gazisere Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 While I understand that the forum upgrade is new and that Salmoneus will have a lot on his plate at the moment, but it doesn't hurt to discuss it now. The reputation system can be modified so that members can give positive and negative feedback to other members for certain posts/topics. I believe that if this modification was installed it could be used in conjunction with the current warn system. What I'm suggesting is that when a member receives a certain amount of positive or negative feedback, there warning status should be reviewed. For example if we set the positive review limit to 100, then a member with 0 or no warning will be able to request to a moderator that there warn log is reviewed and if they feel fit then could give the member a negative warning. I understand people could ask their friends to give them postive warnings for no reason but as soon as the novalty wears off I believe this system would work. Plus it would be pending a moderator to view there reputation and reasons, it wouldn't be an automatic system. I believe that doing this would give members more of a reason to help out around the forum and have a purpose for the reputation system. -gazisere :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethraw Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I understand people could ask their friends to give them postive warnings for no reason but as soon as the novalty wears off I believe this system would work Not a chance. Sorry, but not only would the "novelty" never wear off, it'd be a completely corrupt system where Mr FANG gets banned 10 times a day and Heb0 would overthrow Sal within the hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entrility Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 maybe if dm+ were the only one who could rate. Really though, Jethraw's right. Popularity doesn't really mean anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazisere Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Well, it wouldn't be an automatic system. It would just give moderators more of a reason to look at a member for a negative warn. If the moderator feels the person has been cheating his way, they can just refuse. -gazisere :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aabid Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 People like me would get negative alot from Tubby... Its all about who you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazisere Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 You would have to give a valid reason. I thought the whole reputation system was about saying thanks to someone who had helped you out, not popularity? -gazisere :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prinz Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You would have to give a valid reason. I thought the whole reputation system was about saying thanks to someone who had helped you out, not popularity? -gazisere we would hope - but not going to lie, most people would rate based on popularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conspicuous Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 People like me would get negative alot from Tubby... Its all about who you like. not just me mate L I agree with entrility on this one, however I still see sals mods as corrupt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuanrang Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I can safely say that this idea, in this form, will never happen. I can't speak for everyone else in the Mod Team, (and if they believe otherwise they're naturally free to speak up and support this suggestion..) but I'm fairly certain most of them agree with me when I say that, for reasons that a few people here have already mentioned. Naturally, we're working out some kinks, so we might add some features that we lack, we will modify some stuff to be more like the last version we used, and we'll probably also limit other options. As for details, I can't give you, but just because we can do something really doesn't mean we will. I can safely say that warning ratings, positive or negative, will never be member controlled. If it's not an automatic system, and it still require moderator input, then I see virtually no benefit with this at all. If it doesn't automate the work, why add the extra hassle of details that'll just turn everything into a popularity contest. I do, however, suspect why you made this topic and I can safely tell you this: Forget it, it's not happening, we collectively decided that years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazisere Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) I do think there needs to be a much more clear cut mother of getting negative warning reviewed... Even if it doesn't include the reputation system. -gazisere Edit: I do, however, suspect why you made this topic and I can safely tell you this: Forget it, it's not happening, we collectively decided that years ago. And that is why everyone believes Sal's moderators are corrupt. No one can be given a second chance. Edited January 19, 2012 by gazisere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuanrang Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Negative warnings doesn't exist anymore with the current system, the lowest is 0. It is, however, one of the features that we're working on to restore. To get a warning review, all you need to do is to follow various forum guidelines and FAQs and contact a member of the Staff and you'll get one. To get a negative rating... well, I can safely say that the best way to get one is NOT to get people to "Like!" you a certain amount of time, or do other crazy stuff, like PMing half the active Mod Team, asking for one. Negative ratings are rarely given and we want them to be. A negative rating shouldn't be a goal for anyone, it's nothing you can work towards. If you're exceptional/outstanding, we'll know and we'll reward you for it. At least, that's not how I got my -4 back in the days. Edit: And that is why everyone believes Sal's moderators are corrupt. No one can be given a second chance. Nonsense' date=' we've had tons of members who's been severely warned and what not, with a shady warning log to boot, get negative ratings and even promotions. Everyone deserves a second chance, that's why we even have a ban appeal forum and why we have a warning review system up and running. The thing is, when you start burning through chance 2, chance 3, chance 4, chance 5, chance 6 and so on, over a long period of time, you reach the point where you don't deserve one. [b']Edit2:[/b] ..and if people wonder why I'm suddenly ignoring this thread... I'm going to sleep! I'll try my best to check this between Uni tomorrow and tomorrow evening, but we'll see. Edit3: Oh, and on a lighter tone... if we're corrupt, then someone really owes me money for giving out warning reviews and negative warnings, free of charge for all these years. :( Edited January 19, 2012 by Yuanrang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesthetic Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I do think there needs to be a much more clear cut mother of getting negative warning reviewed... Even if it doesn't include the reputation system. -gazisere Edit: I do, however, suspect why you made this topic and I can safely tell you this: Forget it, it's