PDA

View Full Version : Forum Reputation



Gtaylor
June 7th, 2005, 08:22 PM
I know this is going to sound like yet more bickering (oh no) but I'd really strongly recommend either disabling the vBulletin reputation system or yanking the ability to give negative reputation. I've been active on forums that use this and it causes a lot of ill feelings and people stop posting out of fear of being neg-repped since it's so unmoderated and anonymous.

I'm all for giving people credit for their efforts, so how about just allowing positive rep points? This makes people happy and it becomes a positive thing rather than a method to rile each other up when you wonder who neg repped you.

And as a side-note, no I didn't get neg repped, I just saw the little green bars and became alarmed that they were being employed here on a site that is well moderated and pretty well under control.

kassetra
June 7th, 2005, 09:18 PM
Well, we have the reputation system employed for now, it's by no means set in stone. We've had it for a while, and so far, we've not had any issues with misuse

We're comfortable with keeping the reputation system enabled for now, but we'll keep your suggestions in mind. And certainly, we will not let it become an issue.

AgenT
June 13th, 2005, 12:30 AM
Out of curiousity, what does giving someone a good/bad reputation do? Does it count towards anything (except the reputation total of course)? That is, does it do anything?

kassetra
June 13th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Out of curiousity, what does giving someone a good/bad reputation do? Does it count towards anything (except the reputation total of course)? That is, does it do anything?

Well, not really. It changes their reputation score and that's about it. It's a relatively harmless way of providing fairly anonymous feedback.

Mez
June 13th, 2005, 01:14 AM
Where does it show this "reputation"

bored2k
June 13th, 2005, 01:24 AM
Where does it show this "reputation"
Next to your post number you will see a little box. Its color changes according to your reputation (black,green,grey)

Sniffer
June 13th, 2005, 11:56 AM
To be totally honest..i never give a damn to that...

And i really hate hierarchy's stuff....

that's not the open source spirit....

My 2 cents as always

Sniff.

Gtaylor
June 13th, 2005, 02:20 PM
To be totally honest..i never give a damn to that...

And i really hate hierarchy's stuff....

that's not the open source spirit....

My 2 cents as always

Sniff.
I really agree. It turns things into a ridiculous highschool popularity contest type deal. With forums, you have to consider what each feature brings to the plate. What exactly will this reputation system do to add to the quality of this site?

I also find it funny that almost all of the mods have reputation disabled.

Sniffer
June 13th, 2005, 03:14 PM
I also find it funny that almost all of the mods have reputation disabled.


I have searched....but i can't find the option to the same..... :neutral:

Gtaylor
June 13th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Only moderators or groups given the permission to can do so.

nocturn
June 13th, 2005, 03:56 PM
I also find it funny that almost all of the mods have reputation disabled.

That part, I find pretty logical. The mods would get a bad reputation everytime they removed an offensive post or locked a thread.

allforcarrie
June 13th, 2005, 04:00 PM
I never even noticed the option.

Gtaylor
June 13th, 2005, 04:02 PM
That part, I find pretty logical. The mods would get a bad reputation everytime they removed an offensive post or locked a thread.
Not really, the boards I've encountered using the rep system usually have very high repped mods since often the posts they removed/locked are the ones that offend the established community rather than the 1-2 trouble makers invading it. I'd be more likely to draw negative rep from a post like this arguing in favor of ditching/modifying a system that only broods ill feelings than if I were to remove/lock an offensive post.

skoal
June 13th, 2005, 04:10 PM
And i really hate hierarchy's stuff....
Hierarchy? You mean Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Well, Maslow seems to think we all need love - love like "Performers appreciating applause."

\\//_

Gtaylor
June 13th, 2005, 04:19 PM
Hierarchy? You mean Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Well, Maslow seems to think we all need love - love like "Performers appreciating applause."

