Forthcoming changes on Bans & Moderations

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Don't get me wrong here, I agree that while the system is in place, it's childish and stupid to just go rating certain threads 1 star, I just don't see why it's such a big deal to just ignore the fact that the system is there. Like I said, nobody goes into a thread with a preconceived notion that it will be good or bad based on a thread rating - they go into a thread because the thread title has intrigued them. It's not like your 1-star thread are any less of threads than other ones or that people are going to ignore yours and not chat in them because they see that they have 1 star - that's just not what people look for when they when go into threads.

-Spenser

It isn't a big deal, and on a day-to-day basis I personally do ignore. As I said if I didn't, id of lost my sanity, stopped posting news/topics and maybe even have migrated to another community.

I've had one or two outbursts about it back in the day... and almost have left... but those are few and far between, and it's usually when im having a bad day - Eg, other outside influences ****ing me off, which in return makes me grouchy on my visit to Neowin :p

All im saying is it's a flawed system, that can break down certain people and cause more bad than good.

This is an open community, im a member, im someone who falls victim to the ratings, therefore im just making myself heard.

No hostility, not really a complaint, and I understand why nothing has/can be done. Just some feedback for those in power about one area of the board that is being abused.

[Scirwode]

I like the idea, and I'm all for it. Then again, I do have nothing to hide... :shifty: .

Scirwode

[Colin-uk Veteran]

Is this accurate?

Staff dont recieve warnings, they are usually just removed from staff, although this is an admin decision so I cant shed much light on that really.

Yeah I know, I don't tip the iceberg on the matter, as I said, If I see a good opportunity I'll raise the issue.

Everyone reacts differently to topic rating, and if abuse of it continues people who don't normally cause any troube may get defensive/angry over the matter and land themselves a silly warning.

It's victimisation to an extent :/

At least when it's obvious specific individuals go out their way to rate your topics 1-star as for whatever reason they don't like you - Topic ratings are for the topic, not the person.

That's why mods should be able to see whos voting on topics and then THEY can deal with it. Seems sensible to me, community doesn't get involved and everything is done behind the scenes. Of course 1-star rating doesn't = warning, but if a mod can see a trend, or unreasonable rating on someones behalf, they can intervene to ask questions as to why?

Obviously I don't think we can do that yet due to the board limitations, im just saying it would be a nice idea if it could be implemented.

I'm trying to think of ways to keep ratings, rather than just ditch them completely - As they can be useful, and it's always rewarding if you post a good article to see your topic rated in align with your content (Y)

Gives the community a way to show thanks - Other than just posting in the topic itself. As I said ratings outside of the movie section are different, you don't rate a movie topic 5 stars to thank the author for posting the topic if you don't like the movie... but if someone in the GH posts a well written, good article to read, even if you don't totally agree with the article, you can still rate the topic highly for it's merits of discussion and then in WRITING explain in the topic why you don't agree.

While I agree that it would be a good idea for staff to see who rates threads etc.

I think it would be hard to moderate, there is no way to tell if a member is rating a thread out of spite, members could just claim that they based thier ratings on the content of the thread.

Also, I dont think rating threads low is really so bad that users should be warned for it.

[SnowRanger13]

Yeah I can't sleep at night over it....

No, I get peeved off as I get targeted badly, even you'd agree on that. It's a valid criticism of the system on my behalf.

When you put a lot into the community by posting a lot of news, it's disheartening to see your topics get rated like crap. Makes you feel unwelcome.

^

Just an example of how bad it is at times.

That's just my feelings, maybe if you posted as many topics and have as many topics slanted by rating like I do you might feel differently. People trawl the gh and vote my topics 1-star, it's obvious. Of course I'd like to know whos doing it, and im sure the moderators would as well - It's abusing the rating system and frustrating me - Worthwhile of a warning IMO.

And I do ignore it most of the time (or else I wouldn't of continued to post topics), it's just when I get an opening like this, I'll respectfully make my voice heard again.

