What Defines a Forum Poster's Credibility?

I think this is one of the first threads I've actually *started* in General - so be gentle, guys

I'd like to share some of my observations about 'credibility' in the forums - I'm very curious to hear what you think of them, and whether I'm on-track, or off-base here.

Note that all of these ideas aren't meant to be *justifiable* - just a possible charachterization of how we may perceive folks here:

General Credibility on the forums:
-Posters older than 1 year tend to get more 'assumed respect' than younger posters.
-Prolific posters less than 30 days old are commonly assumed to be alts of older AV's.
-Once an poster acheives sub-zero credibility, it is difficult to regain it, despite age
-Posters with existing credibility can 'get away' with more than those that don't

Things that increase credibility:
-Donating one's time to enhance SL with a clear lack of personal benefit
-Being clearly talented in one way or another (An expert)
-Posting succinctly and intelligently
-Being respectful of those who don't respect you
-Respecting opinions that differ from your own (Disagreeing respectfully)
-Being likeable

Things that decrease credibility:
-Posts that are chronically over 1 screen in length
-Being combative in a disrespectful way
-Chronic posts using immature language
-Very bad grammar or spelling
-Chronic overdramatization or personalization of issues
-Being vocally supportive of a universally unsupported idea
-Strongly denouncing Second Life
-Holding an in-world reputation as a griefer
-Doing things that appear to most as 'harmful' to Second Life
-Posting as an Alt
-Chronic sarcasm

Neutral to credibility:
-Being subtly supportive of a universally unsupported idea
-Humor

I'm not suggesting that any one of these items alone make a poster credible or not credible. What I am suggesting, is that one could consider credibilty in terms of a 'value' - that can rise or fall depending on the the SL age of the Poster, the content of their posts, and their contribution to our community.

Thoughts?

Anyone who expresses an opinion the majority agrees with loses all credibility in my eyes.

In financial investing, we have a different term though. We call those people "profit".




Sorry, someone who sells something and makes money from it in SL is far more productive and beneficial to secondlife then someone who donates their time.

Donating time is not scaleable. Business models are.

Ut Oh..I think I'm in the non-credible category.

However, going with the old saying, "There is no such thing as bad press", I think it may be easier for a sub-credible poster to climb back up the ranks than for a totally unknown factor to do so, unless they are really gifted in humor, prose, charm, or ideas.

And I don't think the Starting date is really a factor, but rather alot of forum folks knowing your AV in-world. Some oldbies are wonderful postersw, with clear logic, but so are alot of newer folks. However, undo attention may be given to those popular in-world. Which I guess is understandable because if they are really popular in-world then they are probably equally likable or charming or smart in the forums.

Well - again - I don't mean to suggest that any of these ideas 'make' or 'break' a poster's credibility on their own. And they don't neccesarily make logical sense - but possibly 'emotional' sense...

What I mean, is - to use you guys as examples, Blaze & David...

If the two of you each posted an identical post to the forums - it may be received differently based upon your 'credibility' (maybe credibility is the wrong word to use here).

If that's true - where does this 'credibility' (or lack thereof) come from?

i vote for:
- clarity

I don't know ...

I tend to read the posts themselves and judge. I can think of a few relatively new posters that I consider "credible."

Although I would argue with the word "credible." Your criteria seems to concern itself more with "Are they liked?" or "Are they respected?"

credible: 1 : offering reasonable grounds for being believed <a credible account of an accident> <credible witnesses>
2 : of sufficient capability to be militarily effective <a credible deterrent> <credible forces>

So, am I more inclined to believe those who post more clearly, concisely, and have been around longer?

... I don't know. I tend to go with people who have had first-hand experiences with the situation at hand. Opinions are opinions, but there are many sides to an incident, and it is always important to hear all sides before forming one.

I truly believe that having a parrot head as your forum avatar greatly adds to one's credibility!

Seriously (and sadly), though, your list is pretty spot on. It is not necessarily fair, but true for our forum. I do like that exceptions to it keep popping up and showing that not every prolific newbie is a n00b (or an alt) and every verbose post is not a waste of our time.

Of course, I say all of this as someone who meets most of your increase credibility requirements and only one of the decrease ones.

For me the length of time the poster has been around doesn't really have much to do with it, though someone who rubbed me the wrong way when they started posting can grow on me a lot over time as I get to understand their pov and idiom better.

