[estephan500]

OK, it's a bye week, a good time to ask:

* What is the meaning of the number of yellow squares that appear next to a person's identity in the left column of a post

* What gives rise to an increase in the person's "respect" number

* What dictates the change of the funky Stanford-appropriate title (Supreme Court Justice, Frosh, LSJUMB) that we are given


... thanks, need to make my game-the-system plan.

[estephan500]

OK, it's a bye week, a good time to ask:

* What is the meaning of the number of yellow squares that appear next to a person's identity in the left column of a post

* What gives rise to an increase in the person's "respect" number

* What dictates the change of the funky Stanford-appropriate title (Supreme Court Justice, Frosh, LSJUMB) that we are given


... thanks, need to make my game-the-system plan.

[oman]

* What gives rise to an increase in the person's "respect" number

Nothing as far as I can tell...

But this one goes to -11.

[oman]

* What gives rise to an increase in the person's "respect" number

Nothing as far as I can tell...

But this one goes to -11.

[estephan500]

Hell, I'd push you up to -8 just for that reference.

[estephan500]

Hell, I'd push you up to -8 just for that reference.

[yvonne]

OK, it's a bye week, a good time to ask:

* What is the meaning of the number of yellow squares that appear next to a person's identity in the left column of a post

* What gives rise to an increase in the person's "respect" number

* What dictates the change of the funky Stanford-appropriate title (Supreme Court Justice, Frosh, LSJUMB) that we are given


... thanks, need to make my game-the-system plan.

The yellow boxes are "stars" (system name) that increase with the number of posts a person has. The ranks also change based on posts.

The respect scores, new with this board, are based on other members "liking" or "disliking" that member's posts.

[yvonne]

OK, it's a bye week, a good time to ask:

* What is the meaning of the number of yellow squares that appear next to a person's identity in the left column of a post

* What gives rise to an increase in the person's "respect" number

* What dictates the change of the funky Stanford-appropriate title (Supreme Court Justice, Frosh, LSJUMB) that we are given


... thanks, need to make my game-the-system plan.

The yellow boxes are "stars" (system name) that increase with the number of posts a person has. The ranks also change based on posts.

The respect scores, new with this board, are based on other members "liking" or "disliking" that member's posts.

[Redrum]

There is a kind of BC /  AD  (OK, OK,  BCE if you insist)  history timeline that underlies the totals.  The Cardboard has been founded, survived the Bootleg Wars of 199? ,crashed, restarted, changed hosts, crashed again, morphed, migrated, upgraded and upgraded again.  In some of these developments,  post counters were reset.  Those of us who are too senile to remember the exact dates of the Bootleg Wars still feel we are due some 10,000 post credits  to be divided up between all  four to ??? of us. 

Our resident founder and mistress of all she surveys,  Yvonne,  could give the date the Cardboard was established.

[Redrum]

There is a kind of BC /  AD  (OK, OK,  BCE if you insist)  history timeline that underlies the totals.  The Cardboard has been founded, survived the Bootleg Wars of 199? ,crashed, restarted, changed hosts, crashed again, morphed, migrated, upgraded and upgraded again.  In some of these developments,  post counters were reset.  Those of us who are too senile to remember the exact dates of the Bootleg Wars still feel we are due some 10,000 post credits  to be divided up between all  four to ??? of us. 

Our resident founder and mistress of all she surveys,  Yvonne,  could give the date the Cardboard was established.

[yvonne]

Yeah, unfortunately, the old Perl software did not give a lot of latitude to naming the boards. This new PHP based board enables us to simply point to the directory -- something that we could do with other future software.

[yvonne]

Yeah, unfortunately, the old Perl software did not give a lot of latitude to naming the boards. This new PHP based board enables us to simply point to the directory -- something that we could do with other future software.

[Redrum]

Your bust in marble has been completed and it's already drawing raves.  The sculptor stands,  chisel in hand, ready to carve
the date of founding.  Don't tell me you've forgotten it.

[Redrum]

Your bust in marble has been completed and it's already drawing raves.  The sculptor stands,  chisel in hand, ready to carve
the date of founding.  Don't tell me you've forgotten it.

[Robbie]

So the CardBoard has been around since before our last Rose Bowl trip.

And, similarly, the Bears have a mimeograph machine that has been in continuous use since their last Rose Bowl trip.

[Robbie]

So the CardBoard has been around since before our last Rose Bowl trip.

And, similarly, the Bears have a mimeograph machine that has been in continuous use since their last Rose Bowl trip.

[Robbie]

Actually, the Cardboard must be even older than any of us remembers - according to http://www.thecardboard.org/board/index....on=profile I registered for the site on Dec 31, 1969.