Incorrect as well, if I really was, others wouldn't have spoken up about the issue of topic rating in the GH either. They have many times.

I hate how your stuff always gets one star. Most of it is news posts from other sites yet they seem to single you out. I don't even try to post news stuff because you beat me to it :p

I know the stars don't represent how good the topic is (like it should) so I still read it and it's not a problem but it's unfair to those that get singled out by other members.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

While I agree that it would be a good idea for staff to see who rates threads etc.

I think it would be hard to moderate, there is no way to tell if a member is rating a thread out of spite, members could just claim that they based thier ratings on the content of the thread.

Also, I dont think rating threads low is really so bad that users should be warned for it.

I addressed that slightly - Obviously you can't have staff going gung-ho and warning for any 1-star rate, but following up on trends wouldn't be hard - Especially when IMO it's obvious in the GH a small select crew are the ones doing it.

If you see the image I posted a page or two back with every topic I posted on a page 1-star (about 7-8?)... and for example if ONE member done all of that, I'd say that was slightly suspicious to be put into the "I didn't like the content" speech from a member.

Especially if the vote is timestamped and the Moderator can see all the votes came within a few minutes - Hardly enough time to read and decide on the content of a topic.

Therefore IMO that kind of voting is out of spite, and abusing a system in a way it isn't supposed to be used.

Also, I dont think rating threads low is really so bad that users should be warned for it.

It causes a bit of grief in the community, especially in the GH where it can fuel erruptions due to people "fighting" with each other, and accusing others of being "fanboys".

Maybe not a typical 20% warn, but you can maybe verbally warn a member not to trawl and 1 star rate if they can't reasonably justify why they are doing it.

[Farstrider]

Thanks Colin:

Staff dont recieve warnings, they are usually just removed from staff, although this is an admin decision so I cant shed much light on that really.

Do these people then automatically become veterans? I have seen a few times that people who have barely been here for any length of time, have become mods, then are very quickly "demoted" to veteran! Some disappear altogether! I can think of one person who had lots of flames in his sig! Is he still here? I cannot recall seeing him for a while!

[Colin-uk Veteran]

Hmm, I guess trends over a period of time would be easier to moderate :) im not sure ratings have timestamps though.

Do these people then automatically become veterans? I have seen a few times that people who have barely been here for any length of time and have become mods and then very quickly get "demoted" to veteran! Some disappear altogether! I can think of one person who had lots of flames in his sig! Is he still here? I cannot recall seeing him for a while!

Its down to the admins on wheather ex-staff become veterans or not.

I dont remember any ex/staff with flaming in thier sig :p

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

It's victimisation to an extent :/

It isn't a big deal, and on a day-to-day basis I personally do ignore. As I said if I didn't, id of lost my sanity, stopped posting news/topics and maybe even have migrated to another community.

I understand what you're saying. I've got some low ratings on my profile and it did bother me at first because I had no idea why it was happening. But now I just gave up caring about it, it's easier than worrying about it. It just seems there are people here who like to rate people and threads a 1. Not exactly the way I'd like to see things, but I don't know it's worth the effort the mods bothering about it. Although if they could devise a way to track 'habitual' 1-starrers, then that would be interesting.

I do think this 'exposure' of 40%+ people is an excellent idea. One thing I did wonder though. Imagine you've got a member at 100% and people know he is a 'loose cannon' and someone tries to get him angry to make him post something that will get him banned. It's a possibility. I guess the mods would analyse the situation to determine if that member was 'baited' to a ban, when it might not have happened if the baiter didn't know that member's warn level.

[Farstrider]

Its down to the admins on wheather ex-staff become veterans or not.

