Self Selected Rating Scale

[Ateo]

The present custom rating statement doesn't tell me much. A limited number of verbal ratings are too open to interpretation and misunderstanding. I have read the last posting about custom rating and think it could be improved.

It would be very useful if everyone SELF selected and posted, their belief rating (per Richard Dawkins scale) just above their avatar. It would be voluntary with the understanding that this will help other members understand where you're coming from in a posting.

There have been times when after reading a posting, I don't know if the person is an agnostic or religious so you don't know how to take their meaning. One posting I read made me think the writer was a prankster, reading more of his postings I changed my mind about him. Anyone who is constantly presenting statements that oppose his self stated rating is obviously erring somewhere.

I can think of a lot of advantages, it wouldn't take many postings to know if the rating was true. We are very susceptible to pranksters and people who just want to muddy the water and get everyone agitated, and this may help weed them out.

I'm posting Richard Dawkins scale so you can have another look at it. I like that it is much more specific.

Anyone agree that it could be useful?

Ateo    7


"Dawkins Scale"

    1. Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
    2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I
        strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
    3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
        'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
    4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are
        exactly equiprobable.'
    5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
        'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
    6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God
        is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
    7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

[Whitney]

The "Ranking" system is just for fun and is something almost every forum does.

Every user has a "personal text field" which they can choose to fill out with their position if they want to (mine is an example of this...happens to be using your suggested dawkins scale).

The issue with adding a whole new field is that it takes work to set that up...and since this is a boutique sized forum I'm just not sure it is necessary as it is pretty easy to keep track of what position people are.

[Davin]

It would be very useful if everyone SELF selected and posted, their belief rating (per Richard Dawkins scale) just above their avatar. It would be voluntary with the understanding that this will help other members understand where you're coming from in a posting.

I don't think it would be very useful at all, especially not for me. The best way to know where someone is coming from is to get to know them. Sure we use labels like "atheist" or "theist", the dawkins scale, "humanist", "secularist" and many other terms, but no matter how many labels or definitions one attaches to themselves, you won't understand where they're coming from without getting to know them.

There have been times when after reading a posting, I don't know if the person is an agnostic or religious so you don't know how to take their meaning. One posting I read made me think the writer was a prankster, reading more of his postings I changed my mind about him. Anyone who is constantly presenting statements that oppose his self stated rating is obviously erring somewhere.

Take their meaning for what they said, all too often people assume a meaning behind what is said which causes a lot of problems... so just take what a person said for what they said, imao.

I can think of a lot of advantages, it wouldn't take many postings to know if the rating was true. We are very susceptible to pranksters and people who just want to muddy the water and get everyone agitated, and this may help weed them out.

I doubt it, in all the years I've been posting online, it's not worth taking too many extra measures to try and thwart trolls, it will just result in too much effort for very little reward. What we have right now is very effective, while still giving people a chance.

[Tank]

An interesting suggestion Ateo. This is the first time I recall seeing it after quite a few years on quite a few similar forums. At the moment we can't do it as the forum software does not have the ability to add custom fields to member profiles AFAIK. However at some point (don't hold your breath) the forum software will be upgraded and the ability to add a profile field may be available. Should that be the case I would expect that this and other additions will be reviewed and considered.

On the up side your suggestion would give a quick and ready indication of a users world view. On the down size it could well entrench groups into categories and the discussions become category based and thus inflexible. As the very nature of this place is to explore and learn I am inclined to say the perceived benefit would also be the biggest drawback. But this is just my initial thought.

[Ateo]

Thanks for the quick replies, love it.

I just re-read my posting, Geeez, I didn't mean to sound so damn adamant or firm. I would like it, but nothing hinges on it. Sorry. Exxxxxcuuuussssee me.

I understand the problems of changes to the program. I just like to know who I'm talking to or who's talking in a post and I'm not bright enough to figure out a number of contributors, then keep track of them over several months. Maybe I'll learn, I feel I know a few already.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't really understand the need for another field or for the ranks to be changed.
Users can and do place their world view below their avatar if they want to, if it fits.

[Whitney]

Users can and do place their world view below their avatar if they want to, if it fits.