\\//_
This could be done by removing the ability to give negative reputation. It is absolutely counter-productive to give the people of Ubuntu a way to anonymously bash one another. It would be pretty annoying if someone suddenly began to neg-rep people, supplying obscene messages in the "reason" field. Not only can the victims not see who is doing it, they then have to bug the very staff that can prevent this from happening to shut the guy up.

skoal
June 13th, 2005, 08:05 PM
I've actually been using this rep thingy since I got here on day 1. I think it's cooler than the other side of the pillow. I don't have a clue where my comments go to, or even who reads them - and yet I continue to use it faithfully. Why? I really don't know, but it's in that same vein that people toss messages in bottles out to sea, in the hopes that someone will find it and take joy from it, that I'll still use it as well.

\\//_

Gtaylor
June 13th, 2005, 09:15 PM
I've actually been using this rep thingy since I got here on day 1. I think it's cooler than the other side of the pillow. I don't have a clue where my comments go to, or even who reads them - and yet I continue to use it faithfully. Why? I really don't know, but it's in that same vein that people toss messages in bottles out to sea, in the hopes that someone will find it and take joy from it, that I'll still use it as well.

\\//_
It sounds like you're using it to hand out positive rep which, as I've said, I don't mind at all. It's the senseless people who neg-rep for no real reason that I see as problematic in an environment such as this where encouragement is what's needed.

For example, let's say a newcomer posts this:


I'm really confused about how to do X.

And a twink gives them negative rep with a comment like this:


RTFM, noob.

The newcomer can't see who said this nor is it healthy. Why allow it?

panickedthumb
June 13th, 2005, 11:03 PM
because that doesn't happen here, or hasn't yet.

the only ill feelings we've heard about this is from this thread. If we ever see abuse or "RTFM noob" like you say involved with the reputation, we'd get rid of it in a heartbeat. This forum is quite a bit different from others. Sure there are immature people here, but we keep that under control.

But like I've said, it's there, and we're watching it for problems as have been discussed. As it is, these haven't come, so we're keeping it for the positive aspect.

And most mods have it disabled because, as has been said before, we're prime targets for getting neg-repped because of closing a flame thread, which would skew it. We are also the most public of the people on the forums, so if for example, jdong got neg-repped about 50 times because of some trolls and I got a few postive reps, people would say "well why is jdong an admin and panickedthumb a super-mod?" It just simplifies everything if we don't participate.

kassetra
June 13th, 2005, 11:09 PM
The newcomer can't see who said this nor is it healthy. Why allow it?

We wouldn't allow it, but that's not the kind of feedback people are receiving. We won't remove a nice little feature simply because of the *opportunity* for misuse.

As panickedthumb said, if we saw that, we'd remove that kind of feedback immediately, but that's not the kind of feeback our forums are inspiring -which is something we work very, very hard to make sure of.

mattheweast
June 14th, 2005, 02:56 PM
We wouldn't allow it, but that's not the kind of feedback people are receiving. We won't remove a nice little feature simply because of the *opportunity* for misuse.


Just my two cents here. There are several types of heirarchy and reputation used on the forum and I find them all totally repellent. I have no objection to counting numbers of posts, but I don't like the others. My disagreement is not related to questions of misuse, but rather to the spirit of the thing.

I do not feel that heirarchy and reputation measurements comply with the Ubuntu code of conduct (http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/conduct) . These features encourage people to feel that they are better than others, and to achieve some kind of status. Just to reiterate what the Ubuntu spirit is:


Desmond Tutu described ubuntu in the following way:
"A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole."
-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in No Future Without Forgiveness

Competitions for a better reputation, or a cooler name (Super Dooper Moderator, Community Developer etc) go against this spirit. This sort of thing has always put me off the forums, despite the fact that they have an enormous potential for providing great support, and do indeed provide it.

All IMHO, as always.

Matt

skoal
June 14th, 2005, 03:09 PM
I do not feel that heirarchy and reputation measurements comply with the Ubuntu code of conduct (http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/conduct) .[...]
Thanks for the quote. I actually re-read it and came back with a completely different conclusion than yourself.

"affirming of others" - check.
"does not feel threatened that others are able and good" - people who would otherwise receive neg rep should not feel envious or be intimidated by those who would otherwise receive good reps...check.
"[...]self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole." - as part of a "greater whole" we all (from time to time) need to reassure or reacquaint our brothers and sisters with that concept, which a rep system does...check.

