MEMBER LOGIN   |   Username: Password:
Twitter: (The Twitter thing is temporarily down due to a Twitter-related bug or something!)
Recent Updates: The New Site is now open! (6 years ago) Which of [these facial express... Vulpin Adventure OST| "Blast to the past!", a review of Plazma Burst 2 by Rating Orb Duogduogduog
...

Comment History65 in total

This shows all comments by the user Rating Orb Lyle:
Userpage: Rating Orb david s  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (4)
Dude, you gotta stop beating yourself up over old mistakes...
Blog: WELL.  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (16)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH He's stopping in the middle of something before finishing it again to start on yet another completely new project! And another remake at that!

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

Was my first reaction. Then I kept reading more about that LONEWOLF remake and I actually quite liked that blog entry. There's something 'romantic' about the whole thing, like a sort of writers-block removal exercise, where you just spontaneously start working on something completely random with no commercial value, or even a reason - just for the subconscious purpose of reinspiring yourself, and getting rid of coders block/burnout. So I thought that was fair enough.
Userpage: Rating Orb david s  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (1)
Yeah, our views on the US are pretty much the same.

I had a feeling you would say something to the lady in that story! Remember a few factors though -
- From personal experience, me and you both know that most other people get offended at, or defensive about unsolicited advice, like we're accusing them of something.
- We're not the supervisor or the manager - it's not our job, and we're not supposed to police (or act in a way that could be construed as policing) other people.
- Our objective in this case isn't the smoothest running of the office/website - our objective is to act in the fashion that increases our social proof the most.
Now if we run through what's likely to happen from a confrontation...
Well, it's hard to know for sure. You would word it as nicely as you could. "Sorry to bother you, but I couldn't help but notice you were spending a lot of time on the phone. I've got a really heavy workload - would you be able to help me with this project?" Or maybe you'd use an "I" statement (how do those go again?) "When I see other people spending lots of time on the phone talking while I'm hard at work, I feel frustrated and unfairly done by. I feel that we would work better as a team if we were all doing an equal amount of work".
What I suspect would happen would be she'd get really defensive and make some sort of apology or excuse without making eye contact. And then she'd go back to work, typing furiously like she's catching up on lost time or something. But I doubt the behavior would go away - it would happen either when you weren't around, or somewhere where you wouldn't be able to affect it. And she'd use the office grapevine to complain about you 'telling her off' to her office friends, again where you wouldn't hear. And hypothetically, if she was to complain (she wouldn't, but hypothetically), you would probably get reprimanded yourself for doing the supervisors/managers job when you weren't supposed to.

This is where I note that I think the same thing would probably go fine-ish with someone who was new, or didn't know - I'm talking more about people who should know better.

If you ABSOLUTELY had to do something about it, imo the best thing to do would be to keep a black book with dates/times/details and then later after a few entries discreetly discuss this with your supervisor/manager. It would be able to keep your hands clean, go through the proper protocols, and stop the behavior.

3 rating system, well that's the thing. With only three ratings, people don't feel enough that they're recognised for outstanding posts, but then when you change it to a 5-7 rating system, everyone feels that they're ratings and posts must always be PERFECT, and if in doubt whether the post will be rated very-good or pefect, better to play it safe and not post at all (remember that a significant % of the site is either hardcore rpg players or mildly autisic/aspergers, which translates into an obsessive-compulsive to get the best rating!). In a hypothetical, I would suggest some sort of compromise where we still use the 3-rating system, but outstanding posts are recognised some other way, outside the scope of the rating system.

Like suppose you could actually "nominate" a post as well as rate it a green under the 3-star system. You would only nominate outstanding posts, and you can nominate as many as you like - all nominated posts go into a draw, and then at the end of each month, the top 10 nominated posts get "Post of the Month" or something. For getting a Post of the Month, you get a +1 star supercool rating, and then users can compare their relative coolness with each other by comparing how many Post of the Months they got. It would be fairly easy to police, because it would be obvious (from an admin/mods point of view just before he announces the winning posts) if bad posts were getting nominations, or a certain group of users were trying to rort the system. You get the best of all worlds - people aren't discouraged from posting (they just spend extra time polishing up the posts they want to get nominated), average/bad posts has no effect on your outstanding post rating (too many bad posts and you would just get banned instead), people are rewarded for outstanding posts, and people who are making bad posts can still be downrated.

