Gameology-Fu

[Elennsar]

That ruins the point of it as "peer review". If you have no idea what you have (negative or poisitve) fu for, then how do you know what (not) to repeat?

Shame, because peer review is a good thing.

[PhoenixInferno]

I thought the gameology-fu process was supposed to be a kind of peer review. If you're constantly talking crap, other people should be able to give you that rep for easy reference. But I dunno. I have gameology-fu, but I have no idea why.

Because you're not a fuckwad.

[AfterCrescent]

Because you're not a fuckwad.

This. Right. Here.

If you have a negative fu, it should send a message to other posters. If your -fu is suddenly -X because you debated against people who disagreed with you, that's a misuse of -fu and you should probably send a PM to a mod about it. This goes back to the basics that Meg said a while back. If you're a fuckwad, expect -fu. If you're not, and you get one or two points down, don't sweat it. If you suddenly get 15 or so down, bring it up.

[Talen Lee]

I thought the gameology-fu process was supposed to be a kind of peer review. If you're constantly talking crap, other people should be able to give you that rep for easy reference. But I dunno. I have gameology-fu, but I have no idea why.

Because you're not a fuckwad.

Speaks a man who's never read my articles.

[Elennsar]

Personally, I'd rather drop the system than have to pester/prod/request the mods to look into the fact I have -15 fu for no good reason at all. If they're not on the ball enough (for whatever reason) to keep it from plumetting without cause in the first place, its going to take more time and effort than it is worth on my part to make them do something about it.

[JaronK]

I think some people have made it very clear that they don't get it, which means the system isn't working quite as well as planned.  Some people in here have stated that they don't know why their fu went down, when it's pretty obvious to people who watched it happen exactly why it went down.

So perhaps at least having a rough idea of why it went down or up would be nice... perhaps the ability to read the comments but not the names that gave them, and know in which post it was responding to?  Then it would become actually viable as feedback.

JaronK

[Omen of Peace]

I believe similar suggestions were turned down due to technical difficulties - namely that no available mod for this forum software does that.

[Elennsar]

I've a pretty good theory, but it has to do with misuse of the fu system rather than any attempt to mean anything whatsoever, so my theory on why my fu dropped is more of a "why I think fu should be dropped" than anything else.

A suggestion, if the technical issues don't permit: Make a site rule that whenever you drop (or raise) someone's fu, you have to [spoiler] Note what exactly the person did to merit this. [/spoiler] so that it can be monitored by the users, including the one on the recieving end.

Failing that, or extremely vigilant mods (which may demand more attention than can be given), it will be abused and failing the user having their fu adjustedly wrongfully raising a stink about it, nothing will happen.

[JaronK]

I honestly do feel that the fu ratings seem to work pretty well.  Sure, sometimes people get nailed too harshly for something stupid they said, and sometimes people go overboard.  And it wouldn't hurt to say you can't give fu more than once a week or so, negative or positive.  But I often do see that the people who have negative fu really did something to deserve it, and usually the positive fu people did too, in the end.  It does average out.

JaronK

[Ubernoob]

I honestly do feel that the fu ratings seem to work pretty well.  Sure, sometimes people get nailed too harshly for something stupid they said, and sometimes people go overboard.  And it wouldn't hurt to say you can't give fu more than once a week or so, negative or positive.  But I often do see that the people who have negative fu really did something to deserve it, and usually the positive fu people did too, in the end.  It does average out.

JaronK

That's an... idealist point of view.  Would you consider yourself an optimist?

Honest question.  Not trying to argue.

[PhoenixInferno]

I thought the gameology-fu process was supposed to be a kind of peer review. If you're constantly talking crap, other people should be able to give you that rep for easy reference. But I dunno. I have gameology-fu, but I have no idea why.

Because you're not a fuckwad.

Speaks a man who's never read my articles.

Maybe I'm just impressionable.

Also, "spoken".

[JaronK]

That's an... idealist point of view.  Would you consider yourself an optimist?

Honest question.  Not trying to argue.

No, I consider myself a statistician.  Now, maybe more people will, on average, smite than cheer.  In which case all fu will go down.  Or maybe the opposite.  However, over time, simple averaging will cause people who have better or more useful ideas to go up more (or go down less) than people who harm the forum through their actions, as the more responsible people will be raising and lowering fu from a third party perspective in a reasonable way, and the trollish/smiter types are as likely to hit one person as another most of the time.