\\//_

mattheweast
June 14th, 2005, 03:17 PM
Thanks for the quote. I actually re-read it and came back with a completely different conclusion than yourself.


Naturally everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. my view is that the spirit of Ubuntu (and open source in general) is that status is not important. Sadly this point is missed by many in the community, and things like heirarchy do nothing to promote this spirit.

M

Leif
June 14th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Naturally everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. my view is that the spirit of Ubuntu (and open source in general) is that status is not important. Sadly this point is missed by many in the community, and things like heirarchy do nothing to promote this spirit.

M

What status ? Do you have to defer to a developer or someone who's made more posts than you ? Do you feel like you have to kiss the moderators' asses ? If so, you're mistaken.

I'm sorry you think there's some competition going on here, and perhaps there is for some, but I highly doubt that's what motivates most people here. I find some of the labels useful; if someone is a developer, I'm more inclined to believe they know what they're talking about. It may not be exactly how I'd do it, but you seem to be jumping at shadows.

Gtaylor
June 14th, 2005, 03:37 PM
What status ? Do you have to defer to a developer or someone who's made more posts than you ? Do you feel like you have to kiss the moderators' asses ? If so, you're mistaken.

I'm sorry you think there's some competition going on here, and perhaps there is for some, but I highly doubt that's what motivates most people here. I find some of the labels useful; if someone is a developer, I'm more inclined to believe they know what they're talking about. It may not be exactly how I'd do it, but you seem to be jumping at shadows.
The "competition" problem is just one of several being outlined.

Let's put this discussion on a different track. For each and every feature in the forum, there is a reason it's there, a job it's supposed to do. I would like to further discuss the reason that negative reputation is allowed or why the reputation system is even enacted when we have a team of capable moderators making sure things run smoothly. Why is it that we give people an anonymous way to bash one another?

For example, I just gave negative reputation to those who disagreed with me because I can. Is that right? No. Is it koscher under the system, yep. Is it good for the community? Not really.

Leif
June 14th, 2005, 03:43 PM
The "competition" problem is just one of several being outlined.

Let's put this discussion on a different track. For each and every feature in the forum, there is a reason it's there, a job it's supposed to do. I would like to further discuss the reason that negative reputation is allowed or why the reputation system is even enacted when we have a team of capable moderators making sure things run smoothly. Why is it that we give people an anonymous way to bash one another?

For example, I just gave negative reputation to those who disagreed with me because I can. Is that right? No. Is it koscher under the system, yep. Is it good for the community? Not really.

OK, on the reputation thing I'd agree with you. It really doesn't belong in a technical forum (if anywhere).

mattheweast
June 14th, 2005, 03:54 PM
What status ? Do you have to defer to a developer or someone who's made more posts than you ? Do you feel like you have to kiss the moderators' asses ? If so, you're mistaken.

Naturally, it is useful to know when someone who intervenes is a moderator, because, yes, they rightly have authority to control posts.

I'm sorry you think there's some competition going on here, and perhaps there is for some, but I highly doubt that's what motivates most people here. I find some of the labels useful; if someone is a developer, I'm more inclined to believe they know what they're talking about. It may not be exactly how I'd do it, but you seem to be jumping at shadows.

What about Contributors, or Supporters like yourself? Are you more inclined to believe they know what they're talking about?

I'd like to clarify, its not that I feel like I have to defer to people with certain titles, it is just that the availability of that system may cause (in my opinion) SOME people, to seek greater titles, because it makes em feel cooler. I do not know if this is in fact the case, as you can see I am an "Ubuntu newbie brew" (?) and do not frequent the forums much. I am just commenting because I feel that the system permits that sort of thing to happen.

Don't take this the wrong way, its just discussion.

M

skoal
June 14th, 2005, 03:57 PM
For example, I just gave negative reputation to those who disagreed with me because I can. Is that right?
It's "right" in my book. In fact, I welcome negative reps. I'm still scratching my chin why I still have a "good" rep when I've been torturing this community with my lame cowbell references and overlord "jokes" for the past week. Talk about a tolerant community! I for one welcome my new neg rep overlords! In fact, I gotta have more neg reps. I got the feva for neg reps, and the prescription is more cowbell baby!

