Karma is back??

[TucTom]

I couldn't help but notice the Karma feature is back. Is this on purpose?

[gryphon]

Don't know, but if I find out who re-enabled it I'm going to give them bad Karma.

[TucTom]

Dan I will cheer you just for the news articles you post. Ah heck, I'll cheer you again just because you still use the forums!

[TeMpTiN]

Interesting,

 

[autosurgeon]

It's a way for people to like things without having to post or to show agreement

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[CitizensHaveRights]

I just destroyed Pat's perfect balance for the Unemployment Office story.

EDIT 7:00AM : Now he's 143/143, somebody Jeered him already.

[autosurgeon]

ROFL

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[part deux]

I just destroyed Pat's perfect balance for the Unemployment Office story.

EDIT 7:00AM : Now he's 143/143, somebody Jeered him already.

huh?

[CitizensHaveRights]

CV67PAT had 142 cheers and 142 jeers when karma came back.
In searching for forum topics about Karma to see why it went away in the first place, I stumbled across his Unemployment Office post:
https://forums.miopencarry.org/index.php/topic,1910.0/all.html

So I cheered that post, raising him to +143/-142 and upsetting the balance.

By 7am, somebody had jeered him to restore the balance at +143/-143.
Must be one of those sock puppets, eh, Pat? (LOL)

[gryphon]

I just destroyed Pat's perfect balance

He's the reason I have -77.  He didn't much like me I don't think.

[gryphon]

It's a way for people to like things without having to post or to show agreement

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Except it doesn't work that way.  There's no way to know that the "cheer" is attached to any particular post or even a thread.  It's an overall "I like you, you said something good one time in the last six years" or "You're an a-hole."

[CitizensHaveRights]

At Arboristsite, which uses a different forum software package, they disabled 'dislikes' a couple of years ago, but underneath each post it names the users who liked it.

Like this:

robfromaz1977, stillhunter, Stihlasaurus and 3 other persons like this.

[mikestilly]

I found the following remarks interesting:  "Just like my rights to lawfully use property I lease isn't affected by the property owner's edicts, the State's right to establish or maintain it's own laws doesn't change when it leases property." ~Pat

Unfortunately you are bound to the lease agreement and rules of the owner of the property.  When you lease a property everyone is bound by the same rules that is set by the property owner.  If you lease property and the property owner chooses to ban firearms from the premise you have 2 options 1.) lease and follow the rules or risk breaching the lease agreement or 2. Find a firearm friendly place to lease property.    The same can be said about any private property as private property rights prevail. 

With that said as it comes to the unemployment office its run by the Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) operates Michigan’s unemployment insurance programs which a government entity and is subject to preemption.  I'm curious as to what happened as the final  result or was it just them blowing smoke.  It looked like blowing smoke. 

I posted this here to avoid bringing the old post up from the dead, as I couldnt reply back then. 

[TheQ]

I found the following remarks interesting:  "Just like my rights to lawfully use property I lease isn't affected by the property owner's edicts, the State's right to establish or maintain it's own laws doesn't change when it leases property." ~Pat

Unfortunately you are bound to the lease agreement and rules of the owner of the property.  When you lease a property everyone is bound by the same rules that is set by the property owner.  If you lease property and the property owner chooses to ban firearms from the premise you have 2 options 1.) lease and follow the rules or risk breaching the lease agreement or 2. Find a firearm friendly place to lease property.    The same can be said about any private property as private property rights prevail. 

With that said as it comes to the unemployment office its run by the Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) operates Michigan’s unemployment insurance programs which a government entity and is subject to preemption.  I'm curious as to what happened as the final  result or was it just them blowing smoke.  It looked like blowing smoke. 

I posted this here to avoid bringing the old post up from the dead, as I couldnt reply back then.

I agree with everything you said -- except, State Agencies aren't governed by preemption (at least not 123.1102) as they are not LUoG.

[mikestilly]

I agree with everything you said -- except, State Agencies aren't governed by preemption (at least not 123.1102) as they are not LUoG.

Thank's for the info Q I wasn't aware of that.  Which really put's Pat's complete post into question as they can ban whatever they want if they're not bound by preemption. 

[linux203]

Thank's for the info Q I wasn't aware of that.  Which really put's Pat's complete post into question as they can ban whatever they want if they're not bound by preemption.

They would have to be granted the authority by statute and then implement a rule / regulation.  If a bureaucrat wants to prohibit firearms, they find a statute that supports it (or can be construed to support) and creates a rule.

Preemption isn't needed where power isn't granted.

[gryphon]

It's a way for people to like things without having to post or to show agreement

It's a way for people to abuse the forum.  Ask NorthOfNowhere or TheQ why they implemented a 6 hour wait between abusing the system, er, clicking on a karma link.  Because it was being abused.

It should be disabled.  (Besides, an actual good karma system only allows + votes.  See INGO for how it should be done if you want it).

[TheQ]

It's a way for people to abuse the forum.  Ask NorthOfNowhere or TheQ why they implemented a 6 hour wait between abusing the system, er, clicking on a karma link.  Because it was being abused.

