Negative Reputation Limit

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aki

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,028
Role
Little
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

Banned
Messages
3,676
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,920
Role
Private
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
 

Takashi

Always willing to give help to those who seek it.
Est. Contributor
Messages
2,974
Role
Carer
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,766
Role
Other
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.

DarkFinn said:
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! :D
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,448
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
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.

Banned
Messages
700
Role
Diaper Lover
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

Banned
Messages
3,676
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
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.

Banned
Messages
700
Role
Diaper Lover
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. :D
 

Aki

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,028
Role
Little
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. :D
Yousir, get kudos for quoting Alice. :3
 

Footed P.J.

Banned
Messages
700
Role
Diaper Lover
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.
 

Kovy

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Carer
I vote for, but the person in question should have a chance to defend him/herself.
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,448
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,920
Role
Private
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?
 

starshine

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,277
Role
Private
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.
 

Dream

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,296
Role
Diaper Lover, , Carer
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,920
Role
Private
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,448
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
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.

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

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,920
Role
Private
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...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top