\\//_

Leif
June 14th, 2005, 04:08 PM
Naturally, it is useful to know when someone who intervenes is a moderator, because, yes, they rightly have authority to control posts.

Yes, but this right is theirs only as long as they don't abuse it. I don't think the community would tolerate power-crazy mods for long*.



What about Contributors, or Supporters like yourself? Are you more inclined to believe they know what they're talking about?

I didn't ask for this title, and I'd pity the person who trusts me because of it :)


I'd like to clarify, its not that I feel like I have to defer to people with certain titles, it is just that the availability of that system may cause (in my opinion) SOME people, to seek greater titles, because it makes em feel cooler. I do not know if this is in fact the case, as you can see I am an "Ubuntu newbie brew" (?) and do not frequent the forums much. I am just commenting because I feel that the system permits that sort of thing to happen.

OK, but what problem can this lead to ? People spamming the boards with meaningless messages to get their post count up** ? I doubt it, and they'd get their accounts shut down anyway, making it futile. If people get a kick out of imaginary titles on an internet forum, what's the harm ? To do it, they'd have to contribute to the community, and that's a good thing.

* oh please please forgive me sweet mods, I wasn't talking about you !
** dammit they're going to be on to me now!

jdong
June 14th, 2005, 05:10 PM
Ok,

1) The Rep system was put in place to reward users who post helpful information, and also to warn others of users who repeatedly give incorrect information. We originally designed it as a way of measuring how trustable a certain user is.

2) The Rep system is also there to reward people who offer technical assistance (which is more likely to get reward points) as opposed to inflating their post counts via the Community Chat

3) I do believe that people with higher post counts are more reliable and trustworthy members. Most of our moderation team will say that, too. However, the Rep system is another way of self-moderating users.

4) The downfall of the system is users unfairly giving negative rep to others. If this happens to you, contact an Administrator, and we'll fix it for you. No need to go into bicker mode :)

jdong
June 14th, 2005, 05:14 PM
Just my two cents here. There are several types of heirarchy and reputation used on the forum and I find them all totally repellent. I have no objection to counting numbers of posts, but I don't like the others. My disagreement is not related to questions of misuse, but rather to the spirit of the thing.

I do not feel that heirarchy and reputation measurements comply with the Ubuntu code of conduct (http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/conduct) . These features encourage people to feel that they are better than others, and to achieve some kind of status. Just to reiterate what the Ubuntu spirit is:


Desmond Tutu described ubuntu in the following way:
"A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole."
-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in No Future Without Forgiveness

Competitions for a better reputation, or a cooler name (Super Dooper Moderator, Community Developer etc) go against this spirit. This sort of thing has always put me off the forums, despite the fact that they have an enormous potential for providing great support, and do indeed provide it.

All IMHO, as always.

Matt

You sound a bit hypocritical there. Read that quote again, slowly and carefully, and think about what you said.

Gtaylor
June 14th, 2005, 05:18 PM
Ok,

1) The Rep system was put in place to reward users who post helpful information, and also to warn others of users who repeatedly give incorrect information. We originally designed it as a way of measuring how trustable a certain user is.

Where was this posted? A lot of people don't even know what we're discussing here. Is it more important to try to help someone even though you stand a chance at being wrong? Will some be less likely to offer advice to avoid possibly getting neg rep?


2) The Rep system is also there to reward people who offer technical assistance (which is more likely to get reward points) as opposed to inflating their post counts via the Community Chat
I can level with this and I like encouragement, but the negative rep isn't this. I would rather see rewards for those who try to help rather than those who try and fail. This goes back to my original "being worried about discouragement".


3) I do believe that people with higher post counts are more reliable and trustworthy members. Most of our moderation team will say that, too. However, the Rep system is another way of self-moderating users.
It works on some, offends/bothers others.


4) The downfall of the system is users unfairly giving negative rep to others. If this happens to you, contact an Administrator, and we'll fix it for you. No need to go into bicker mode :)
In this case, it is no longer self-moderated and becomes additional overhead. This should also be posted very clearly in a visible location.

jdong
June 14th, 2005, 05:21 PM
Quickest way to end this thread:

Ok, show of hands:

Has anyone here been unfairly repped down?

