Wild Wild West - Part 2

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

Im copying this from the other thread on this subject.

I personally, dont think peoples names should be attached to the Bad Points, or whatever were calling them, Peer points? This only Drives people to target the one person who sent it in the first place and get their "posse's" to gang up. It should be anonymous, this way, noone can be singled out except for the person who actually broke a rule.

Perhaps. But that does remove some of the accountability from someone using the warning system. People able to use the system anonymously may be MUCH more inclined to abuse it knowing there is little chance of being called to the carpet for their own actions. Is that fair?

I can select via membership level who can actually see those warning points, but I'm not sure it will make much sense to use that limitation. But I put the specs into the program anyway, just in case later developments proved that it was needed.

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

I also agree with the limit on how many times you can be punished for breaking one rule.

That kind of defeats the purpose of what I am trying to do. If someone habitually is a problem on this site, and suppose I set the Fine & Suspension limit to 1,000 points. Do we really want it so that this member has to post 1,000 posts that are considered justifiable to receive warning points before being removed? Or if ONE of his/her posts is just so repugnant that 1,000 members pointedly and firmly indicate to this member that such posting on this site will NOT be tolerated and kick him or her in the ass SOUNDLY because of it. Which would be the better way to implement this?

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

How long with the rep points last for? will they fade over time, or will they eventually, just build up and build up even after years and years of posting and remaining civil?

As it is presently set up, warning points last indefinitely, or until the member finally gets Fined & Suspended. Once they pay the fine, then the points are zeroed out. There are pros and cons to the several ways of handling this, of course.....

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Perhaps. But that does remove some of the accountability from someone using the warning system. People able to use the system anonymously may be MUCH more inclined to abuse it knowing there is little chance of being called to the carpet for their own actions. Is that fair?

I can select via membership level who can actually see those warning points, but I'm not sure it will make much sense to use that limitation. But I put the specs into the program anyway, just in case later developments proved that it was needed.



That kind of defeats the purpose of what I am trying to do. If someone habitually is a problem on this site, and suppose I set the Fine & Suspension limit to 1,000 points. Do we really want it so that this member has to post 1,000 posts that are considered justifiable to receive warning points before being removed? Or if ONE of his/her posts is just so repugnant that 1,000 members pointedly and firmly indicate to this member that such posting on this site will NOT be tolerated and kick him or her in the ass SOUNDLY because of it. Which would be the better way to implement this?



As it is presently set up, warning points last indefinitely, or until the member finally gets Fined & Suspended. Once they pay the fine, then the points are zeroed out. There are pros and cons to the several ways of handling this, of course.....

running short on time atm, but i really like this discussion. And i think itll really help iron out any kinks people might foresee!

I can see the point that annonymous users will abuse the system if they cannot be called to their actions though. That does make boatloads of sense. ^_- Itll be interesting to watch unfold though rich!

Will there be punishment for issuing retaliatory warning points that were not deemed necessary? Similar to Karma?

What if some AGREE with a post that others disagree with? Is there a way to offset those disagreement points? Seems sort of one sided and unfair if there is only the negative available.

I must agree with the opinion of several others in that I can see no good coming from this in the long run.
However, at the same time I am interested in seeing how this progresses. It promises to be a very interesting experiment in human behavior in group situations.
There will most assuredly be headaches arise that are now unforeseen.

One thing I have privately wondered for a long time is why the number of site mods have been so far limited to three. For a site this size that is a very small number.
While the choosing of someone for such a position is a difficult task in and of itself, I've always thought that adding a few more mods who frequent this site on a daily basis would have been the obvious answer to relieve some on the aggravation on the few who now are responsible for those positions.
The addition of forum mods was for the primary purpose of increasing participation in specific forums and those mods have very limited enforcement abilities, as it should be really with consideration to the means in which they were appointed.
I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point, the programmer has been paid and we're going to ride this new bull for a while to see where it takes us. It will for sure be an interesting ride.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

What if some AGREE with a post that others disagree with? Is there a way to offset those disagreement points? Seems sort of one sided and unfair if there is only the negative available.

This isn't a agree/disagree point Wes, it is for rule infractions. I believe Karma is still the place for agree/disagree comments.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

This isn't a agree/disagree point Wes, it is for rule infractions. I believe Karma is still the place for agree/disagree comments.

No, I think it is INTERPRETATION of the rules.

Were one may see aggressive pursuit of evil doers another may see someone being mean or rude.

There is WAY too much room for personal feelings to weigh the scales differently for different people.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

Were one may see aggressive pursuit of evil doers another may see someone being mean or rude.

I agree; as I mentioned earlier it can get down and dirty in the BOI but sometimes, that's a good thing.
I can only hope that those watching will realize the purpose of the BOI and that sometimes, stern methods are required.

I think they will, but we will see...

Ok, I get it now...DOH!! Although the theory looks good on paper, the implementation has flaws. I have gone head to head with some of the posters in this thread. My general concern would be retaliation and or mob mentality.

I think it could work if a select group of members were chosen, similar to an election of sorts. Say a member would like to be one of the "warning point posse", the member could state their intentions or reasons why they could hold such a position of authority, and the other members could vote them in. That could prevent an all out "warning point assault"....just a thought.

Don't pick me. I wouldn't have ANY friends left.