It should be disabled.  (Besides, an actual good karma system only allows + votes.  See INGO for how it should be done if you want it).

I think this one can be configured positive only.

[jgillmanjr]

Derrr...

I tweaked things. Now it just shows the additive.

[gryphon]

I tweaked things. Now it just shows the additive.

I'll keep "jeering" you until you realize your mistake.  Also, you deleted my 44+ karma points.  So which is it?

[jgillmanjr]

I'll keep "jeering" you until you realize your mistake.  Also, you deleted my 44+ karma points.  So which is it?

Actually, you were showing in the negative

[gryphon]

Actually, you were showing in the negative

Of course I was. One unnamed person was solely responsible for those -77 votes.   He's no longer here.

My points were:

a) a karma system is ripe for abuse (at least if you allow unsavory members)
b) you didn't only allow for additives as you said because i) jeer is still active, and ii) some people still have negative karmas
c) it's a horrible thing to have, period

This forum isn't like facebook.  Thank God.

[mosnar87]

At Arboristsite, which uses a different forum software package, they disabled 'dislikes' a couple of years ago, but underneath each post it names the users who liked it.

Like this:

robfromaz1977, stillhunter, Stihlasaurus and 3 other persons like this.

The system that is described above would be useful, particularly if it could be formatted so instead of saying that JohnDoe56 "likes this" it said something like Bob77, randomdude357 and coolmanjoe agree with this post.

Something along those lines would allow users reading the forum to see whether folks they personally trust to be knowledgeable agree with what was stated in a post, without the need for a bunch of  type postings.

[gryphon]

The system that is described above would be useful

I disagree strongly.

[part deux]

forget the additive, if you're going to keep this silly system, bring back the +/- and allow us to see who has cheered and jeered... that way I can see which of the jimmy jones koolaid drinker(s) jeered me

Personally, I think it should go away, it's silly jr high stuff.  To satisfy Gryphon's point, you could add the "thanks" process.  Trolls quickly reveal themselves and eventually go away, but there are some that provide high value to a forum.

[MI_XD]

OK, so WHERE is this supposed Karma Button??
 

[CitizensHaveRights]

To the left of a post, under the user's name, right below the word "karma", you click on [cheer] or [jeer].

[TheQ]

OK, so WHERE is this supposed Karma Button??
 

Website, not Tapatalk.

[MI_XD]

Website, not Tapatalk.

I'm ON the website forum, not Tapatalk.... and all I see below the Karma on the left is "Profile setting, Email , and Personal Message". Nothing about Cheer or Jeer.

[gryphon]

You should see Karma links on other's posts, but not your own.  If you don't, then

[jgillmanjr]

50 posts needed to modify karma

[Divegeek]

50 posts needed to modify karma

That would explain why I don't see buttons. I just see the karma stat.

[MI_XD]

That would explain why I don't see buttons. I just see the karma stat.

Same here. Makes sense. SO, I just have to get 8 more posts to get my Karma powers!   

[TheQ]

Same here. Makes sense. SO, I just have to get 8 more posts to get my Karma powers!   

You can have 8 of mine...

[MI_XD]

 

You can have 8 of mine...

I'm waiting....   

 


T minus 7

[CitizensHaveRights]

What's going on with Karma?
Mine has gone down this month, while I diligently avoid all contact with those I disagree with like freediver.
Big Tom and part deux have gone negative, and I've never been tempted in the slightest to jeer either of them.

[part deux]

I take pride in my negative... I was positive at one point and it pissed me off

I have made a private request, and I'll make it public now, current members of MOC should be allowed to look at who and on what posts they have been cheered or jeered.

This serves two purposes, if will provide another encouragement for people to join the organization.  It also makes people think twice about rating posts, knowing that people will now see how you rate them.  I'm 95% sure of who was initially jeering me, and it is silly jr high drama that had absolutely nothing to do with my posts.

Suspect latest jeers are related to my calling out a certain member as a troll for his bloomie/MDA anti freedom views.  If in fact that's what it is, then I wear it as a badge of honor.

[CitizensHaveRights]

current members of MOC should be allowed to look at who and on what posts they have been cheered or jeered.

+1.
But only if my forum account is updated to reflect my membership status.

[gryphon]

Karma should be turned off.  It provides no meaningful benefit and is easily abused.  In fact it is widely abused and therefore meaningless.

[Divegeek]

current members of MOC should be allowed to look at who and on what posts they have been cheered or jeered.

I like this idea.

[linux203]

Are posting rights restricted when a person's karma goes too negative?

[CitizensHaveRights]

Apparently not.
https://forums.miopencarry.org/index.php/topic,5115.0/topicseen.html

[Divegeek]

Apparently not.
https://forums.miopencarry.org/index.php/topic,5115.0/topicseen.html

Either that or he hasn't hit the threshold yet.

[MI_XD]

Yeah, what's going on?!  My Karma is negative, and I haven't even gotten enough posts to be able to USE the Karma!  Not Fair! 

T minus 4 and counting!  hehe