I mean, sure, there's going to be jerks who just lower the fu of anyone who they disapprove of or whatever.  It happens.  But it's just as likely that some people will be fanboys for someone else and raise them up, and while at the time that means the fu ratings are off, when it happens again with a different person it should start to average out.  The more visible you are on the boards, the more your fu may vary when you do something, but if you're honestly contributing useful information or just being helpful it will go up and if you're honestly behaving in inappropriate ways, it'll go down.

It's like coin flipping.  I can't say that you're going to flip heads or tails, but I can say that in 10,000 flips, you're going to get somewhere around 5000 heads.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

The problem is that while the coin is neutral, the forums are not. People who think someone having -15 fu is a sign that something means something are going to be a lot leerier of giving fu to them even if the reason for that turns out to be utterly moronic.

Whether this works for positive fu as well, I don't know. But I do know that statistical probabilities and the realities don't work out as the same.

[AndyJames]

Not that I have seen with +ve fu. I have seen at least one person who's fu went from the double digit positive to negative almost overnight when he did something stupid and then vituperously defended it.

[Ubernoob]

That's an... idealist point of view.  Would you consider yourself an optimist?

Honest question.  Not trying to argue.

No, I consider myself a statistician.  Now, maybe more people will, on average, smite than cheer.  In which case all fu will go down.  Or maybe the opposite.  However, over time, simple averaging will cause people who have better or more useful ideas to go up more (or go down less) than people who harm the forum through their actions, as the more responsible people will be raising and lowering fu from a third party perspective in a reasonable way, and the trollish/smiter types are as likely to hit one person as another most of the time.

I mean, sure, there's going to be jerks who just lower the fu of anyone who they disapprove of or whatever.  It happens.  But it's just as likely that some people will be fanboys for someone else and raise them up, and while at the time that means the fu ratings are off, when it happens again with a different person it should start to average out.  The more visible you are on the boards, the more your fu may vary when you do something, but if you're honestly contributing useful information or just being helpful it will go up and if you're honestly behaving in inappropriate ways, it'll go down.

It's like coin flipping.  I can't say that you're going to flip heads or tails, but I can say that in 10,000 flips, you're going to get somewhere around 5000 heads.

JaronK

Perhaps I should be more clear:
When it comes to human nature, would you consider Man to be essentially good and wise?  That is the optimist perspective (because both qualities are relative you can make such a deduction).

[JaronK]

Perhaps I should be more clear:
When it comes to human nature, would you consider Man to be essentially good and wise?  That is the optimist perspective (because both qualities are relative you can make such a deduction).

Irrelevant.  People being better on the forums would lead to higher fu scores in theory, and people behaving more poorly (both in their posts and their use of the scores) would lead to lower scores, but I'd only be looking at the comparitive values anyway so it doesn't matter.  If people are generally smiting, then someone with 2k posts and a -10 score might be incredibly impressive, while someone with -200 and that many posts might just be average.  But I can still see a difference, and it still shows that the guy with the higher fu is (evidently) a higher quality member of the forum, whatever that means.

Not that it matters that much in the end.  I mean seriously, if you draw self worth from how much people you've never met on the internet like you, what kind of person are you anyway?  Your score tells you what people think of you here, and while it's interesting to note, it's not like it's that important.  I mean, sure, I feel good when I make a post and get a good response and the fu goes up a bit, but it's not like it's the end of the world if that doesn't happen.

JaronK

[Ubernoob]

-shrugs-

Nevermind.  You missed it.

[veekie]

I treat fu like an interesting metric of what people think of you, it's usually easy enough to see what shifted it for the better or worse, based on your recent posting activity anyway. If it's going down, you might be doing something wrong, or simply be engaged in a relatively civil flamewar.

For using it to judge others, I'll pass on that and gauge by their posts that I have seen as always, handing it out where someone impresses me in either direction.

[JaronK]

-shrugs-

Nevermind.  You missed it.

No, I chose not to follow a tangent.  I had a rough idea of where you were going, and didn't want to follow that road.

JaronK

[Tshern]

Not that I have seen with +ve fu. I have seen at least one person who's fu went from the double digit positive to negative almost overnight when he did something stupid and then vituperously defended it.

What I find most peculiar about this is how it slumped so fast, when not nearly that many people actually took part to the argument.