Negative reputation (1 Viewer)

[Arvin Sloane]

Sunny, your name belies your nature. Or does it. I'm not sure. Where did you put the kettle?

 

[sunny]

you're a loser asylum

i beat you in the poll and one of your moderating buttbuddies (or you) couldnt hack it and closed it

loser.

If that was the case, it would have been alot more effective to delete it, no? Polls such as these only ever create more tension, and never serve any particulary helpful purpose.

and i never said others havent had threads created about them wen they left/were banned.

I remember you saying to me in your poll thread that you were not aware of anyone having done it in the past and you were the first when I pointed out they eventually come back anyway.

 

[sunny]

who are you to say that

That is how they always turn out, and this would end up being the same.

asylum and i both agreed to have it up

You both agreed, but that does not mean any of the other moderators agreed to have the poll create yet another chaotic thread.

 

[sunny]

surely asylum should be punished then as he was the one that should have known better

The poll itself never got to a point where it became abusive. There are no grounds for punishment for that thread for either Asylum or yourself.

 

[anti]

therefore there were no grounds for it to be closed - agreed?

As per two posts ago: it was closed because of its potential to create a chaotic thread.
As per the last post: since it never became abusive, there was no grounds for punishment, not no grounds to be closed.

if he knew it was so bad to create the poll - he shouldnt have encouraged it.

If he knew, just as you might have known. Both parties have benefit of the doubt since it never created trouble.

 

[Lazarus]

Please note that the formula that is used to determine negative reputation has changed since the writing of this post. A user will now lose four times the number of reputation points that they are able to bestow upon someone else, rather than four times the number of reputation points that the moderator or administrator is able to bestow. The number of points deducted therefore varies with the punished rather than the punisher.

so there is a plan now? one that the admins follow? may we see it?

The administrators, super moderators and moderators are all abiding by the same rules. There would be no logical reason for having different sets of rules, and I don’t understand why you would put forward that proposition. The rules were outlined by Minai and reiterated by Sunny. These are the instructions that I issued to the moderators verbatim:

All moderators can now disapprove of posts using the reputation system.

This will result in a deduction of quadruple the number of points that would have been added had the moderator approved the post.

For example, Minai's reputation power is currently at 16. He gives 16 points with every approval and takes away 16 * 4 = 64 with every disapproval.

Formally disapproving of a post therefore constitutes a serious punitive action. It should not be used to punish users for minor infractions. The test should be whether the user's conduct involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of forum etiquette.

Note the requirement of a "substantial or consistent" failure. It is not sufficient if the user's conduct falls short of the standard of forum etiquette that an ordinary person is entitled to expect of a reasonably courteous user, but does not do so in a substantial or consistent manner.

If a user flagrantly disregards a well-known rule that has been signposted in the forums for an extended period of time (such as no rep begging), their conduct will amount to a "substantial" failure.

Similarly, if a user ignores warnings for minor infractions and persists with the offending conduct, that conduct can be deemed to constitute a "consistent" failure for the purposes of this method of punishment.

Administrators will not normally take an active role in the day-to-day moderating of the forums - we are forced to devote our time to other tasks that can only be done by us. But if an administrator chooses to disapprove of a post and give negative reputation, it must be in accordance with the above rules.

We think this is fair.

and what does substance and consistancy mean in this quote from Mimai?
"highly offensive posts (both substance and consistancy)"

Minai was describing a scenario where it would be open to the moderators to deduct reputation from a user - where a user’s posts are substantially and/or consistently offensive. Mere swear words or other derogatory remarks would not usually fall within the scope of that scenario, as they would not usually be made in a substantial or consistent manner.

Just saw it and was initially uneasy. Fortunately it's only the Mods who can do it because then you'd get people being silly with it, taking rep away purely because they don't like someone or because someone disagreed with them.

This was exactly the reason for causing the ability to be restricted to moderators.

Simple - if you don't abuse others or generally break the rules much, you should be fine.

This is correct. Most users will be completely unaffected by this system. For others, it is hoped that the possibility of negative reputation will act as a disincentive to degrade the forums.

imagine getting neg repped by laz?! omg you'd loose hundreds of rep points rofl

I did get neg repped by Laz. I think I lost ~100 points.