I dont remember any ex/staff with flaming in thier sig :p

Ha ha, Ok thanks! You DO know who I am referring to! :laugh:

[Coldgunner]

I do think this 'exposure' of 40%+ people is an excellent idea. One thing I did wonder though. Imagine you've got a member at 100% and people know he is a 'loose cannon' and someone tries to get him angry to make him post something that will get him banned. It's a possibility. I guess the mods would analyse the situation to determine if that member was 'baited' to a ban, when it might not have happened if the baiter didn't know that member's warn level.

the user with 100% warning should have learned to keep their cool and report any possible baiting

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

the user with 100% warning should have learned to keep their call and report any possible baiting

Good point, and he'd probably get banned at some point anyway without anyone 'helping' him.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I understand what you're saying. I've got some low ratings on my profile and it did bother me at first because I had no idea why it was happening. But now I just gave up caring about it, it's easier than worrying about it. It just seems there are people here who like to rate people and threads a 1. Not exactly the way I'd like to see things, but I don't know it's worth the effort the mods bothering about it. Although if they could devise a way to track 'habitual' 1-starrers, then that would be interesting.

I do think this 'exposure' of 40%+ people is an excellent idea. One thing I did wonder though. Imagine you've got a member at 100% and people know he is a 'loose cannon' and someone tries to get him angry to make him post something that will get him banned. It's a possibility. I guess the mods would analyse the situation to determine if that member was 'baited' to a ban, when it might not have happened if the baiter didn't know that member's warn level.

Yeah im sure the situation would have to be looked at.

To be fair though, if you're on 100% warning and are a "loose cannon", you yourself do have a bit of responsibility to have a rain check, realise where you are and not even go slightly down the path of entertaining those who plan to rile you up.

Instant report and sit back and watch those who are purposely trying to bait you, come and join you at 100% or start their journey to 100% ;)

[Colin-uk Veteran]

Ha ha, Ok thanks! You DO know who I am referring to! :laugh:

no idea :rofl:

[Rappy Veteran]

Hmm, I guess trends over a period of time would be easier to moderate :) im not sure ratings have timestamps though.

Its down to the admins on wheather ex-staff become veterans or not.

I dont remember any ex/staff with flaming in thier sig :p

You do but you must not of speak of him/her :p

[Guest jgrodri]

I think there is one fatal flaw in the whole idea:

you do realize you are displaying the warn level of an internet forum to people we will never actually meet, right?

why would anyone actually be embarrassed of their warning level, specially when so many people have expressed how disappointed they are with the way things are handled? even more to it it is far more likely to sprout a feeling of immature pride of having a high warning level.... everyone loves a rebel.

I, for one, have clearly expressed how much i disagree with some of the wanings i've received. There are some I earned for myself and i do regret my behavior but i am ashamed of the way I acted, i couldn't really care any bit less about having a 20%+ show on some profile on an internet board or what some random person on the internet might think of me.

The idea is noble one, but it will not result in what you want it to. you cant enforce maturity and i'd expect the moderators and administrators to know that.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I think there is one fatal flaw in the whole idea:

you do realize you are displaying the warn level of an internet forum to people we will never actually meet, right?

why would anyone actually be embarrassed of their warning level, specially when so many people have expressed how disappointed they are with the way things are handled? even more to it it is far more likely to sprout a feeling of immature pride of having a high warning level.... everyone loves a rebel.

I, for one, have clearly expressed how much i disagree with some of the wanings i've received. There are some I earned for myself and i do regret my behavior but i am ashamed of the way I acted, i couldn't really care any bit less about having a 20%+ show on some profile on an internet board or what some random person on the internet might think of me.

The idea is noble one, but it will not result in what you want it to. you cant enforce maturity and i'd expect the moderators and administrators to know that.

If you like to hold an aura of respect for your online handle, you will be embarrased to an extent. I use my handle Audioboxer on a fair few sites, and if I became disliked/banned on one community, people would probably recognize my name on other communities and go "hey look, that's the guy who's a jackass from Neowin!".

