Reputation System...

[GrandOldTeam]

Should so much negative reputation trigger a suspension? (Prevent that user posting until at least a moderator re-approves?)

 

[Deloodid]

New member.

5/6 established members negative rep something they post. It would imply that new member is a clear WUM, or posting something outrageously poor in taste.

That members posts then placed in a moderating queue?

Makes some sense to me...

i wouldnt be here after the start i had,

i would say if u give or neg rep it should come from your rep. so if you have pos rep 5435 and u neg bomb 2000 then that 2000 should come off your 5435, so people wont pos or neg to easy.

 

[Goat]

i wouldnt be here after the start i had,

i would say if u give or neg rep it should come from your rep. so if you have pos rep 5435 and u neg bomb 2000 then that 2000 should come off your 5435, so people wont pos or neg to easy.

You act like this is a bad thing.

 

[Deloodid]

You act like this is a bad thing.

its not a bad thing?

 

[Woolly Blue]

A couple of months back, we had an invasion of WUMs from Twitter who spammed the place for an hour.

With the system Dan is advocating in place, their posts are limited after 5 minutes. The mods pick up the moderation queue, note that the perpetrators are clearly WUMs with no place on GOT, and ban easily, instead of spending an hour running around locking threads and banning individuals.

The user experience for regular members is not interrupted in a major way, and the Mod workload is lessened.

Win, win.

Hmmm, fair point. Still not sure though, it sounds vaguely reasonable but so do some Tory policies.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Evertonians don't like change.

With a few tweaks to the reputation system, the idea would work.

Having just checked, we've never had more than 2 negative rep's left on one post for a user who wasn't subsequently banned.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

Are there many WUMs on here, excluding NIK obv.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Evertonians don't like change.

With a few tweaks to the reputation system, the idea would work.

Having just checked, we've never had more than 2 negative rep's left on one post for a user who wasn't subsequently banned.

So, if we all neg rep a post of Nik's ... or does that actually prove what you're saying anyway ?

Oh, and essentially, you ask us for our views and then reject the majority decision. Hurt here

 

[noharmdone]

Having just checked, we've never had more than 2 negative rep's left on one post for a user who wasn't subsequently banned.[/QUOTE]

Thats why this site is what it is lads !

 

[tommye]

as long as nik remains powerless then I'm in.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

Maybe if it was explained what prompted this idea...? Not being a smartarse, just wondering if there's a repeating problem.

 

[Goat]

Maybe if it was explained what prompted this idea...? Not being a smartarse, just wondering if there's a repeating problem.

I just think the fine work that the 81st have put in is baring fruit.

Stands and salutes.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

I don't pay attention to that thread...enter the ninja.

 

[Goat]

The games the game.

 

[Bigmaclad]

*neg reps everyone*

I actually think it's a good idea, as long as it isn't abused by anyone.

 

[tommye]

*neg reps everyone*

I actually think it's a good idea, as long as it isn't abused by anyone.

negging this like. . . . . . .