Open discussion on the new "west"

Soooo......you don't think that having your name attached to that warning point may make you think twice before dealing it out? That the fact that someone can't see who gave it to them might just make folks a little tempted to just "zing" someone for the heck of it?

Remember, these are not like karma points..these are points just like the mods hand out....

Originally Posted by Cat_72

Soooo......you don't think that having your name attached to that warning point may make you think twice before dealing it out? That the fact that someone can't see who gave it to them might just make folks a little tempted to just "zing" someone for the heck of it?

Remember, these are not like karma points..these are points just like the mods hand out....

The only thing im trying to say is, if somone broke a rule. they broke a rule and should be punished for it. it shouldnt matter so much who gave it to them, because it was their fault. Not the person handing it out.

i personally dont care so much because i cant do anything anyway.

But just for sanitys sake, and the avoidance of "Oh you gave me bad points for this, well ill give you bad points for this HAHA" posts... i think names shouldnt be attached.

*shrugs* maybe im just crazy?

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

Well its going to happen anyway, and its much worse by attaching a name to it.

Hence why a limit on how many people "punishing" them for one rule would be limited. If they break a rule. they break a rule dosnt matter who gives it.

Ok, lets say there is no name attahced to the point. How would you know there was abuse of the system without Webslave having to review every warning point issued? Someone that doesn't like you could give you a warning point everyday until you were removed from the site and you wouldn't know if it was the same person or 20 different people.

Names are a necessity.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

That the fact that someone can't see who gave it to them might just make folks a little tempted to just "zing" someone for the heck of it?

And, just at that i can see all the problems this will cause too. And i suppose its a good view on things.

Maybe this system could be applied to only a SELECT group of people, who are there to issue warning points, but dont have Mod powers? Sort of like a Judgment team? Im jsut throwing ideas out there that might actually have some use to everyone.

The Team of people can be elected by the members on this board through a poll or something. This would take the stress of rich's back but they would be an unbiased group on fauna that keeps things in check?

I also believe if you have a problem with something someone says stand up and tell them and have your name attached. If they give you warning points as a retaliation then that is against the rules also.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

Ok, lets say there is no name attahced to the point. How would you know there was abuse of the system without Webslave having to review every warning point issued? Someone that doesn't like you could give you a warning point everyday until you were removed from the site and you wouldn't know if it was the same person or 20 different people.

Names are a necessity.

true true, but i think he has it set up similarly to the karma system where, you cannot keep repeatedly giving out points to the same person until youve given them to other people. The system can still keep track of that i would think, even without a name actually visible on our end.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

I also believe if you have a problem with something someone says stand up and tell them and have your name attached. If they give you warning points as a retaliation then that is against the rules also.

i do agree with that :P

Well I have to agree with the concept that this will become interesting. I don't know enough about craigslist to make a comment one way or the other. I do agree with the idea that there is significant difference between removing a post and removing a user. I am a firm believer in the idea that just because you think it works elsewhere doesn't make it a fit for all situations.

The other issue is that Rich as set this for Paid Membership to use. So the concept of social compact is not valid since a participating member has no ability to prevent the hits via the "potential" hit back. This is now in Karma where you have to be a paid member to give negative Karma and to see who gave Karma. Keep in mind I am not saying anything to complain about paid rights, just simply stating a fact.

The concern I have is the social "clicks", those who band behind an individual for the attack. Rich states that the numbers will be significant to make it to banning, yet the pattern of persistant negative feelings between users will make for a fun score board. The peer points will be like golf the lowest score wins.

I do disagree with the concept of the the warning point being anonymous, I feel Rich has it right as I am under the strong opinion that if you have to put your name to your action that in itself might deter some from the hang em high attitude. Now my question is can all users see who gave the warning point to a particular user. If Stardust gives me a warning for a post can Cat, when she looks at my profile, know that Stardust gave me the warning? I know the warning system that was you could tell who and for what, but Karma you cannot and I think that is what led to the abuse.

I probably would not use it even if I paid. I do think that Rich has put the ball in the members court. Time to put up or shut up!

I wouldn't think that anyone but you would be able to see who gave you the points, Michael. There would really be no purpose in that, IMO.

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

true true, but i think he has it set up similarly to the karma system where, you cannot keep repeatedly giving out points to the same person until youve given them to other people. The system can still keep track of that i would think, even without a name actually visible on our end.

If that is the way it was set up, so that you could not give the same person points repeatedly, then it would be slightly different.......though I still don't agree with nameless points, lol. But if it is not.....and you cannot see who is giving you points..how do you know when to complain that someone IS abusing it?

And as Bill said, if you're going to give out the points, be "man enough" (or woman enough" to claim it. If you are ashamed of giving it....then you probably shouldn't have given it in the first place.