Thread: Time to talk about the rep system some more!

I'll make this short and to the point because that's how I like it.

Current system: Once a person reaches a certain amount of negrep, they are temp banned. After that ban period is over the person is allowed to return and clean up their act.

Why that's bad: Positive rep far outweighs negative rep. If someone is accumulating enough negrep to be banned, then obviously they are contributing absolutely nothing. Even a good post here and there that garners rep would balance them out or put them in the green (i.e. Kal El or Pepsi). So...the person gets temp banned, then what? Then they come back a bitter troll that will contribute even less to the site. From what I see nothing else is done though. They can receive unlimited negrep with no further repercussions. Essentially its like throwing a person in jail, releasing him to the same people that jailed him, and telling him he can't be jailed again.

Solution: Bans for different levels of rep maybe? Keep the current one as a first ban, set another negrep level for a 2nd temp ban, and a 3rd rep level for a permaban. Seems like the best solution now. Or just 1 tempban then a permaban. Or just a permaban. I'm not in charge here.



Just figured I'd throw this out there. In hindsight this would all work out much better if we didn't have such a small close-knit community, but whatever I already typed it up. Take it however you want.

That's exactly the point I was making. Even if someone contributes something worthwhile they will be fine.

Yep, actually the idea for this thread was sparked when I read a post by effingawesome.

ideally i think the idea of rehabilitation is better than attempting to sweep the problem under the rug

but the problem with the notion of rehabilitation is that it is completely dependant on the antagonist's desire to change for the better

for some reason i have a hard time seeing effingawwesome being willing to improve. it takes far less from you to get up on whatever high horse is around and cry obscenities than it is to admit you're in the wrong, even to yourself, and make honest improvements from there

at the same time, it is the internet so whatever, right? right?

see the thing is that absolution isn't actually a terrible poster

it's just that his general way of posting is harassing someone for not being as hardcore as he is/thinks he is, which seems to get on peoples nerves

Yeah he's not a terrible poster, which is why this would work for people like him.

That's just his thing though. Everyone has their own little quirk. The difference is that he hasn't made a rep worthy posts I guess. Actually he probably has, he just dug himself deep complaining about rep.

I'd just like to point out that no forum is complete without at least a few faggots

Originally Posted by KT.

I'd just like to point out that no forum is complete without at least a few faggots

Every forum needs its variety. Like I said before, everyone has their quirk. Some are more annoying than others, but all are necessary.

Originally Posted by ozzy

Every forum needs its variety. Like I said before, everyone has their quirk. Some are more annoying than others, but all are necessary.

if all are necessary why are we talking about banning people

I meant among regular posters, not trolls. Maybe I shouldn't have said all.

here is an announcement for everyone at casualdiscourse.com:

if you truly feel that someone deserves to be banned, you should make a ban poll

yes i realize it's dangerous because you must put yourself up as one of the options but seriously if the person in question is universally hated then you're safe, right

if you don't think your nomination would win against you in a ban poll, then that ought to tell you something about whether the person in question is adversely affecting the site or just you

there is no reason to attach permanent bans to the rep system. currently the only way to get banned is to spam, advertise, post CP or bestiality, or win a ban poll - or really really really piss off gwahir

This isn't so much about banning people as it is about giving them a chance to become a good poster. What's the problem with having a couple warning temp bans then a perma and letting things work themselves out?

because rep isn't reliable enough to automate and set to a ban system, at least not in my opinion

if you have negative rep and no one likes you then that should be enough to make your posting change. if it's not, then there was no hope for you anyway, but you shouldn't be banned for it unless the site's members choose collectively to ban you. or you post cp. because if we banned everyone we didn't like, this would just be lws without any posts.

also the staff sometimes temp bans people who are usually fine but for some reason seem to get a massive visit from aunt flo

it usually accomplishes nothing

Originally Posted by solecistic

because if we banned everyone we didn't like, this would just be lws without any posts.

Its more likely to get to that point if we ban people as we see fit rather than have a set system imo.

But I can't really argue seeing as how this site is so small anything could work. Its wishful thinking that this site will get any larger than it is, and that's where my head is. I don't think anyone cares if it gets bigger anyways so whatever.

Originally Posted by solecistic

also the staff sometimes temp bans people who are usually fine but for some reason seem to get a massive visit from aunt flo

it usually accomplishes nothing

see sycld.

Originally Posted by ozzy

Its more likely to get to that point if we ban people as we see fit rather than have a set system imo.

But I can't really argue seeing as how this site is so small anything could work. Its wishful thinking that this site will get any larger than it is, and that's where my head is. I don't think anyone cares if it gets bigger anyways so whatever.

Though I'm always up for arguing for the sake of arguing if anyone wants to.

I'm calling this thread out.

the ban poll system is a pretty good system

i mean look at wifebeater

it just doesn't look like it does much because these forums are pretty small, so pretty much everyone here is relatively important to the functioning of the forums

(hahah sole <3)

another small thing about ban polls -- if you're not sure you'd win against your nominee, you should question your own posting as well as the person you're trying to get banned.

Originally Posted by gwahir

another small thing about ban polls -- if you're not sure you'd win against your nominee, you should question your own posting as well as the person you're trying to get banned.

Originally Posted by solecistic

if you don't think your nomination would win against you in a ban poll, then that ought to tell you something about whether the person in question is adversely affecting the site or just you

well it is not the same as sole's point it is a slightly different point

Slightly is an overstatement.

no sole's point is that you should evaluate whether only you hate this person or whether the whole site does

mine is that it should make you evaluate your own quality of posting

Goddamnit fine.

I have never been on a forum where rep was serious. I was unaware that it makes a difference here, of all places. The most loosely governed forums I've been a part of. People can generally go and do as they please here, and when its out of hand, the mods step in.

i never thought the rep was taken particularly seriously here

it would be, if the loss of enough of it warranted a permaban

people say it's taken seriously but i think that comes more because it's easy to use as a rough, rough measure of the quality of one's posting abilities. there are aberrations, of course, but it's fairly representational