===============================

I mean, why have moderators when one could go power hungry and lock every thread on the board? Why have administrators when with a single click they can nuke the entire community? Why have a police force when they can turn into terrorists in a snap?


I think we're being a bit too paranoid.

Bottom line:
If you've been unfairly repped down, contact an administrator. Else, let the system stay. We've never gotten a single report of abuse, so obviously everyone in the community is playing nicely with each other.


P.S. this type of paranoia really goes against the quote, too.

ubuntu-geek
June 14th, 2005, 05:28 PM
Wow! I guess everyone can't be pleased.

Let me give you some insight into the situation as the other forum moderators have done.

1. There is a level of administrative people on this forums Administrators, Super Moderators, Moderators they all have a function and duty to some aspect of this forum.

There needs to be this level of organization otherwise we would have 1000 threads like this one and this forum would be in total chaos if all users had these permissions. While I am sure some of you will argue with me on this point I stand firm in my position.

2. The reputation system - This was turned on for various reasons and has caused no issues, as it has been stated MANY times before if the reputation system did cause a problem it WILL be removed.

As to why moderators etc do not have it enabled, simple the people are bashing the forums in this thread and others like them would just use it for negativty. Frankly I dont want to read why someone hates me for this and that and I dont this the others would either.

3. User Titles, wow were to begin with this.. Every forum has user titles it is a way to express things, hey this user is a developer or this user is a backports developer or hey this user is on the documentation team.

Now, personally I would find that very helpful if I wanted to contact any one of those persons with any issues I might have.

Now, Let me post this little excerpt from #ubuntu-doc

<mdke> ooh that guy is a "Contributor"
<mdke> I WANT A UBUNTU DOCUMENTATION TEAM LABEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* mdke hides
* Seveas gives mdke the wannabee-forum-good-and-good-lame-newbie-look-alike-label
<Seveas> wannabee-forum-god*
<mdke> weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
<mdke> I can't believe people are labelled if they give money
<mdke> that sucks SO BAD
<Seveas> yeah
* mdke gives 0.01 euros
<Seveas> muha
<mdke> eat my euro cent Now, I take this very personal! Why because I pay for this server out of my own pocket to support the ubuntu community and its not cheap.

Would you rather see banner ads and other misc crap posted all over this site? Probably not, I see nothing wrong with saying hey user "x" donated and THANKS to him/her the forums can pre-pay for their servers.

As to other lables, when a user hits X amount of posts their title changes most forums have this system and we will continue to have it as well.

The point is people in the irc channel and in this thread who are crying! Grow up.. Stop being disrespectful towards other members of the forums.

These forums are not like others and we will not run it like other forums.


SquishyWaffle> rhu rho, we're going to hear from ubuntu-geek shortly :)

This comment made in the #ubuntu-doc channel really makes me wonder how old are you? This is pretty immature..

If anyone cares to read the complete IRC discussion about how the people in #ubuntu-doc dislike the forums and what they stand for review the attached file.

Gtaylor
June 14th, 2005, 05:39 PM
ubuntu-geek, the idea wasn't to bash the forums and the side-rants were done well after I started this thread. Those quotes you pasted about forum god were as a result of me asking whether it was right for a certain moderator (kassetra) to ask me to stop replying to this thread in a completely inflammatory, constructive way. I was alarmed that a moderator would silence me and instead let a thread such as this one (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=41612) "Why Ubuntu Sucks" go on. We're not calling names or picking fights, this really is a valid discussion.

Notice that I propose multiple solutions that might improve the situation, we didn't resort to personal insults, and the topic really is something that needed to be brought up.

I'm thinking there may not have been any complaints due to the fact that the moderator feedback we've received from this thread has been completely in the stance that you guys are going to do what you want and our opinion on the topic doesn't really matter. On top of that, why risk "getting in trouble" for voicing your opinion when you can just watch from the sidelines?

You're right about paying for the forum and myself and thousands of others appreciate you doing so, but I came here thinking this was a community-driven type deal where feedback was met with an open mind. Instead I am private messaged by a moderator telling me (diplomatically) to shut my face and to respect her opinion or else.