I think the biggest factor (in my person opinion) is how well reasoned they are, how fair minded (willing to see more than one side of an issue), and how well they articulate their thoughts. Some people have a true knack for being likeable even while expressing strong opinions I don't necessarily share. A good sense of humor goes a long way too.

The things that most detract from credibility in my eyes are people who are overly negative or critical (never see the bright side or put a positive spin on anything), are overly combative or defensive (low tolerance to being disagreed with), seem to hold people in contempt for no good reason regardless of how well they state their case (opinions of new people being dismissed, or resentment of old timers), and people who seem to post only to push forward a particular agenda and interject it into unrelated discussions.

and then theres ppl like ME! with not alot better to do that just troll all day, but then learn from there lessons and BEHAVE

Ah, ok, you're more speaking from a general "credibility marketing" sense? For example, if you were to work on a 'brand avatar', these are the things that you might do?

Yes, that is a great conversation to have.

- I think being female helps. Gives you a lot of credibility, strangely. All my ALTs are female, for example.

- Posting a good looking picture of yourself in the Gallery helps. If people think you're "cool" in real life, they will follow you here.

- Not selling any business items or creating any items or doing any business things in world that grief a lot of people. For example, land scanners are not helpful for credibility.

- Generally being very very careful not to piss anyone vocal off, or if you must pointedly have to, make sure they are universally disliked. Even then, unwise, because their is a silent minority that happens to agree with a lot of things those people think.

- Friends in high places do not help. People will get jealous and angry because of the favouritism. If are well liked by the Lindens - keep it to yourself!

- Being super nice guy does not help, btw. Giving everything away for free, donating lots of time, etc - people just start to think you're a bit of a doormat. Be successful. *DO* something successful.

- Though, caveat - be well known throughout SL. Give away one item that everyone knows about. Just don't go crazy.

- Don't fall in with elitist groups, elitist IRC channels, elitist blogging sites, etc etc ad nauseum. I know, you think I harp on this one, but trust me .. there is a silent minority (and a rather vocal one) that thinks that's all utter crap.

For me a good example is Starax, Kermit, Rathe and a bunch of others. There are a bunch of other people who would be on this list if they didn't make the mistake of falling in with the FIC.

Well..I would, of course, have more credibility because I'm well hung, and Blaze..well..let's just say he's a bit handicapped in that department... (Jeez..I'm joking..don't ban me! )

I would say clear reasoning and logic, and not taking one's self overly serious. Arrogance can ruffle feathers even if the logic is there. Credibility I think also goes hand in hand with the ability to be open-minded enough to at least consider both sides of an issue and not outright dismiss another's point of view. Those who i view with the most credibility stand calmly in a forum storm and speak reasonably and well about the topic at hand.

Keep that up and I'll post a pic in the Gallery.

Jury's out on this one blaze.

To list a simple example of how donating time can be scalable, I use much of my existing work and research to slash the time it takes me to construct newer objects and scripts. Works quite well. Remind me to show you some examples sometime.


There have also been studies on this concept. Think someone posted this here before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve


---------

Anywho, back to topic.

I would say credibility is bound to positive experience(s). Conversely, lack of credibility is bound to negative experience(s). Pretty simple concept with innumerable examples.


FIC? Moi? I don't know what you mean...

Someone rate my forum-cred for me!

.

Haahahha! Someone call me into battle!

The age of an avatar makes absolutely no difference to me at all. There are some very old members here that I read posts by and just snort, and there are some newer members that I've come to look forward reading posts from.

My own personal criteria for how much credibility I attribute to anyone is pretty simple.

How often do I read your posts and just think, "Oh, bullshit." or "This again?! One hit wonder." or "S/he's on crack."

If you want credibility..

1. State your facts and opinions clearly without confusing the latter for the former.
   
2. Don't view every disagreement as a personal attack.
   
3. Don't play the perpetual victim role. No one respects a doormat, especially not a self-made doormat.
   
4. Don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.
   
5. Don't tell other adults what's good for them or what they should want.
   

Yay! Thanks, guys for being gentle

My fur isn't even cinged!!

In hindsight, 'credibility' was probably a poor word choice. I still can't think up a better, more accurate term to convey what I'm trying to get across.... but maybe "What defines how a Poster is received on the forums" would have been better.

Regardless, its interesting (to me at least) to see the thought process behind how folks perceive each other

Personally, I prefer "readership."