Or something.
Userpage: Rating Orb david s  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (3)
Yeah, Psuedo hates his advice. The polite thing of course, is to wait for someone to request feedback, and that's when I jump in. It is, however, a character strength of yours that you can handle unsolicited advice without instinctively rejecting it, or getting mad at the advice giver.

Also, your comment about being stereotypically American, that's not a bad thing. America has to handle a lot of crap, and tries to do the right thing. Take Libya - back at the start of the whole revolution thing, Kevin Rudd, Australia's (I'm Australian) Foreign Minister, and 3rd/4th most important politician in Australia (might be Prime Minister now in a couple of months) was calling publically for America to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. Which, if I was American, I would be pretty mad at him for doing, because if America agrees to this (which they ultimately did), they would have to do 98% of the work, and if things go wrong, would take 100% of the blame. And if they didn't establish a no-fly zone, but should have, who's going to say "I told you so"? So everyone complains about America, but where do they turn when they run into trouble? It's a funny world.

Hum... It might be beneficial for me to explain through some of my experiences. The big problem with social stuff is that there's no one watching someone 24/7 interacting with people, and reading everyone's thoughts and intentions, and giving feedback. Fortunately (or unfortunately), make enough mistakes and the pattern-recognition eventually kicks in...

Regarding holding other people to your own standards, or to a 'higher' standard (which realistically is still your own standards), in some of my previous employment I worked in an office (as a salaryman). And there was a time there that I was seriously under the pump, having to finalise a massively important project which was already overdue, which I was undertrained in because a lot of other people had resigned/were on leave/sick and I was like the only person left who could attempt to fix it. It was seriously at the point where I had direct orders from my boss "do not do anything else. If your phone rings, or someone comes to you with a question, ignore them" (the boss, incidently was a hot-cold asshole* who considered subconsciously that rules, procedures and the company were more important than people. I say hot-cold because he was a great guy to hang out with outside of work, me and him had a lot in common, and he was extemely good at his job, but he was unintentionally a dick* to work under. This led to an eventual massive retaliation from some of the staff, and a lot of office drama, but that one's not really my story to tell). Anyway, all this time the lady across from me was casually making 15 minute personal phone calls, chatting with people... so I'm under the pump and apparently no one else is.

This of course led to me being very bitter towards her for those reasons. Why should she be able to take it easy while I'm under the pump? And you could probably argue that, looking completely objectively at the situation, that it's morally wrong/unethical for people to be taking long, leisurely personal phone calls at work under 98% of circumstances. But here's the thing - she had different objectives to me. She had a family and a lot of outside-work friends and community work, and being a clerical worker, she had no real way of office advancement - she could study and get a degree, true, but in her social circumstances it wasn't a realistic choice. She had a family, and that was where her happiness/passion lied. She intended to do her work and get paid. My overwork was ultimately a result of my own choices - eager for promotion and recognition, I took on as much work as I could and worked hard at the office in that respect. Which means that it's not really fair for me to be mad at her for not living up to my standards.

It's weird, there are two ways of handling resentment at other people for doing things differently to you - the first way is to just contain it, not let it bother you, where it bubbles beneath the surface and you secretly hate other people for not reaching your standards. The big problem with this is no matter how well you hide it, other people KNOW that you resent them, through subtleties, like how you might be slightly short with them, or slightly snarky, or passive-aggressive body language, or something like that. It eventually comes back to bite you. The second way is to... I'm not sure how to describe it... you sort of literally always forgive them by understanding that they're working towards different goals than you, you give them the benefit of the doubt, if someone snaps at you then you just assume they were having a bad day and give them a fresh start tomorrow. And it actually doesn't bother you anymore. (Keep in mind my disclaimer that it took me a long time and a lot of mistakes to come to this mindframe. I'm far from perfect in pretty much everything. I don't know if it's perfect or what other people do, but it's been working so far).


