 20 X better then I could have.

[Azure]

I agree with both of you guys.

I received my negative skill point for one bad comment...I think it was in the game thread, not sure though.

The reason given was the same as the reason given to you guys..'not adding anything to the discussion.'

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree with both of you guys.

I received my negative skill point for one bad comment...I think it was in the game thread, not sure though.

The reason given was the same as the reason given to you guys..'not adding anything to the discussion.'

Sounds like that might be something they're targeting, then. Makes sense to me. Whatever your perception of what a game thread "should be", I stay away from them for the simple reason that they've gotten too friggin' long. It's tough to keep up with the board AND the play at the same time. Today's game thread had 427 posts! 420 posts from puck drop to end over a 60 minute game...that's an ridiculous 7 posts/minute of game time.

Cutting down on posts that don't add to the discussion would really help the game threads out, IMO. What's the use of making posts like that other than to waste my time as I search for the interesting bits?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Cutting down on posts that don't add to the discussion would really help the game threads out, IMO. What's the use of making posts like that other than to waste my time as I search for the interesting bits?

Good post, Superfraggle. Game threads could be a great source of info for me (no tv other than the odd CBC game), as all I can do is listen online. And even then with most flames games starting out here say around 10 or 11 at night, I don't really ever get to listen to a game all the way through. Its frustrating, because sometimes it just seems that posts are in there...because...well they can be. Just post to post type of thing.