Ah yeah, that's a whole 'nother ball of yarn. If that's so, then it's a limitation of the code and nothing we can do about. Which sucks you know what. One bad apple...Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkyFinn
Printable View
Ah yeah, that's a whole 'nother ball of yarn. If that's so, then it's a limitation of the code and nothing we can do about. Which sucks you know what. One bad apple...Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkyFinn
This is exactly the kind of clarification I've been wanting to see this whole thread, and I thank you for it. We don't get to see what's behind the scenes, and this kind of context is necessary for a lot of us to understand the decision a little better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
I am pretty sure it isn't possible. I looked into it when we were discussing the removal, and couldn't see any way to prevent comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by xc3ss1v30n3
They can be required or they can be optional, but they can't be disabled.
Is it possible to restrict use of the FRS altogether below certain thresholds? Rep given by new or unreputable members already holds no weight, so I feel very little would be lost, and we'd be able to have our cake and eat it too with comments and downvotes. I'm not excited about disabling comments, as I feel that seriously neuters the system, but I guess it's better than no downvotes at all
But who is to say that reputable members who’ve been around the forum block a few times always used it correctly and weren’t also involved in spreading the toxicity ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiler
And if this were theoretical possible we need to exclude new members from receiving reputation. Receiving negative reputation from a few keyboard warriors who are experienced around here isn’t what I’d call a warm welcome.
Certain types of holes which are found in the dictionary under the letter A are found in all echelons of society.
I agree with the latter point (shielding new forum users from receiving neg rep in addition to disallowing them from giving rep either positive or negative). Basically, if they post once and disappear then there is no sense in giving them rep because they are already gone. Let them join the community before they start getting a, "reputation." Plus, let's face it, everyone is new at one point or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaptain Kat
As to the former point... I think that once a person has crossed a certain threshold (arbitrary number is arbitrary), if they use negative rep to spread toxicity, I think the ban hammer is more keenly felt than on someone that literally just created their account. Ie., if someone has had to go through the motions to post, say, 100 posts (again, completely arbitrary number), getting their account banned means all of that time getting their post count up is wasted. It would, hopefully, help cut down on the report that would have to be investigated. It would also, hopefully, cut down on the alleged (because I have no data but I've seen it brought up in this thread) creation of mini accounts to give negative rep/spread toxicity, since they would have to get its post count up before they could initiate their diabolical plan.
Nothing is perfect. Nothing ever is. But I do think Tiler's thought, along with your caveat, has some merit to look in to further.
Yes, but this stops the burner accounts from doing it. I won't ask for details, but I'd bet that if new accounts are showing up to leave downvotes on people's profiles, it's to protect their main account. If they have no alternative other than to use their main account, then they're easily subject to infractions/suspensions/bans. Or they stop. And if it is established forumers doing it already, then I fail to see how disabling downvoting solves the problem when upvoting, PMs, VMs, or even regular forum posts are all viable means of abuse. Their name is attached to everything they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaptain Kat
Whether you have 3 or 3003 posts to your name, all types of forumers break the rules. Otherwise there’d be no need for moderators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaptain Kat
And the only people who can answer your question is the mod squad. If it’s long term members, let em have what’s coming to them. But I believe Lach said earlier it was new accounts.
We’re getting a little far away from the original point though.
Having access to something like a reputation system based on post count is not a good idea even if it’s technically possibly.
Lach only lifted a very tiny bit of a curtain behind which a lot of trouble is lurking when he mentioned the newer account issue as one of the examples. Because I’ll repeat what’s been said a lot of times already. We see much more and there are reasons why some things are kept deliberately vague. Sorry but we have no choice we too have to live by the forum rules and can’t go into specifics leading to name shames or can’t go into specifics for the very same reasons a bank doesn’t post the security access codes for their vaults online.
Well, I mean...it solves the problems Lach outlined. If people are abusing fresh spawn with it, then give 'em what for. And we don't allow members' votes to count below a certain post count or rep anyway, so they might as well already not have access to the tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaptain Kat
But I'll concede. If there's significantly more to the problem than what we're able to be told, then it is what it is, I guess. I can't try to come up with a solution to a problem if I only understand part of the problem, so I'll go with removing downvoting as being the best solution available. I won't say I like it though; the solution (given what we have now), nor the lack of relatable information.