To touch on enforcing the rules... a good perspective check is if one of the Fighunter Site Rules was "You must jump off a cliff", would you enforce it, or do it yourself? (Note, this entire paragraph has very shakey foundations and basically depends on you agreeing with every step I make. Any sentence which you disagree with will basically invalidate the rest of the paragraph, so I'm moving blindly here) Since the answer is no (well, I'm pretty sure you would say no!), then we're in agreement that we can only follow rules based on a combination of their own merit, and the penalty for not following them. As well as this, instead of only following the exact letter of the law, perhaps it's also important to follow the 'spirit' of the law (as a high court would do)? This is where I might be wrong, but the spirit, the reason most of the Site Rules were introduced was specifically to stop obviously inane posts, like the first comment being FIRST! or I LOVE MONKIES OMG LOL XDDDD SO RANDOM!! or other stupid internet stuff which is essentially a waste of time reading. So not necessarily to increase the number of good posts, but to decrease the number of bad posts. And ratings were added to enforce this.

But I'm of the opinion that it's actually gone too far the other way. We've stopped people from spamming, but at the cost of making people scared of posting or contributing. While there are parts of the site that do need to be long and involved, like religion, philosophical and rant, other parts of the site only need simple paragraph posts, and it's led to some really bizarre behaviours.
For instance, if someone has already posted, and want to respond to my post, they will edit their original post [LINK] - which makes it very difficult to see if anyone's responded to you (how could I have noticed this response to mine except through checking the thread religiously or blind luck?), and also breaks up the 'flow' of the conversation.
I'm really interested in the answers to this forum thread [LINK] but people are avoiding posting. Someone actually contacted me and said my assumptions for how he rated posts in that thread were incorrect (apparently it was because those posts broke some Site Rules). I replied and suggested he should contribute to the thread instead of downrating contributors. I never got a reply. But realisticially speaking, no post in that thread will score higher than a brown or blue. Which is why people won't post. But I think the subject is interesting, and I'm really interested in the responses, it contributes, intelligently, to the site - and there's a good possibility that I will benefit from the thread (someone might name drop a dev I've never heard of and will lead me to find some hidden gaming gems).
This thread (warning, potential conflict of interest because I started it!) [LINK] I was really interested in pulling some stats together. Five replies was pretty disappointing. Maybe it's because all those questions have probably been asked and answered over and over in other threads. Or maybe it was because there is no way you could write a response to that thead without getting only browns or blue ratings. The most frustrating was the number of people who rated the thread but didn't contribute themselves.

That's why I disagree with the site rules - I agree that we want to avoid spammy and dumb threads, but the cost of policing it this way was too high. We end up with a dead forum, and people stick to profile comments because they get rated less.

The rating system is quite harsh - Pseudo has 530 (!) green personal ratings, 157 cyan ratings, and 174 "other" ratings. Which to me sounds like he's deserving of a green average rating, but he only has cyan. Which makes me wonder how many more greens Pseudo would need to actually be green. Which also makes me think that if you want to be a high standing, high rated member of the community, you can literally only make posts that will get cyans or greens. Even browns and blues, which should really be okay, will pull your average down too much. So you can only 'commit' to making a post if it's going to be like a super duper awesome profound thought-provoking post. There is also a psychology at work in the ratings system, I think - if it was just three orbs (Red, Brown, Green), I don't think anyone would have a problem with getting a brown. Because there's just three, see? But there's seven... which means that anything that's not cyan or green is an 'unperfect' rating, and an average rating.

I think I ended up ranting at the end there (dear me). And I think I broke my personal brevity rules. But this might be... hopefully a different look at why some actions get negative reactions. I've got no idea if this was interesting or useful at all. It's hard to know.


*It's a technical term.
Userpage: Rating Orb david s  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (1)
*whoosh* Did somebody just ask for advice on how to be a better person? Don't worry bro, I got this!

(Yeah, I know I'm a month late, but hey, I only just found out that "comments" are viewable by everyone like today, and I've been going through people's personal stuff like a crazy paparrazzi guy in a celebrity's underwear drawer. Seriously, no wonder no one ever posts on the forums anymore - all of the juicy stuff happens here in the comments!)

The main weaknesses I read in your posting.... is that you put rules and procedures above people?
That you have a "rules were made to be followed" mentality?
That you feel responsible for rating every post, and policing other users in order to make the site better?
That you hold other people to your own personal standards, instead of their own?