I don't hold grudges and I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm genuinely concerned and upset and I want to see the best for the Ubuntu community, which is why I even continued replying past my first post. As for the IRC things, that's a completely different realm and any quote quoted out of context can be made to seem negative.

Again, no harsh feelings and I'm not trying to be troublesome.

kassetra
June 14th, 2005, 05:44 PM
You're right about paying for the forum and myself and thousands of others appreciate you doing so, but I came here thinking this was a community-driven type deal where feedback was met with an open mind. Instead I am private messaged by a moderator telling me (diplomatically) to shut my face and to respect her opinion or else.

1. No, you were not told in ANY way, shape, or form to shut your face and respect my opinion or else. That was not even alluded.
2. You were asked to respect our decision about the reputation system, because even though you were given a reason as to why we would not remove the system, you have continued to push us to remove it.
3. I am not a moderator, I am an administrator.

ubuntu-geek
June 14th, 2005, 05:46 PM
As for the IRC things, that's a completely different realm and any quote quoted out of context can be made to seem negative.

Gtaylor, Its not that different of a realm and IT IS STILL OUT OF LINE. Bottom line.. There are thousands of posts and you know sometimes they slip through the cracks.

This thread is getting out of control now. The forums are completely community driven and certain items do need to be moderated and like has been mentioned here at least a dozen times these forums are to promote ubuntu and its community, why let the negative and flames continue? We dont.

ubuntu-geek
June 14th, 2005, 05:54 PM
From #ubuntu-doc



<SquishyWaffle> As I've said, I am looking at this, sitting in front of my computer completely calm and have been. Discussion is perfectly possible without anger, which is why I've pressed the issue.
<SquishyWaffle> The moderators seem eager to get rid of the thread for "getting out of control" but what i see is a calm discussion looking for answers and opinions.


I dont think anyone wants to "get rid of it" just to resolve it with my statements above. If you wish to not respect me or the other moderators then you can simple not visit here.

Gtaylor
June 14th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Gtaylor, Its not that different of a realm and IT IS STILL OUT OF LINE. Bottom line.. There are thousands of posts and you know sometimes they slip through the cracks.

This thread is getting out of control now. The forums are completely community driven and certain items do need to be moderated and like has been mentioned here at least a dozen times these forums are to promote ubuntu and its community, why let the negative and flames continue? We dont.
This thread has been devoid of flames and I am sitting here completely neutral in tone with no intent to insult.

jdodson has been so kind as to drop by #ubuntu-doc and is discussing things with us at the present. I would like to thank him for working to understand what's going on better, this is all I can ask for.

kassetra
June 14th, 2005, 06:30 PM
This thread has been devoid of flames and I am sitting here completely neutral in tone with no intent to insult.

jdodson has been so kind as to drop by #ubuntu-doc and is discussing things with us at the present. I would like to thank him for working to understand what's going on better, this is all I can ask for.

Devoid of flames does not mean not out of control.

In this case, we have asked you repeatedly to respect our decision, and you have yet to do so. We have very nicely asked you to stop pushing us to change the reputation system when we have said why we will not change it at this point in time. You have brought up your points time and again, and regardless of what we say, you refuse to respect anything we say.

You have had three Forum Administrators tell you why we will not change it and that is still not good enough for you.

We have discussed this issue with you ad nauseum.

This thread is no longer about the insignificant issue of the reputation system, and has become a thread devoted to showing utter disrespect for the forum staff's decisions.

I cannot see productive uses for this thread any longer. It's one thing to discuss the reputation system, it's a completely separate issue to abuse and harass the staff for not doing what you want us to do.

I am closing this thread not because of any censorship nor anti-discussion reasons; I am closing this thread because it has lost any sense of value. This is what this thread has become:

You are attempting to argue our decisions with us without listening to anything we have to say.
You are accusing us of telling you to shut up or pay the consequences, when in fact we have *NEVER*, would *NEVER* imply such things.
You are harassing us because we will not change the insignificant reputation system.
You refuse to respect anything we have to say regarding this matter.

Unless we say we will change the reputation system, you will not stop in your crusade to FORCE us to do as you want. That is completely unacceptable.