I don’t think this was fair - not because the negative reputation was unjustified, but because so many points were lost solely due to the fact that it was I who had disapproved and not someone else.

We are currently investigating solutions to this. It may be that a ‘flat penalty’ will be imposed on all users (of, say, 50 points), or a similar variable penalty will be imposed, but variable according to the reputation of the receiver and not that of the giver. For example, users may in future lose 10% of their total reputation points, irrespective of who was disapproving. This has not yet been decided.

The policy assumes that moderators are the best judge of whether someone likes what someone is posting.

This is incorrect.

The policy assumes that moderators are capable of acting in accordance with guidelines.

It also overides the person who has chosen to rep that person because they like them/what they are posting/whatever.

This is incorrect.

It was never our intention for reputation to be given where the content of a post is ‘liked’, and reputation awarded on that basis should never have been given. The reputation system is designed to reward and encourage valuable contributions to the forums.

It also assumes that mods never make bad posts nor are offensive or make poorly thought out decisions.

To negative rep people for being offensive is a bit rich as it places moderators in a position whereby they cannot be offensive. It's hypocritcal considering mods are occasionally offensive.

It also assumes that moderators do never deserve to be negative repped. That moderators never make mistakes.

This is all incorrect.

Moderators can also receive negative reputation. The conduct of moderators is continuously being reviewed by super moderators and administrators. It is always open to users to complain about moderators. None of that has changed.

Users cannot be given reputation for merely “being offensive” - refer to the guidelines above. Those guidelines were described by Minai in the original announcement. All of your assumptions about the assumptions made by the policy are completely wrong.

The rest of your claims were based on similar ‘misunderstandings’ of the precepts underlying the reputation system.

If you were to make it purely objective moderators would not be allowed to post opinion nor would they be allowed to negative rep for someone insulting them or questioning their judgment (to an extent)

If we required moderators to extricate themselves from the forums and refrain from participating in any way, we would have no moderators. However, this is one point you have validly made - it is desirable to have at least some objectivity in such procedures. This is why the administrators, who constitute the final avenue of appeal (simply of necessity), do not typically engage in public discussion. It is unfortunately necessary for me to participate in particular cases such as the present. However, I am only one of four administrators. The others do not have personal ties to the forums in the way that moderators might.

As I have already stated, moderators cannot give negative reputation for mere insults or the expression of alternative perspectives.

so what was glycerine's repeated and continuous breaking of the rules?

It would not be proper for me to enter into a public discussion of the details of glycerine’s case. However, given that you’re unlikely to be satisfied with that sort of statement, and that there appears to be some confusion regarding the application of the altered reputation system, I think an exception is warranted in this case.

The following remarks were made:

moderator: The rep system is neither there as a joke for your entertainment. The rep system has had to undergo these changes purely because of a minority's inability to use it responsibly.

glycerine: do you even listen to yourself think?
like seriously, remove the big cock from your arse, you sound absolutely fucking ridiculous. save the pomp pomp for when you're the queen's assistant or something fuckwit.

Negative reputation can only be given where the user’s conduct “involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of forum etiquette.” The relevant standard is determined according to the conduct that an ordinary person is entitled to expect of a reasonably courteous user.

The reasonably courteous user is not always courteous. But he or she is courteous when it is reasonable to be courteous. All of the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account. The reasonably courteous user might swear and/or make derogatory comments, but, having regard to the comment would not go so far as to as to make the explicit remarks that were made by glycerine. Having regard to the comments made by the moderator, it was reasonable for the user to act courteously. The ordinary person might also expect a reasonably courteous user to be more courteous to a moderator in the performance of his or her duties. But it is not necessary to determine that at this stage.

Each instance is to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I assessed her response as involving a substantial failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of forum etiquette.

I do not think that this produces an unjust or unreasonable outcome.

I have already stated that the penalty of 100 points may have been inappropriate; that is something we are currently investigating. If the system is changed, glycerine may request for her case to be reassessed accordingly. As of the writing of this post, she has commented on the outcome, but has not requested an appeal.

geez, rather than introduce this silly system, just get rid of rep in non-school already like what was said but never acted on.