Ya, I added it to mine after getting annoyed about something related to what an atheist is or isn't.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I think my ranking varies slightly on a day-to-day basis, and I'd like to avoid the anxiety of making it "stick" somewhere. Not that it's a huge anxiety, but my brain tends to get jumbly when I think too much about it.

Just my two cents.

[Ateo]

I don't really understand the need for another field or for the ranks to be changed.
Users can and do place their world view below their avatar if they want to, if it fits.

Beginning to See the Wedge

That's what it says by my avatar, who/what am I ? A newbie! Perhaps not important, especially if you like to walk on the white line in the middle of the road. However, you only have to rate yourself once, and personally I want anyone who is voluntarily reading my posting to know that I'm a strong atheist and not a pussy about it.

[Asmodean]

Every user has a "personal text field" which they can choose to fill out with their position if they want to (mine is an example of this...happens to be using your suggested dawkins scale).

The Asmo's custom text describes The Asmo for those who have never met one of those before. 

...And it's cool.

However, I think we could have the ranking system go higher.

[McQ]

I like the ranking system we have now. It's quirky, but also gives a general idea of how long the person has been around, or how often has posted. Not perfect, but kind of fun. And with the ability to put your own description under your avatar, I don't think we need to change anything. We can personalize our profiles pretty well, including our signatures.

Between the personalized avatars, sig, etc. I think we're good to go.

[Ali]

I don't really understand the need for another field or for the ranks to be changed.
Users can and do place their world view below their avatar if they want to, if it fits.

Beginning to See the Wedge

That's what it says by my avatar, who/what am I ? A newbie! Perhaps not important, especially if you like to walk on the white line in the middle of the road. However, you only have to rate yourself once, and personally I want anyone who is voluntarily reading my posting to know that I'm a strong atheist and not a pussy about it.

Kind of off topic, but I don't really get how acknowledging that there isn't really any way to know 100% if there is a god makes you "a pussy"?

I'm a 6, in case you couldn't tell.

[Tank]

I don't really understand the need for another field or for the ranks to be changed.
Users can and do place their world view below their avatar if they want to, if it fits.

Beginning to See the Wedge

That's what it says by my avatar, who/what am I ? A newbie! Perhaps not important, especially if you like to walk on the white line in the middle of the road. However, you only have to rate yourself once, and personally I want anyone who is voluntarily reading my posting to know that I'm a strong atheist and not a pussy about it.

Kind of off topic, but I don't really get how acknowledging that there isn't really any way to know 100% if there is a god makes you "a pussy"?

I'm a 6, in case you couldn't tell.

When I was at Richard Dawkins Forum one of the most active and vociferous threads was atheists discussing atheism! It got so bad it was sometimes locked to cool down. The issue of 6 vs 7 really got a lot of people hot under the collar.

[Ateo]

"I want anyone who is voluntarily reading my posting to know that I'm a strong atheist and not a pussy about it."
 
"not a pussy about it" It refers to "I'm a strong atheist" and doesn't infer a comparison with a 6 or a christian or anything else.

I would like to see a simple, easy to understand rating system for those of us who want to use it. I would like to see christians self rated at 0, since lying would be sin, I would know what their basic philosophy is and where they are probably going. I would think a christian would welcome the opportunity to step up to the bar, and put down "0". That  would surely be a brownie point.

It doesn't seem to be such a big deal to me, there is no shame in truly rating yourself as a 5 or whatever.
I certainly wouldn't respond to a question from a 5 with an answer like "Hey, the responsibility of proof is theirs, so don't get into a long pointless academic discussion, especially one like ...  how long was a day was when the earth was forming, because..."  We're on this trip together.

With such a rating system, you can still do what you want. It could help us be more understanding to each other, knowing where our fellow members are in their voyage.

[Tank]

Every user has a "personal text field" which they can choose to fill out with their position if they want to (mine is an example of this...happens to be using your suggested dawkins scale).

The Asmo's custom text describes The Asmo for those who have never met one of those before. 

...And it's cool.

However, I think we could have the ranking system go higher.

I'm sure we'll get around to adding some ranks in due course.