Post Rating Change

[DailyDi]

Due to excessive use we are now limiting post ratings.

Members: Can give one positive and one negative point a day.

Baby Bankers: Can give 10 total points a day.

Admins: Can give unlimited points.

Please use points responsibly. Reputation points are meant to highlight the BEST and WORST post of the day, not to pick-on certain members or disagree with every idea presented.

[diamondback6881]

I think Baby Bankers should get more.

[Bettypooh]

Due to excessive use we are now limiting post ratings.

Members: Can give one positive and one negative point a day.

Baby Bankers: Can give 10 total points a day.

Admins: Can give unlimited points.

Please use points responsibly. Reputation points are meant to highlight the BEST and WORST post of the day, not to pick-on certain members or disagree with every idea presented.

Reverend Ike said: "If you send the requested money I will pray for you. We have so many requests containing the required money that we cannot pray for those who do not send their ten dollars with their prayer request." So Ike believes that those who do not have ten dollars to send are somehow worth less than those who do, thus they deserve to suffer more just because they are poor

I wonder how much the new way of doing things will change the ratings? If it's really only for the best and worst posts of the day of the day one each per day would be enough for everybody Obviously like George Orwell said in "Animal Farm" all the animals are equal, it's just that pigs are more equal, and thus deserve more....

So now if I send my ten bucks here just so I can dump on somebody anonymously ten times as much, then it's all right and proper to do that But if my lack of money means that I am less worthy than others something smells very to me.

The post rating system was working properly, save for maybe some who singled out people and minused all of their posts (and being a baby banker doesn't mean that it wasn't some of them doing that) The fact that some people are unpopular due to what they post won't change by revising the rating system- they're still going to be disliked, only now it won't be as obvious

"Equality for sale, come get your equality now! Better hurry before we run out folks, because equality sells out fast! Equality! Equality for sale! Come get your equality!"

Bettypooh the Lesser

[Sophie ♥]

1 is quite limited per day...

I agree that this is an issue, but perhaps a higher number would be better for members... 3 or something.

Just my two cents.

-Sophie

[DailyDi]

This isn't a money-making change. In the past I have promised those who donate to the site higher limits in all areas - I am just sticking to that promise.

3 might be better, will do that change tomorrow.

[Repaid1]

Reverend Ike said: "If you send the requested money I will pray for you. We have so many requests containing the required money that we cannot pray for those who do not send their ten dollars with their prayer request." So Ike believes that those who do not have ten dollars to send are somehow worth less than those who do, thus they deserve to suffer more just because they are poor

I wonder how much the new way of doing things will change the ratings? If it's really only for the best and worst posts of the day of the day one each per day would be enough for everybody Obviously like George Orwell said in "Animal Farm" all the animals are equal, it's just that pigs are more equal, and thus deserve more....

So now if I send my ten bucks here just so I can dump on somebody anonymously ten times as much, then it's all right and proper to do that But if my lack of money means that I am less worthy than others something smells very to me.

The post rating system was working properly, save for maybe some who singled out people and minused all of their posts (and being a baby banker doesn't mean that it wasn't some of them doing that) The fact that some people are unpopular due to what they post won't change by revising the rating system- they're still going to be disliked, only now it won't be as obvious

"Equality for sale, come get your equality now! Better hurry before we run out folks, because equality sells out fast! Equality! Equality for sale! Come get your equality!"

Bettypooh the Lesser

Seriously..was that necessary?? Are you having a bad day? I thought more of you..don't blame Mike for restricting HIS SITE!

I'll Donate $10 in your name to give you Banker status, just cause you were awesome and gave me the P-pants! Do you even use the thing? I know I don't and DD just gave me unlimited hits!

I'm not being mean but I think if you followed some of the other threads you would know where he was coming from. People are Freak'n "flagging" others just by their name, not by content.

The point was people are abusing the system, therefor those who are not, get punished. I have only donated "X" amount of dollars to this site..I did not pay for my privilege, I'd like to think that I earned it . Those that do donate and help keep this site get the "Bennies" I think that is fair, Don't you?

I think 3 is a fair number, better than 1 & 1. It takes alot to keep this site up. More than I would have imagined now being a Mod here. My wife thinks this is my Job now. .

Come on...seriously? I thought that was kinda rude and not your normal self... And see I didn't even bump your rep for that!

NOTE: I had to go back and erase Emoticons (SP?) The damn Board said I had exceeded the limit on this post...WTF was that. AND I'm a MOD and donated...I guess some things are equal every where. (yeah I probably could have went to the ADMIN side and changed the quota too!)

[Bettypooh]

Seriously..was that necessary?? [de-emoticonned] Are you having a bad day? I thought more of you..don't blame Mike for restricting HIS SITE!

I'll Donate $10 in your name to give you Banker status, just cause you were awesome and gave me the P-pants! Do you even use the thing? I know I don't and DD just gave me unlimited hits!