Due to the way that posts are stored in the database, this is not easy to do. I’m still trying to find a simple solution.

and are we privy to the rules of admin neg repping, or will this practice be subject only to the admin's mysterious workings?

I have described this above.

Every time a mod has an argument with someone on bos, they will abuse this power instead of taking it like a man.

If that occurs, the user should report it and the matter will be dealt with. If it manifests itself as a recurring problem, the moderator will cease to be a moderator.

Warnings and temp bans should be used for troublesome users disobeying the other rules.

Warnings are too easily ignored. We needed something more tangible. Note that warnings have not been abolished. Users will continue to be given warnings as a preliminary step; for example, in the case of minor infractions.

how can it "normalise" if the admins don't follow any set rules about its use?

We do - I don’t know why you’re making this claim.

thanks for clearing that up. just wanted to check whether there was any point expecting this to be anything other than admins acting out personal grudges

I don’t have a grudge against glycerine.

You probably won’t believe that. You probably have a particular image of the person you believe me to be in your head. But we’ve never met, and we really don’t know each other. I’m not the type of guy who holds grudges. Glycerine may create issues for me on the forums, but so do hundreds of other users. I would be a complete idiot to hold grudges against everyone who wreaked havoc on an online forum. It’s to be expected. It’s what people do. Extremely unfortunately, especially when it creates work for me and everyone else, but it’s a fact of life.

I would achieve nothing by holding a grudge against her. I don’t get anything out of it - it’s just not worth the effort.

laz can do what he likes for he is lord and master of the universe of course.

But I choose not to do what I like. I spend a lot of time interviewing moderators and users, trying to create fair and justifiable systems of rules for you people, so that you can’t just claim we’re heartless despots. But you do anyway. I don’t know why. I suppose that’s to be expected as well.

I try to take everyone’s opinions into account, irrespective of whether they are a top-contributing user or whether they seem to do nothing but spam and break the rules. I’m replying to your queries now, as best I can. It has taken me an hour and a half to write what I have written so far. I have no idea whether my explanations will accomplish anything, or whether it will have been just another waste of my time. I can never tell, so I have to do it in case it helps.

The forums aren’t here for me, or for any of the other administrations. I don’t get anything out of them except more work. It’s unpaid work - the technical side of the site sustains itself now, through advertising, but we still don’t get anything. We don’t have enough time to devote to the site to make it as good as it needs to be in order to generate profits. Everything we do is for the users. We are really not out to get you. Why wouldn't we want to make you happy? It would mean less complaints and less work for us! I don't understand why you think so little of us.

I always try to be reasonable. I don’t know what else I can do.

(and who knew he'd be so short??)

I have never heard of 178cm being considered short. But you’re entitled to your opinion.

Why do you post personal attacks? It seems so vindictive.

see, that's what i thought it was, but sunny seems to be saying something different. you say admins do whatever the hell they feel like, sunny says admins have a set plan in order to correct failures in the system (except nobody knows how this plan applies to them, only how it applies to mods)

I hope I have addressed these concerns above.

 

[bubz :D]

thanks for all that work, james

(yes, i read the whole thing)

 

[crazyhomo]

note for the future: make sure the mods who are attempting to answer questions about issues like this all know the same thing. the majority of my confusion came from contradictory statements made by those replying to this thread

ps i wouldn't blame you if you really did hold a grudge against glycerine. she's a bitch

 

[disco inferno]

The following remarks were made:

moderator: The rep system is neither there as a joke for your entertainment. The rep system has had to undergo these changes purely because of a minority's inability to use it responsibly.

glycerine: do you even listen to yourself think?
like seriously, remove the big cock from your arse, you sound absolutely fucking ridiculous. save the pomp pomp for when you're the queen's assistant or something fuckwit.

bravo glycerine, bravo

 

[beccaxx]

I believe the system is fine as long as it is not abused by moderators. This means that it is not used summarily without any consultation and not used when a moderator takes a disgareement personally.

The negative reputation policy against an ordinary user occurs with a mouse click. It is easy. To get someone to give a [legit] claim against a rude or usless mod takes effort. People are not going to take that path.

The system only works if mods can engender respect and that will not mean abusing it.