Commonly the term is used to convey "agreeing with that person's stated ideas," or at the very least "taking the time to read their work."

from: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/webclass/web/project1/group4/

Ethos
Ethos is appeal based on the character of the speaker. An ethos-driven document relies on the reputation of the author.

Logos
Logos is appeal based on logic or reason. Documents distributed by companies or corporations are logos-driven. Scholarly documents are also often logos-driven.

Pathos
Pathos is appeal based on emotion. Advertisements tend to be pathos-driven.

* * *

weakness in these any of these three areas tends to reduce the effect of one's writing.

i like chip and jonquille's posts.

For me, age does not define credibility or forum-respect at all, although sometimes it is interesting to see a post and look at how long the person has been in SL that defined such an opinion.

Credibility points:
- be articulate
- be mature (don't cause or fall too easily into flame fests)
- be willing to listen, even if you don't change your mind
- have an independent mind and voice -- no one likes a sycophant (or a martyr)

humor goes a long way in my book too.

if you have well-thought-out ideas and actually attempt to *communicate* (i.e. two-way), then you've got credibility in my eyes.

I also try to give every avatar the benefit of the doubt on the alt issue until it becomes blatantly obvious.

Credibility Gained:
- Knowing that "lose" is not spelled "loose".
- Being an atheist.
- Spelling "a lot" as two words.
- Using the subjunctive case properly ("If it were ..." instead of "If it was ...".
- Being politically progressive.
- Giving out apologies.


Credibility Lost:
- Calling someone a "Bolshevik".
- Being envious.
- Posting in the forums simultaneously with a clique of evil friends.
- Posting as an alt.
- Comparing someone to Hitler.

~Ulrika~

* wild applause * Ulrika, not only do you have über forum credibility in my eyes, but incalcuable street cred as well. You are certainly a polarizing figure in many ways, but not for sport most of the time.

The alt one is my particular pet peeve. There are two people who I know with every fiber of my being regularly post as multiple alts, sometimes in the same threads, though they lack the creativity and intelligence to pull off a successful alt because they get lazy. That destroys all credibility they have in my eyes - not that they had much to begin with.

There are very few people I can think of as just lacking total credibility in these forums - I could count them on one hand (though it goes up to two hands when you figure in their alts). Their abuse of alts is one of the reason alt watching has become a necessary pasttime in these forums - it is a shame that we are gagged from being able to comment on them - but some are so obvious it's laughable.

I think one of the main keys to being viewed as credible is to act without agenda and malice, and also without hypocrisy. We have all witnessed people starting topics that really just represent a personal attack against a disliked person or group. Don't lament personal attacks if you make them. Don't play the do as I say, not as I do game. Don't make thinly veiled threats or subtle attacks - have a backbone and say what you mean.

Sincere apologies also go a long way when one makes a mistake. Something I have no tolerance for is someone who shows an almost pathological need to be right and will not own up to any mistakes or responsibility - when presented with a mirror held up to those mistakes, they simply dodge and obsfucate the issues. Definitely a major credibility killer. We are all fallible - but it takes character to own up to ones mistakes and flaws.

eh, post by post.. one at a time.

Someone can make a statement that rates as geinus in one post, and slam their nads in a draw on a second.

Just take each post on its own merit. Doesn't matter WHO the poster is, what matters is what they have at that particular time.

(but I do give bonus points to anyone that makes me laugh).

Siggy.

A credible post for me is:

- Properly formatted for readability
- Uses reasonably appropriate spelling and grammar
- Would not be soaked through with red ink if edited by my 11th grade English teacher -- a red slash or two wouldn't be a big deal, though

Listen, if you can't take the time to communicate clearly, I don't want to bother trying to decrypt your rubbish.

Dings to credibility:

- Using LOL with any sort of frequency
- Using LOL as though it were punctuation
- Using LOL to feign amusement
- Making allegations that are obviously false

edit, this is a favorite of mine:

- Separating your thoughts not with spaces and paragraphs...but...with...a whole lot of...ellipses...

- (This is hard to quantify) Having the shrill tone, diction and composition of a middle schooler's diary entries


What can I say, I'm a dick. But I'm afraid it's true -- most posts that aren't composed with any sort of professionalism are simply ignored without much conscious decision on my part. Unless they're super shrill and therefore amusing in their impotence.