I'm not being mean but I think if you followed some of the other threads you would know where he was coming from. People are Freak'n "flagging" others just by their name, not by content.

The point was people are abusing the system, therefor those who are not, get punished. I have only donated "X" amount of dollars to this site..I did not pay for my privilege, I'd like to think that I earned it . Those that do donate and help keep this site get the "Bennies" [de-emoticonned] I think that is fair, Don't you?

I think 3 is a fair number, better than 1 & 1. It takes alot to keep this site up. More than I would have imagined now being a Mod here. My wife thinks this is my Job now. .

Come on...seriously? I thought that was kinda rude and not your normal self... And see I didn't even bump your rep for that!

NOTE: I had to go back and erase Emoticons (SP?) The damn Board said I had exceeded the limit on this post...WTF was that. AND I'm a MOD and donated...I guess some things are equal every where. (yeah I probably could have went to the ADMIN side and changed the quota too!)

Emoticons are special creatures that don't like really large groups, and they prefer not to be duplicated in one single post. Maybe I'll write something on "Care and Feeding of Emoticons" someday I felt the post was necessary as I can't see any reason for mainstream privileges to be limited to those with money Limiting premium features (especially the more costly ones like space eating vid and pic files) to paying members is more the usual method and more justifiable in my mind. I don't know a single place where forums have limitations placed on 'standard' members.

Yeah, I know it's Mike's site and he can do what he wants- and I have no problem with that- but I can see no reason for anyone needing 10 "hits" a day And one each isn't always enough. The three 'hits' he's going to do for us is lovely and strikes a good balance of the need to restrict these without making one choose between awful in one way and awful in another Admin's shouldn't need more than ten a day either- if someone is that bad then sterner action is needed and they already have the power to do something about that. And let's face it- this is more about the minuses than the plusses. It's a human nature thing

The post you responded to is in line with many I've placed on this board, though I try to keep the negativity as low as I can because hate begets more hate I've faced a whole lot more discrimination than most in my life and I never saw where money should equal privilege though in RL it usually does. I'm not poor through laziness nor by choice but I value the accumulation of money far less than most people do. There really are more important things in life. If I were more like 'normal' people when it comes to money I'd have a pile of it and I'd be an a$$hole. I prefer not becoming one of those- there's too many of them already and I think it's in large part because we've become a society of money- chasers who are willing to overlook the real character values in life which can't be bought or sold. BTW, Rev. Ike is for real and hearing his spiel many years ago is what set me against letting money play a role in my judgments of character. What he said is the clearest example I've ever heard of discrimination against the poor and in his case, wanton greed It hits hard, doesn't it?

It isn't proper to punish the whole for the actions of the few who abuse things. Each of us should be burdened with our own personal responsibility for our actions, be they good or bad. People differ, having different needs and different abilities. For instance I can talk on a cellphone and drive safely because when that darn thing rings I know it's wanting to distract me from my driving and I can't let that happen. My first responsibility when driving is to drive safely at all times no matter what. I focus more attention to my driving when I'm on the phone than when I'm not because I know this. Not everyone has this ability, yet I get to lose a privelege just because it's easier to punish the whole than to deal with the individuals who are unable to act responsibly and are causing the problem. Take that to an extreme and next we will all be required to pick up litter on the side of the roads because some socially irresponsible people place more value on keeping their car clean than they do on keeping our collective world clean. I hope you can see where I'm coming from with this now- it's a principle thing, not a singling out of something I dislike or think differently of.

I started and deleted that post about a dozen times before I hit 'send'. It wasn't easy for me to say what I felt because I knew that if it were taken the wrong way I could lose access here, and that would kill me inside. I've BTDT and I don't like how that feels. I was "banking"(LOL) on Mike understanding my motivations and logic, and being mature enough to handle the criticism. I am pleased that his wisdom exceeds that which is usually found in those his age Thank You Mike, you've done well and I mean that!

I would prefer to become a baby banker of my own volition, though I, who am poor, won't reject someone doing that for me. If I had the dough it would have happened already (though that wouldn't change me or what I do here one bit) I am certainly going to do it one day because if any site deserves my support this is the one. Daily Diapers is what allowed me to deal with the heavy issues I had about being a DL so well and so rapidly- it's simply the best and no other ABDL site comes close. I owe Mike and many of the people here a great debt and if it weren't for other monetary debts taking every dime I can get I'd be the biggest anonymous donor here.

For those of us old enough to remember "Pogo" here's something I live by from him: "I have met the enemy and he is us!" It takes constant vigilance to keep that enemy at bay!

Bettypooh

[Leilin]

I think I like this development. I was getting fairly annoyed by certain other members basically just following other people around and negative-voting everything they said. One or three, hopefully this will limit the use of post-votes as a trolling tactic, basically.

