Negative reputation (2 Viewers)

[MuffinMan]

Hi i just saw the new implementation
so there is negative reputation now right
o wellz i dont flame ppls or beg for reptation etc...so i should b safe right??
hope this isnt because of mattycoss

 

[MuffinMan]

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

thanks in advance

 

[absolution*]

i dont get it? where do i click?

 

[MuffinMan]

its in the announcements

 

[absolution*]

dammit. i wanna start neg repping right now!

 

[absolution*]

ahhh crappy..

 

[MuffinMan]

o so howd i know that i'll be safe??
like i dont flame and stuff like that but i still feel uneasy

 

[Jazz Man Tim]

quadriple. oh yikes
would neg rep come under your user cp?

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

 

[MuffinMan]

yup im here to help
*extremely helpful member*

 

[glycerine]

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

 

[MuffinMan]

i only rep ppls who deserve it i.e. constructive posts

 

[stainmepink]

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

harsh ... so harsh

 

[glycerine]

all I did was tell sunny to stop being such a pompous arse. I stand by my comment. I've had people make much more offensive comments to me

 

[AsyLum]

The logic of it is a bit sus.

1. We started with negative reps

2. Negative reps where taken away for good reason.

3. Some members ended up with masses of rep which the moderators, I assume, believe the people did not 'deserve'. I also feel this had been brought about based on the idea that groups of people tend to rep eachother.

4. Negative reps for moderators are brought back.

-------------

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

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

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

If this policy is based on the notion of groups repping eachother it should not be forgotten that certain people tend to rep certain people because they like the posts that that person makes. You can't make policy to control the reasons why people may give the same person rep often.

The policy of negative reps in this context should only be used in extreme circumstances such as rep begging. 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. Rep trading is another thing. Considering that in the early stages of the rep system moderators were doing it anyways.

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

Also it assumes that moderators can best judge what infringes the forums rules. This is a subjective thing. It would result in inconsistancy. The power is also unchecked. Moderators therefore should not be invovled in debates where opinion is invovled. Clashes of opinion in a heated way could result in negative reps.

---------

It's not a bad thing as long as it is not abused by the moderators. I wonder if I get nagative rep for this post

You wont get neg repped as long as you dont break the rules, continuously and repeatedly.

Each decision is discussed, evidence of the offending post, of other mediums of conciliation, and a thorough investigation as to past deeds.

Additionally, mods are not shrouded behind a veil, and are accountable for their actions.

We are being moderated, by those higher than us, and if you feel an injustice has been done, im sure people would be willing to hear your argument out. But like i said, it is a last ditch thing, rather than a close thread reaction.

Be aware that we are just as accountable for our actions as you are, even more so in most cases.

Your arguments based upon the whole "fallacy that moderators think they are better judges" is just as easily countered by saying, the mere language and communications of human society is merely one biased though perceived and interpreted and then reinterpreted, such as that there is no such thing as a purely objective being, does that then mean that laws and rules abolished, for who are judges to tell us about such things?

 

[AsyLum]

Well thats the bad point of negative rep.

It's very subjective and puts moderators above criticism. Some people deserve to be flamed and put in their place. Some moderators say stupid things and deserved to be flamed or told that they were acting badly.

You do more by engendering an environment of respect than using larger sticks. It just results in resentment and a lack of respect.

Again, so putting neg-reps to the masses would mean that of course, the masses would have a more effective and thus non-subjective stance upon this "criticism."

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.

Your anology with judges is poor. It takes 30 years to be a judge.

So experience thus makes a judge infallible?

 

[glycerine]

yeh if I'd made more than what, 1 blatant flaming post then yeh fair enough. but 100 points for 1 post? people have said much worse than that to me on here.

i personally think either everyone has neg rep or no one does. i'm all for people having neg rep-i don't know of any other forums with this system.

 

[AsyLum]

You said that by placing such power on mods, we are "above criticism", as such, if the power was unlocked to the masses to neg-rep, they too would be above criticism no?

Because of course, no one criticises and complains about mods on here

 

[AsyLum]

No, thats why there are things called 'courts of appeal'

And thus your argument is defeated.

We are humans, we are subjective of course, but what makes a moderator a better "judge" is that we go through a process, we are held accountable and there are avenues of "appeal" if you wish to contest the decision.

 

[AsyLum]

You wont get neg repped as long as you dont break the rules, continuously and repeatedly.

Each decision is discussed, evidence of the offending post, of other mediums of conciliation, and a thorough investigation as to past deeds.

Additionally, mods are not shrouded behind a veil, and are accountable for their actions.

We are being moderated, by those higher than us, and if you feel an injustice has been done, im sure people would be willing to hear your argument out. But like i said, it is a last ditch thing, rather than a close thread reaction.

Be aware that we are just as accountable for our actions as you are, even more so in most cases.

Sorry, i thought i told you of the process for such de-repping.

 

[AsyLum]

Dear Bored of Studies Members,

The administrations have recently given all moderators the ability to give negative reputation to members that "substantially and/or consistantly" break the rules of this forum. Examples of such behaviour include: consistant "rep begging", highly offensive posts (both substance and consistancy) and flaming other members.

Again like i said it is a repeated defect, and this used as a last ditch.