Of course a lot of us will never meet who we speak to, but over time you bond to a community and become "friends" with people online.

It may not be the same friendship as one which exists in "real life", but it's still a friendship - One which you won't want to ruin through being a dumb ass and getting banned/warned.

Therefore a lot of people do take pride in being a model member of a community, and would feel "embarrased" or let down to know others can see they have broken rules/been a pain in the ass - Which in return will give these people who have made a slip up or two a reason not to again.

Not everyone will like this change, but it's one for the better. You can't always please 100% of a message board (especially one of this size), but if you please the majority you're doing good and will attract more signups.

I'd love to meet everyone I speak to on here, but it's not viable - I ain't flying halfway around the world and back :p

even more to it it is far more likely to sprout a feeling of immature pride of having a high warning level.... everyone loves a rebel.

The path of a rebel is short lived, one which might boost you into fame for a few days, but a few weeks later you're forgotten about.

Rule abiding, contributing members are remembered for years :p And on Neowin rewarded through the MVC scheme.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Veedems Veteran]

I think there is one fatal flaw in the whole idea:

you do realize you are displaying the warn level of an internet forum to people we will never actually meet, right?

why would anyone actually be embarrassed of their warning level, specially when so many people have expressed how disappointed they are with the way things are handled? even more to it it is far more likely to sprout a feeling of immature pride of having a high warning level.... everyone loves a rebel.

I, for one, have clearly expressed how much i disagree with some of the wanings i've received. There are some I earned for myself and i do regret my behavior but i am ashamed of the way I acted, i couldn't really care any bit less about having a 20%+ show on some profile on an internet board or what some random person on the internet might think of me.

The idea is noble one, but it will not result in what you want it to. you cant enforce maturity and i'd expect the moderators and administrators to know that.

The idea is to explain to people why members get banned. We get a lot of crap for banning members from people who have no information, whatsoever, about what really went on. We're automatically pegged as the bad guys just because we ban someone with 19 (yes, literally, 19) warnings on their account. It's absolutely ridiculous and I'm glad this is going to happen. IMO, let the morons get exposed as such. I'm sure as hell tired of getting crap thrown on me because someone else can't control their posting habits.

[evo_spook]

Explain why members get banned?

hmmm,

REASON FOR BANNING:

Mod has sense of humour bypass.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Explain why members get banned?

hmmm,

REASON FOR BANNING:

Mod has sense of humour bypass.

Colin-uk has this -> in his sig.

I laughed.

[Draconian Guppy]

ah man, now peoplez is gonna know my warn level is @ 150% and i'm not banned :p

The improvements sound good, maybe this way, we'll stop getting some harsh comments, since some people, are very rude.

(Y)(Y)

As my 6th grade teacher would say "Keep up the good work!"

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

You see - the thing is, anyone can bitch about mods all they want, but it's walking a thin line, as one rule is to not openly question moderation. And what will it achieve?

And to be fair, I got raped by the warn stick, but I enjoyed it ;)

[metallithrax]

Colin-uk has this -> in his sig.

I laughed.

It's a self portrait he did, didn't you know? :laugh:

[Rappy Veteran]

Colin-uk has this -> in his sig.

I laughed.

Cheerleader ftw! :p

I am at 20% warn so even the nicest members get in trouble now and again.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It's a self portrait he did, didn't you know? :laugh:

[Mathachew Veteran]

The idea is to explain to people why members get banned. We get a lot of crap for banning members from people who have no information, whatsoever, about what really went on. We're automatically pegged as the bad guys just because we ban someone with 19 (yes, literally, 19) warnings on their account. It's absolutely ridiculous and I'm glad this is going to happen. IMO, let the morons get exposed as such. I'm sure as hell tired of getting crap thrown on me because someone else can't control their posting habits.

I figured this was likely the biggest reason behind this move, specially after that drunk guy was banned... ok, maybe he wasn't drunk, but I'm sure we know of whom I speak of.