[Snugglebug]

It's a step in the right direction. I get Bettypooh's point about equality amongst all members, but I would like to add that voting should be FOR MEMBERS ONLY. I noticed earlier that someone in a guest account was going through a thread spuriously handing out negatives without any real objectivity. Basically, if those who still wanted to be an ass with the points after they ran out for the day, they could bypass it by logging out and dishing out points as a 'guest'.

[babykeiff]

It seems to me, and most agree, that the 'negative' tagging of posts are the problem, rather than the compete rating system. If this is so, why not disable the ability of all to anonymously negative tag a post. An example of this in practice could be - if one disagrees with a post topic etc, let them actually, and democratically comment, and within the comment, request the post to be negatively tagged.

On a personal note, I disagree in the whole 'tagging' and grading system as a whole. Although we play as babies, we as people don't need a grading system on this site, or any other to try and belittle us.

[diamondback6881]

If this is so, why not disable the ability of all to anonymously negative tag a post. An example of this in practice could be - if one disagrees with a post topic etc, let them actually, and democratically comment, and within the comment, request the post to be negatively tagged.

Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it would be for Mike or Repaid1 to go around to each individual post and neg rep it if Mike got rid of the ability of regular users to neg rep? They would spend all of their time doing that and nothing else on this site would get done.

[Sophie ♥]

3 might be better, will do that change tomorrow.

OMG Someone took my advice!!

*hugs self* lovely day... lovely day.

-Sophie

[DailyDi]

3+ 3- now

[Leilin]

3+ 3- now

I think that adopting a system where neg-repping a post requires a comment might be a good idea, since you still have a pack of trolls neg-repping every post that asks them, however politely, to stop trolling. Not that I make a huge difference, but I'm about to swear this forum off due to the mass amount of trolling and utterly underhanded behavior that's running rather rampant at the moment.

[diamondback6881]

I think that adopting a system where neg-repping a post requires a comment might be a good idea, since you still have a pack of trolls neg-repping every post that asks them, however politely, to stop trolling. Not that I make a huge difference, but I'm about to swear this forum off due to the mass amount of trolling and utterly underhanded behavior that's running rather rampant at the moment.

I agree. Requiring a comment and maybe a message coming up asking if you're sure you want to give a negative rep point.

[Mischa]

I agree. Requiring a comment and maybe a message coming up asking if you're sure you want to give a negative rep point.

i support this because on a couple of occasions ive accidentally hit -1 when i was aimig for the multiquote button--didn't have my glasses

[diamondback6881]

i support this because on a couple of occasions ive accidentally hit -1 when i was aimig for the multiquote button--didn't have my glasses

I've done it a couple of times as well, only I was aiming for the +1 button. LOL

[sarah_ab]

i think to solve the issue of accidentally hitting negative instead of positive would be to have a "are you sure you want to give this poster a negative rating" box you know to allow the person a chance to fix their mistake.

otherwise, i personally didn't have a problem with the rating system the way it was before.... in life people are going to be rude and polite to you, they are going to tell you things you dont want to hear and things you do, and they are going to be mean to you or nice to you, whether you want them to do any of these things or not. The internet, while virtual is still a part of everyone's lives and it is going to reflect that.

One thing i feel people have not thought about, if you take away the ability to negative rep someone, you are going to then potentially have threads being bogged down with people justposting -1 to so and so, or other posts just slamming a particular thread.... and then that post can spiral out of control. This already happens with the rating system, but i wonder if without the ability to anonymously just click one button, more people will begin to actually make a post stating EXACTLY what it was tey didn't like about the post, then causing even more 'hurt feelings.

But as ive said before, this is DD's site and whatever he decides he wants to do... is fine with me, i'm just happy to be able to use the site....

[Leilin]

i think to solve the issue of accidentally hitting negative instead of positive would be to have a "are you sure you want to give this poster a negative rating" box you know to allow the person a chance to fix their mistake.

otherwise, i personally didn't have a problem with the rating system the way it was before.... in life people are going to be rude and polite to you, they are going to tell you things you dont want to hear and things you do, and they are going to be mean to you or nice to you, whether you want them to do any of these things or not. The internet, while virtual is still a part of everyone's lives and it is going to reflect that.

One thing i feel people have not thought about, if you take away the ability to negative rep someone, you are going to then potentially have threads being bogged down with people justposting -1 to so and so, or other posts just slamming a particular thread.... and then that post can spiral out of control. This already happens with the rating system, but i wonder if without the ability to anonymously just click one button, more people will begin to actually make a post stating EXACTLY what it was tey didn't like about the post, then causing even more 'hurt feelings.

But as ive said before, this is DD's site and whatever he decides he wants to do... is fine with me, i'm just happy to be able to use the site....

True enough.

However, one person stating a problem with a post and perhaps sparking a sensible discussion is far better than a half-dozen trolls doing the "good ol' boy" think in packs and basically threadcrapping and voting each other up as they do it, to put it gently, in my opinion. Perhaps I'm in the minority in that, however.