Ban Vote

[tackattack]

I'm not sure about that Syn.
What about adding a "vote to send to Gauntlet" button for those that the admin's put on post moderation? That way if the moderators see fit to initial ban, there will be little to know community rumbling over it.

If they're on post moderation, they get an added button to their profile. We can then say at such and such number of community response they're going to the gauntlet for X time. If they don't make it out, they're banned.

That would be probably easier to program and more effective.

[Violet]

Actually, Syna's system seems to be rather nice. Not perfect, but that idea works out wonderfully.

It's a bad idea to let the community think there is even a discussion over whether or not someone is to be shipped to the gauntlet. And I don't like post moderation on top of being sent to the gauntlet: the idea of being sent in the gauntlet is to redeem yourself... not to show only your non-ultra terrible posts. And a limit on how much one can post in the gauntlet also is not a good idea, as how can they respond adequately to everyone that replies in that case? And a time limit in the gauntlet until someone is banned is also a poor idea... what if a user isn't on to post every day of it? That would punish people who made an ass of themselves on their first 2 days here and took a much needed break from stress while their gauntlet time expired.

As for community responses that send people to the gauntlet... it should not be based on number. That grossly exaggerates the theist-atheist representation. It should be for *what* a person does, and how frequently. Perhaps it is sensible that a person might be sent temporarily to the gauntlet for cussing someone out several times in a row. I've done this, min has done this, a number of highly reputed members have done this. None of us are faultless or entirely innocent of it... but it seems completely rational to me to keep as much terrible stuff out of the main forum as is reasonably doable, without instantly resorting to heavy-handed temporary bans that often serve to only further infuriate people.

A simple vote to send someone to the gauntlet is not enough... there must also be reason for it. And frankly, I'd prefer to be sent to the gauntlet temporarily than to be warned/placed on moderation/especially temporarily banned. That feels more like walking over to a hardened corner of the room. Being given a warning with moderator tools feels like being slapped, and temp banning feels like being spit upon.

[tackattack]

Those are good points Sae, let me look at Syn's proposal again. I'll post agains on it later I need to go skate and eat.

[fr0d0]

Skate?!

[tackattack]

The kids went to their first roller skating rink today and skated for the first time that's all, now back to topic.

I guess I should express more clearly what I don't like about Syn's proposal

"make it something that only mods and admins can see the results"- OK I like that
", adjust the software so that it appears after the user has been around a while (~2 weeks)," - So everyone gets a button after 2 weeks.. seems ok
" and weigh the votes such that users with more rep and/or more post count have a slightly more valuable vote."- I think this is my biggest contention
I think the longstanding should be factored into a decision mind you, by the moderators/admins. I think giving individuals different values other than a 1 person= 1 vote invites favoritism, inequality and would be hard to code and justify.


"The consequence of this is a) people won't be able to see how others voted, preventing group think." Good thing, I agree, even though there is a general inclination in the community against theism

" However, appeals to ban a person, like in a thread would have to be censored, so as to prevent said group think. b) " This should already be verboten. Making threads against a person I'm fairly certain is against the rules already and having a button will indeed increase the desire for people to comment on people rather than their arguments.

"In essence, one wants to make the voting system only represent the voter and not the interests of other members. In addition, by delaying the time for a ban-user button to appear allows for initially troublesome posters to redeem themselves."

Agreed but especially being in the minority it would allow for a serious "ganging up" as people felt the need to express their disdain for a person's ideas. Without a negative rep button there are few outlets and I feel it would be easily and likely abused

[Violet]

", adjust the software so that it appears after the user has been around a while (~2 weeks)," - So everyone gets a button after 2 weeks.. seems ok

I think it should instead be leave the button there from the start. The idea is after all to report behavior of a person. I believe there should be a minimum amount of reputation required to cast a vote in the first place. Of course, this minimum amount should not be something known, and perhaps a 2 week delay after gaining enough reputation to see the command before it actually appears would be a wise implementation. Not really sure how it could be abused though, since we can each only give 1 reputation to a given person... so ultimately I question the need for this specific element to his proposal

" and weigh the votes such that users with more rep and/or more post count have a slightly more valuable vote."- I think this is my biggest contention

Hence its not being perfect. Minimum reputation/time been here: yes. Reputation inflating or deflating past that? That just puts the power in the hands of a psychopath, someone that really hates religions, and someone that I wonder if is even here anymore.