not happening, we collectively decided that years ago. And that is why everyone believes Sal's moderators are corrupt. No one can be given a second chance. That's not being corrupt, if they implement this it would be corrupt. Sorry that you feel your idea was completely shot down but it won't work. It will be a popularity contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O hai im KAMIL Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 A flaw with your system is that positive rep isn't always given to quality posts, but also funny posts. Take Heb0 as an example, his posts are funny/troll-like and many people would +rep him. Now, do you think that warrants a negative warn? Me thinks not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I do think there needs to be a much more clear cut mother of getting negative warning reviewed... Even if it doesn't include the reputation system. -gazisere Edit: I do, however, suspect why you made this topic and I can safely tell you this: Forget it, it's not happening, we collectively decided that years ago. And that is why everyone believes Sal's moderators are corrupt. No one can be given a second chance. By "everyone" you mean you right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conspicuous Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 no admiral I agree with gaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 no admiral I agree with gaz shush youre just a figment of my imagination Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabt Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 no admiral I agree with gaz You think the forums would be better run not by hardworking people who put time and effort into making Sals what it is but purely of people who are capable of making smutty comments and witty innuendos? The like system is fine, its a good laugh, but its no basis for promotions. There are many factors that go into deciding that, as I am sure there are of negative warns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O hai im KAMIL Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 no admiral I agree with gaz You think the forums would be better run not by hardworking people who put time and effort into making Sals what it is but purely of people who are capable of making smutty comments and witty innuendos? I think you just described Heb0??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conspicuous Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 tabt u shud read my comment, I agree with DMs+ being allowed to have some sort of input, unless u consider urslef smutty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabt Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 no admiral I agree with gaz You think the forums would be better run not by hardworking people who put time and effort into making Sals what it is but purely of people who are capable of making smutty comments and witty innuendos? I think you just described Heb0??? Heebs also has great legs, I am led to believe that is one of the most important deciding factors during promotions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micael Fatia Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 no admiral I agree with gaz You think the forums would be better run not by hardworking people who put time and effort into making Sals what it is but purely of people who are capable of making smutty comments and witty innuendos? I think you just described Heb0??? But heb0 is also one of the hardworking people, the smutty comments and witty innuendos are just a bonus. Anyway everybody knows Samsara is the only corrupt moderator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samsara Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. My opinion is that the reputation system should not be incorporated into the warning system. The basic reason is that the +1 system is entirely subjective. When moderators look at warn reviews and deal out warns, we typically consider the severity of the offense, if it was an offense in the first place, and the user's warn log. We don't consider things like whether the person is our friends or not, if the offense was funny/entertaining, if the person who was offended "had it coming," etcetera etcetera. Is our process subjective too? Yes. However, we do our best to ignore all the outside factors that may affect our decisions. That's our job as staff members. However, when a forum member +1's a post, it can be for so many reasons. It might've made them laugh, or they might've learned a bit, or they might be friends with the person who made the post, or they might just have the same viewpoint as the person that made the post. They do not need to carefully consider the things that staff members do. As for adding negative rep to the system, I think that it's pretty obvious that there is simply too much room for abuse. We are not going to warn people because they have different opinions than other people or are disliked by others. Let's keep the "like" system as a meaningless thing to partake in and have fun with. I do think there needs to be a much more clear cut mother of getting negative warning reviewed... Even if it doesn't include the reputation system. -gazisere What is wrong with the system as it stands? How would you suggest that we improve it? I do, however, suspect why you made this topic and I can safely tell you this: Forget it, it's not happening, we collectively decided that years ago. And that is why everyone believes Sal's moderators are corrupt. No one can be given a second chance. Do you seriously believe that no one is given a second chance? We give people eight full warnings before they are permanently banned from the forums. Individual warnings can be taken away if a member has not violated rules in a while. Even after being permanently banned, you can return to the forums via the ban appeal system. The fact of the matter is, everyone who enters these forums receives an abundance of chances. Anyway everybody knows Samsara is the only corrupt moderator. Someone's bitter because I changed their member title Edited January 20, 2012 by Samsara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micael Fatia Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Anyway everybody knows Samsara is the only corrupt moderator. Someone's bitter because I changed their member title Omg so you admit you changed my member title you power abusing, corrupt moderator! Someone ban Samsara! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samsara Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Anyway everybody knows Samsara is the only corrupt moderator. Someone's bitter because I changed their member title Omg so you admit you changed my member title you power abusing, corrupt moderator! Someone ban Samsara! Oh please, as if all the staff members haven't had their way with your profile one day or another. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabt Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Anyway everybody knows Samsara is the only corrupt moderator. Someone's bitter because I changed their member title Omg so you admit you changed my member title you power abusing, corrupt moderator! Someone ban Samsara! Oh please, as if all the staff members haven't had their way with your profile one day or another. Mic's profile is the village bike? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.