[Robbie]

Actually, the Cardboard must be even older than any of us remembers - according to http://www.thecardboard.org/board/index....on=profile I registered for the site on Dec 31, 1969.

[yvonne]

Speaking of funky titles, Robbie is a Dolly. Nice.

[yvonne]

Speaking of funky titles, Robbie is a Dolly. Nice.

[estephan500]

If you guys still have contact with someone who knows php, here is what you could do... in the left column, below the respect listing, you could display the ratio (respect)/(num. of posts) ... perhaps multiply by 1000 for readability ...  that would be an interesting indicator.  Maybe only display when a person had reached a minimum number of posts.

though might create an incentive for people to "swing for the fences" with every post...

[estephan500]

If you guys still have contact with someone who knows php, here is what you could do... in the left column, below the respect listing, you could display the ratio (respect)/(num. of posts) ... perhaps multiply by 1000 for readability ...  that would be an interesting indicator.  Maybe only display when a person had reached a minimum number of posts.

though might create an incentive for people to "swing for the fences" with every post...

[fullmetal]

A little bit of low-level noise is good! :p

[fullmetal]

A little bit of low-level noise is good! :p

[estephan500]

Yep, I agree. just being dorky.

[estephan500]

Yep, I agree. just being dorky.

[Leftcoast]

Anyone else think there is something a little mean-spirited and personal about the "dislike" button? 

I like applauding good posts but would prefer just to ignore the weird - unless of course we're using it to warn of a particularly obnoxious troll.

Of course this could just be my own idiosyncrasy.

[Leftcoast]

Anyone else think there is something a little mean-spirited and personal about the "dislike" button? 

I like applauding good posts but would prefer just to ignore the weird - unless of course we're using it to warn of a particularly obnoxious troll.

Of course this could just be my own idiosyncrasy.

[yvonne]

I think it's OK to vote a post down, but be careful if several others have voted a particular post down because after five negatives, that post becomes hidden by default. I've noticed that most members give only positive votes, and that's OK, too. It keeps the atmosphere friendly and encourages thoughtful or witty posts.

On the other hand, a few negative votes can even the balance, kind of like a bank account. This person generally posts messages that are positively regarded (therefore, positive balance). This person's a troll (therefore, negative balance), with the majority at zero. It's simply a matter of how the community as a whole decides to use it. I spent a lot of time on Digg, where members could dig a post up or down, and the balance indicates how the readers in general thought about an article or comment.

I haven't done any kind of overall survey, but I did stumble upon the revelation that one poster (possibly others?) gives only negative feedback.

My own ratio of positive to negative feedback given is 10:1.

[yvonne]

I think it's OK to vote a post down, but be careful if several others have voted a particular post down because after five negatives, that post becomes hidden by default. I've noticed that most members give only positive votes, and that's OK, too. It keeps the atmosphere friendly and encourages thoughtful or witty posts.

On the other hand, a few negative votes can even the balance, kind of like a bank account. This person generally posts messages that are positively regarded (therefore, positive balance). This person's a troll (therefore, negative balance), with the majority at zero. It's simply a matter of how the community as a whole decides to use it. I spent a lot of time on Digg, where members could dig a post up or down, and the balance indicates how the readers in general thought about an article or comment.

I haven't done any kind of overall survey, but I did stumble upon the revelation that one poster (possibly others?) gives only negative feedback.

My own ratio of positive to negative feedback given is 10:1.

[oman]

I honestly haven't seen any trolls on this board in the brief time I have been on it.

I think negative rep comes from not getting the inside jokes.  Which as far as I can tell center around spouses, a regrettable failure to physically attend enough games in the rightsized stadium, and what I can only figure is a vague discomfort with anything more modern that the TalkingHeads "Remain in Light" album.

[oman]

I honestly haven't seen any trolls on this board in the brief time I have been on it.

I think negative rep comes from not getting the inside jokes.  Which as far as I can tell center around spouses, a regrettable failure to physically attend enough games in the rightsized stadium, and what I can only figure is a vague discomfort with anything more modern that the TalkingHeads "Remain in Light" album.

[Leftcoast]

Wait a minute Oman!  We go at least up to Little Creatures.  After that?  Well, why do we need new bands?  EVERYONE knows rock music attained perfection in 1986.  It's a scientific fact.

[Leftcoast]

Wait a minute Oman!  We go at least up to Little Creatures.  After that?  Well, why do we need new bands?  EVERYONE knows rock music attained perfection in 1986.  It's a scientific fact.

[oman]

You may be on to something.




And I was listening to music in austin in 1986.  Which may explain my overly texcentric viewpoint...

[oman]

You may be on to something.




And I was listening to music in austin in 1986.  Which may explain my overly texcentric viewpoint...

[CowboyIndian]

What about these guys?

[CowboyIndian]

What about these guys?