Negative Reputation Limit

[Akira]

I think we should reinstate this system from our old TBDL days. People running around with 10+ negative reputation is just ridiculous. Obviously they're doing something to offend people enough that more than ten people complain about it.

I think we should have a negative rep limit of 10, or at most 15, before they're banned.

[Darkfinn]

I strongly second this reccomendation.

I see two options.

1: Ban outright anyone who gets -10 rep.

2: Place anyone with -10 rep. in a "restricted" user group where they can only post in the Admin Forum. This would allow them to plead their case without being just off the site. It would also let Mods review their rep and see if it is really justified or not... to prevent several members from ganging up and railroading one member out just b/c they don't like him/her.

I would personally like to see the second option implemented. No need to ban someone with low rep without giving them a fair chance to explain themselves before their peers. If someone thinks their appology is sincere enough they can simply give them a positive rep point and as soon as the member is above -10 they would not be restricted anymore.

Sort of a time out thing that could be imposed by the general membership on the board if one member is misbehaving.

It would make rep useful for something...

[Pojo]

I guess this is good...Although there are rarely any people to even get to 10+...One was moviegirl...And she was banned...Then Teresa...And she deleted her account...And now Betagame...Who is leaving...It seems like the neg rep stops them from even wanting to be here

[Kenshin Himura]

Originally Posted by Darkfinn

I strongly second this reccomendation.

I see two options.

1: Ban outright anyone who gets -10 rep.

2: Place anyone with -10 rep. in a "restricted" user group where they can only post in the Admin Forum. This would allow them to plead their case without being just off the site. It would also let Mods review their rep and see if it is really justified or not... to prevent several members from ganging up and railroading one member out just b/c they don't like him/her.

I would personally like to see the second option implemented. No need to ban someone with low rep without giving them a fair chance to explain themselves before their peers. If someone thinks their appology is sincere enough they can simply give them a positive rep point and as soon as the member is above -10 they would not be restricted anymore.

Sort of a time out thing that could be imposed by the general membership on the board if one member is misbehaving.

It would make rep useful for something...

I agree with you 100%.

[Maverick]

Originally Posted by Akira

I think we should reinstate this system from our old TBDL days. People running around with 10+ negative reputation is just ridiculous. Obviously they're doing something to offend people enough that more than ten people complain about it.

I think we should have a negative rep limit of 10, or at most 15, before they're banned.

I completely and totally agree.

Originally Posted by DarkFinn

I strongly second this reccomendation.

I see two options.

1: Ban outright anyone who gets -10 rep.

2: Place anyone with -10 rep. in a "restricted" user group where they can only post in the Admin Forum. This would allow them to plead their case without being just off the site. It would also let Mods review their rep and see if it is really justified or not... to prevent several members from ganging up and railroading one member out just b/c they don't like him/her.

I would personally like to see the second option implemented. No need to ban someone with low rep without giving them a fair chance to explain themselves before their peers. If someone thinks their appology is sincere enough they can simply give them a positive rep point and as soon as the member is above -10 they would not be restricted anymore.

Sort of a time out thing that could be imposed by the general membership on the board if one member is misbehaving.

It would make rep useful for something...

Couldn't've said it better myself!

[Charlie F]

I'm all for Darkfinn's second option. Although maybe have the only forum they can post in be the requests forum (and it can be moved out if necessary) rather than the admin forum, just because I don't think that most people will do a good job of 'pleading', and will probably get themselves more bad rep.

[Footed P.J.]

I would say -5 should trigger some sort of immediate discussion about whether to ban, and -10 a ban outright. I don't care if you are the person with the best intentions. If you do not make an effort to adhere to certain social norms within an online community, your effort is best used elsewhere, for your own sake.

[Darkfinn]

Originally Posted by Footed P.J.

I would say -5 should trigger some sort of immediate discussion about whether to ban, and -10 a ban outright. I don't care if you are the person with the best intentions. If you do not make an effort to adhere to certain social norms within an online community, your effort is best used elsewhere, for your own sake.

A rep of -5 triggers moderation. All your posts have to be approved by a moderator before they are put through.

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.

[Footed P.J.]

Originally Posted by Darkfinn

A rep of -5 triggers moderation. All your posts have to be approved by a moderator before they are put through.

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.

That's right. I forgot about that mod trigger. But does that not cause posts to not show until approved (works that way on other fora I am a part of). Or is it more that mods are just supposed to clamp down at that point and get strict?

Man...this mystery criterion Moo's been gushing about for VIP is makin' me curiouser and curiouser.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Footed P.J.

That's right. I forgot about that mod trigger. But does that not cause posts to not show until approved (works that way on other fora I am a part of). Or is it more that mods are just supposed to clamp down at that point and get strict?

Man...this mystery criterion Moo's been gushing about for VIP is makin' me curiouser and curiouser.

Yousir, get kudos for quoting Alice. :3