Power is the ability not to use it.

repped! !!

edit:
i just read lazurus' post. laz, is their any way of reviewing a neg rep thing?

for eg: when babydoll_ neg repped me, i lots about 60 points. then mednez unrepped me on a similar post where i had sed "i think that deserves some rep...lol" he sed in a pm basically he neg repped that post becos baby doll had already neg repped the other post, so he neg repped something else just to punish me double.

i deleted the offending posts but then later in the day realised the one babydoll had neg repped was put back up, and that kimmeh had un-repped it. making me lose about 110 points all up.

i pmed anti about it but he wasnt sure wat to do.

 

[Arvin Sloane]

Maybe one day, after I raise an intelligent point or question, I two will be quoted by Laz.

Hey, I'm just a simple girl from the country, with a big heart.

 

[beccaxx]

She said you were short but at least she credits you with a 'big dick'

.

oh that makes it all worth the insult then.....

 

[klh]

is there a possibility that one or more admin/mod etc can negatively rep someone at once?

unpaid work? you must be really motivated, i think you deserve a round of claps! and i think form most users, really happy that you guts put up and maintain this site. thanks.

 

[jumb]

is there a possibility that one or more admin/mod etc can negatively rep someone at once?

No, because all of the mods can see when someone gets neg. repped.

Anyway, thanks laz, but like I said, I don't like it.

 

[transcendent]

I think it's a great idea. Good work.

 

[MuffinMan]

and what does substance and consistancy mean in this quote from Mimai?
"highly offensive posts (both substance and consistancy)"

thanks in advance

sad to quote myself but i dont think anyone has answered my question

what does both substance and consistency mean
anyone with answers anti? mimai??

 

[MuffinMan]

ok thanks for that
i would rep u but ive given too much out today
maybe later agro

 

[beccaxx]

I'm guessing substance is the actual content of the post - eg, the worse the flaming is, the more likely you'll lose rep.

As for consistency, it's proably how often you do it. Someone like Abu would get heaps for his troubles because most of his posts are flames.

do u remember ur last quote u had? it sed

anybody who sigs beccaxx should get mandatory detention

(or something like that.)

guess wat ur next sig quote that replaced it was by..... ME!!!!!! do u still think u should get mandatory detention????

i <3 u argo. ur just as hypocritical as the rest of us. so thankyou. until then i thought u might hav been the messiah.

 

[Xayma]

No, because all of the mods can see when someone gets neg. repped.

Anyway, thanks laz, but like I said, I don't like it.

Actually that isn't the case. The moderators post when they neg rep someone however it may be the case, that two moderators stumble upon it at the same time and neg rep it twice. In that case it would be worth considering contacting an admin to have it fixed.

There is currently discussion as to ways that can prevent that happening though, and should be very unlikely to occur in the mean time.

 

[Lazarus]

Which comes back to mods using it as a last resort and as not a response to a personal insult. Moderators have extensive powers and should use them without having to appear vindictive and vengeful after a personal assault.

If an insult constitutes a "substantial ... failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of forum etiquette", then it is open to the moderators to give negative reputation to its author - irrespective of to whom the insult was directed. Whether the insult is directed to another user, to another moderator, or to the moderator themselves is completely irrelevant. The only relevant factor is whether the remark satisfies the "substantial" test as described above.

In any event, glycerine's remark actually wasn't directed at me - it was therefore not possible for me to have been abusing my powers in response to a personal attack. The attack was made on someone else.

Please Asquithian, stop trying to rubbish everything we do until you have something to support your claims. It doesn't achieve anything. You are a law student. You should be in a better position than most to understand what we are doing and why, yet you've made no attempt to do so.

edit:
i just read lazurus' post. laz, is their any way of reviewing a neg rep thing?

Yes.

You should first discuss the matter with the moderator who disapproved of your post, and allow them a chance to explain their reasons.

If you are not satisfied with their reasons, and do not believe that they have acted in accordance with the guidelines described above, write to a super moderator or administrator with the details of the matter. The moderator's conduct will be reviewed.

If you have already contacted a super moderator, you should contact an administrator.

sad to quote myself but i dont think anyone has answered my question

what does both substance and consistency mean
anyone with answers anti? mimai??

Your question was the second one that was answered in my (long) post above.