I think the longstanding should be factored into a decision mind you, by the moderators/admins. I think giving individuals different values other than a 1 person= 1 vote invites favoritism, inequality and would be hard to code and justify.

Agreed.

This should already be verboten. Making threads against a person I'm fairly certain is against the rules already and having a button will indeed increase the desire for people to comment on people rather than their arguments.

Is not the point of the gauntlet in the first place to see if a person has the capacity to be a member of the community? In which case their argument is about them: are they worth keeping around or not?

I think it's a lot more fair than whatever 1 moderator happened to think as they skimmed the thread and banning

Agreed but especially being in the minority it would allow for a serious "ganging up" as people felt the need to express their disdain for a person's ideas. Without a negative rep button there are few outlets and I feel it would be easily and likely abused

(<--- her opinion is always for the negative rep to come back, but she's not about to fight about it today).

The amount of times I've read what amounts to 'troll, please ban' is more than marginal. I've even participated once or twice. Frankly, there would be less beating around the bush if a member could just be voted over to the gauntlet.

[Autumnlicious]

No. The inequality in votes is intended to do just that - give increased weight to members of the community considered valuable by such.

Were we to give equal weighted votes to all, recent posters with or without an agenda can serve to hinder, obstruct or help obfuscate the issue in dealing with troublesome members.

However, admins and mods will no doubt have the final say, and it is their duty to serve as the final gate keeper when a vote is complete.

To prevent passive votes accumulating from past "sins", I propose that a single vote expire in t time.

An admin panel can be added to display a graph over time to give a casual overview of a member's perceived unpopularity. A baseline should no doubt be added to indicate their popularity relative to the general mean of active members, where active member would be defined as logged in once in the past week.

As long as we have disposable votes representing both well known and new members of the community, we, the admins, have a way to understand how regarded a member is.

By no means should this system enable an automatic assignment to gauntlet, etc,.

This is purely a way for admins and mods to see who is the trouble maker, relatively speaking, and take steps to mitigate, explain or remove the issue.

[tackattack]

If that's all you want to do though wouldn't a reevaluation of the reputation system suffice and not all the added stuff which would require a lot of programming, especially with no platform. At least with the reputation system we have a platform.


Perhaps a reinstatement of the negative rep potential with additional options. If you give someone a negative rep then you have the option to just give the negative rep or vote for a stint in the gauntlet. These would be reported to the moderator panel upon reaching a threshold amount. I agree whole-heartedly that the request for a gauntlet go would time out after X. That way if a random troll went in and used the negative rep system as a spam tool it wouldn't even register. We could also have a script run that when we ban a member permanently (probably as a separate option so as not to wipe out a self-imposed ban) their reputations (good or bad) get deleted. If 2 members were to start a rep war.. it also wouldn't automatically require gauntlet/ banning action as the minimum threshold wouldn't be met. If multiple members saw an issue with what was going on and joined in the "rep war" then a vote could be called because they had the option to vote them to the gauntlet and reached a threshold amount of votes.

I think that seems like an easily programmed and implemented fair idea.

[Tiberius]

I don't think we need it. We already have a report button, which can be used anonymously (i.e. the only people who know you reported someone are you, and the staff). Each time a report is issued, a new thread is created in the Staff Forum, which details the person doing the reporting, the person who is being reported, the reason, and the post associated with the report.

Staff then discuss the report, and make a decision on what should be done. The more reports we get about the same person, the more we realise that the community has a problem with them, and the more attention that person gets from us.

Simple. I don't think a voting system is going to bring about anything new here. Just because people can't see the reports that are made about others doesn't mean that they aren't being made, or that we aren't doing anything. The system has worked for years: if you have a problem with someone, report it.

[JohnDG]

I would report or negatively rate somebody if they truely derserved it, but being of forum of logical discussion mostly. So far I havent seen anyone deserving of it. Maybe me lol? I wouldn't know because I can't rate myself.

crab people deserve it though. Although he kinda look's like a retarded jelly fish more than a crab.