Negative Reputation Limit

[Footed P.J.]

But no rep? This'll thwart me very very intensive nonstop efforts to be a VIP, because that's all I have to live for.

But before that, I need to eat.

[Kovalchuk]

I vote for, but the person in question should have a chance to defend him/herself.

[Charlie F]

Originally Posted by Darkfinn

Though this brings up a point... obviously someone didn't do that great of a job of moderating betagame's posts. Otherwise this would have never happened.

We only delete posts that break any rules, we don't delete posts that aren't perfect. I don't know about all of betagames's posts, but all of the ones that I approved didn't break any rules. And not one of his posts has ever been reported either, so that leads me to think that none of his other posts have broken any rules.

The problem in betagame's case is, in my opinion, people have given him too much negative rep. I think that if Moo was online he would have deleted some of his points, because I don't see how beta has managed to get to -13 so quickly without breaking any rules.

[Pojo]

Originally Posted by Charlie F

We only delete posts that break any rules, we don't delete posts that aren't perfect. I don't know about all of betagames's posts, but all of the ones that I approved didn't break any rules. And not one of his posts has ever been reported either, so that leads me to think that none of his other posts have broken any rules.

The problem in betagame's case is, in my opinion, people have given him too much negative rep. I think that if Moo was online he would have deleted some of his points, because I don't see how beta has managed to get to -13 so quickly without breaking any rules.

Well, when you rep someone, it gives some examples...It doesn't necessarily say to neg rep them for ONLY things against the rules...Plus, if they did break the rules, aren't you supposed to report the thread rather than neg repping the person?

[Abby_Cullen]

Originally Posted by Pojo

Well, when you rep someone, it gives some examples...It doesn't necessarily say to neg rep them for ONLY things against the rules...Plus, if they did break the rules, aren't you supposed to report the thread rather than neg repping the person?

Generally, if you feel you need to report the post, then you neg-rep it. At least that's how I understood it. If you feel the post shouldn't be reported, then don't neg-rep them.

[Night]

When you give a neg. rep. to someone, it give you some examples like drama, flaming, spam, memes, or otherwise negative. I think most people thought he was spamming due to him double or triples posting in a row at times and also the idea that he was making threads so he could keep his top thread maker spot on the board could lead to him gettting neg. rep. as well...

[Pojo]

Originally Posted by Mandi

Generally, if you feel you need to report the post, then you neg-rep it. At least that's how I understood it. If you feel the post shouldn't be reported, then don't neg-rep them.

I don't really see it that way...I just saw his posts as spam, but not enough to warrant a reporting

[Jaiden]

I would be very wary about an automatic ban based just on reputation. For me, being unpopular or making posts people don't like shouldn't be enough to earn a ban, you should have to do something offensive, disruptive or otherwise rabble-rousing and I'm not quite sure that that can be judged on reputation alone given that there is no hard and fast criteria for assigning it. Basically, I don't think a person deserves to be banned for making rubbish posts alone.

If you're going to have a reputation system, though, neg rep needs to be meaningful somehow so perhaps something along the lines of Darkfinn's second option would be worth looking into.

[Charlie F]

Originally Posted by Pojo

Well, when you rep someone, it gives some examples...It doesn't necessarily say to neg rep them for ONLY things against the rules...Plus, if they did break the rules, aren't you supposed to report the thread rather than neg repping the person?

But I'm talking about reporting things. I know that negative rep can be given for things that aren't against the rules (as in beta's case), I'm saying that since nobody reported any of his posts, I can only assume that they were all within the rules.

Originally Posted by Pojo

I don't really see it that way...I just saw his posts as spam, but not enough to warrant a reporting

But spam is breaking the rules, and should be reported!
I don't personally think that beta ever spammed though, he just posted lots of low quality stuff, I don't think he was doing it intentionally.


If somebody breaks the rules, ALWAYS report the post. Then give reputation as you feel necessary.
And if you are giving negative rep without reporting the post, really think about what you are doing and make sure that you feel the rep is 100% justified. It really ticks me off how quick some people are to hand out negative reputation.

[Pojo]

Originally Posted by Charlie F

But spam is breaking the rules, and should be reported!
I don't personally think that beta ever spammed though, he just posted lots of low quality stuff, I don't think he was doing it intentionally.


If somebody breaks the rules, ALWAYS report the post. Then give reputation as you feel necessary.
And if you are giving negative rep without reporting the post, really think about what you are doing and make sure that you feel the rep is 100% justified. It really ticks me off how quick some people are to hand out negative reputation.

I have reported a post that seemed like spam...But Fullmetal answered it, and said that it needs to be like a huge spam...Like Teresa...Not just a post...