Well, depending on if I hit any of these nails on the head, I'll talk a bit more about them. In the meantime, please just take it as friendly advice from a guy with some years of experience on you that ranking rules and procedures as more important than people will eventually, subtly, come back to bite you VERY HARD when you least expect it. I'm not quite sure I can properly explain this in a way that comes across as convincing or of urgent consideration (maybe I'll try later when I've gathered my thoughts). Well, something to keep in mind.

One more thing, since you're in an asking for advice mood (or were in an asking for advice mood a month ago, but let's not worry about minor details like that!) - always be willing to take advice. At anytime, from anyone, whether solicited or unsolicited, whether it's a gambler giving investment advice or whatever. Always be willing to take advice, ESPECIALLY when you don't want to take advice - if you can do this it makes fixing every other problem much easier!
Userpage: Rating Orb Lyle  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (2)
Bah! What's this thinking that you don't deserve greens?! You have a disgaea avatar, and you give people the benefit of the doubt if they're amusing enough. The rating system is harsh, and forces everyone to evaluate and rank everyone else constantly over every unimportant, insignificant thing - I thought I left this sort of thing at highschool long ago. Don't be down because the fighunter "ingroup" gave you average ratings. You're all right. Have a little more faith in yourself!

[LINK]
Userpage: Rating Orb Lyle  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (1)
Hey thanks! Through that rating you've shown that you have excellent decision making skills and empathy. Quite worthy of a green rating yourself!
Blog: New Site Screenshots  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (5)
The only thing I can think of is that everyone thought you were serious. The exact same thing happens to me whenever I try and make a joke. It makes me wonder if you would have got different ratings if you wrote "(just kidding!)" or some equivalent at the end.

The new website does look pretty though. I like how there's less boxes everywhere.
Poll: Do you spit casually on the ground?  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (5)
Sometimes, you just gotta spit. Especially if you are/have been sick. There's a reason why your body wants you to get that stuff out.
Blog: How about this?  
Lyle`s Avatar
Rating Orb Lyle 24 Australia 65C 28F
6 years ago | (1)
Uuuuhhh... I'm not really talking about trolls (who are intentially antisocial and unhelpful), I'm more talking about spammers (as in, the people that think they're being useful or contributing by spamming their thoughts on every single topic all the time and have a post count of over 9000 and a posts per day ratio of 10 or more).

I'm not talking about a recommendations thread that ONLY has "I'm going to try that" and similar comments over and over. Maybe my observations are incorrect, but a thread needs both CONTENT and ACTIVITY to survive. If there is no activity, then people won't bother posting content. People who post content need activity in the form of feedback, otherwise they feel all their thought and effort has gone to waste, and stop producing content. If there is no content, the activity is just random and meaningless. There is no point in reading a thread that just has activity and no content. What the ratings system has done is increased the content, but removed a lot of the activity of the forums - where we basically have a lot of dead threads with 3-5 posts and then the people posting content get mad at the forum games threads for having so much activity in comparison.

The form of such a thread would go something like
Poster 1: You guys should try this *long, complex post on good game 1*
Poster 2: The game I am recommending is *long and complex post on good game 2*
Poster 3: Oh really? That sounds cool, I'm going to check game 1.
Poster 4: Just wanted to 2nd the game 2 recommendation. It's great because of X and X
Poster 5: (there's a lot of people reading this, I could convince some people to try out my favorite game!) I'm going to recommend *long and complex post on good game 3*
Poster 3: I'm halfway through game 1 and my thoughts are....

Where as if you don't have any of the noise/activity posts, you get
Poster 1: You guys should try this *long, complex post on good game 1*
Poster 2: The game I am recommending is *long and complex post on good game 2*
...
...
...
...
thread locked due to 30 days of inactivity


Do you see what I mean? One more thing - when you say see stuff like "I'm going to try that"; such comments don't help me to decide what game I'm going to play next. - I disagree... because other people's interest in a game (especially other people on a forum who I recognise and like) increases my own interest in a game. Not including the novelty of ten people on a forum trying out a game at the same time, which is a lot of fun.
Page 1 of 7: