Rep Trolls Beware!

Because a lot of people weren't treating it as a fun little game.

I've cracked before about the Windows Fanatics that left rep, but it really wasn't a joke. Most of the neg-rep I got was extremely vulgar and directly insulting. I comments that were censored by the forums filtering software, posted by people deliberately trying to get around the forum rules. I even, I think, coined the term hell-reppers to describe players on the forum whose only intent seemed to be to negative rep and insult anybody who said anything they disagreed with.

Much like Bill though, I'm going to speak my mind. I am going to say what I think is true, and what I think is right. I'm not going to say something I don't believe, or say something I think is outright wrong or a lie just to please somebody who can push a button and leave a cutesy little comment.

So like Bill, I highly doubt that the reputation system actually changed, or modified, anybody's behavior. Even those that got slammed with Negative rep because they posted flame-bait threads generally have held to their guns on their arguments. Just look at the various Lets Merge the Server threads.

Another aspect is the limitations on how often you can negative rep somebody. Now, I know what rep comments I got on what posts, and I know that for the most part, every time I got neg-repped on a post, I got positive repped as well by somebody saying I wish I had the guts to say that in the forums, or your asking for lightning, but somebody had to say it.

Given the way some of the neg-rep comments were delivered, I suspect that much of the neg-rep I got was coming from maybe 4 or 5 repeat players. Given that I also know that you can rep so often in 24 hours, and that you can only rep somebody once before having to rep other people, that suggests that the hell-reppers were actively going around repping other people, or repping themselves, so that they could neg-rep a particular player.

***

Another aspect is that the rep system discouraged players from actually participating in a thread. By removing the ability to conveniently leave comments, there is an aspect that the forum mods could be moving people to actually post in the thread and stay involved.

You could treat searching through your posts to see what rep you got as an Easter Egg hunt.

I do.

I'm probably one of the harsher posters on the forum. I know that, and I don't particularly regret it. I think it has its uses. However, I may not always channel that at the right times and the right people. I've received feedback that made me think about that, and consider whether my tone, content or even need to respond were appropriate. All the time? Certainly not, and perhaps surprisingly, most of the rep I've received has been positive. But the system has undoubtedly influenced me, even if it's been slight.

Obviously, getting frivolous comments attached to either positive or negative rep don't really count as feedback and have no such effect. Not everyone used the system that way, though.

I assure you that when I post something, unless I qualify it with the fact that I am uncertain about what I'm posting, I am supremely confident in my statements and position. That includes when I'm telling someone off. It doesn't always mean I'm right.

I think we all understand the disadvantages of anonymous comments. One of the advantages is that people clearly felt quite free about being able to tell you what they thought of a post without having to argue it in the thread they saw it in, probably as a thread-jack. I actually got useful, informative feedback probably about 1/3 of the time. Who knows, maybe that's because I actually try to make informative if not always useful posts, even when I'm being argumentative.

I'm so very glad that you are so aware of all the human opinions you might encounter, and/or so certain of their invalidity, that you can consider everyone's ability to comment on your posts to compare to the ability of a blind man to judge a drawing. Personally, I consider that insufferable of you. I think that's pretty notable, because I think I can be pretty damn insufferable myself.

Of course all the feedback isn't worth while. I don't think I'd grace most threads or even most posts on this forum as worth while. That doesn't mean we should just shut down the forums. Nor does a lack of consistently awesome feedback mean the feedback system should be made completely non-functional (yet still enabled). In my opinion it should either be functional or disabled.

Yes. Work should always be fun. It's not like they get paid for it or anything

I liked Je Saists idea of a postive only rep, so you can tell someone that you liked there post. Personally that's the way I was using Rep anyway. Anything I disagreed with I was happy to do within the thread itself rather than hiding behind some anonymous (why did ye make it anonymous Mods?) system.

Although the large majority of positive comments I've gotten have been merely appreciating my avatar, I agree with you anyway. I actually have gotten a few reps laughing at my jokes or telling me I make sense, which is a good feeling. By and large I'm a centrist about most issues, able to see both sides, and usually I act as diplomat. My more out-there beliefs have very little place on a forum like this, and I don't feel the need to spout them.

Oddly though, I've only received a few negatives, and not one of those ever said WHY. Heaven knows I make plenty of jokes that land with a clunk, resounding loudly in their failure, yet I've never been called out about those. I actually like to hear what works and what doesn't, and when I'm just a jerk I appreciate being told to shut up too, believe it or not. Trust me, I can be quite whiny and angry and generally unpleasant, though usually I'm all too aware that no one wants to hear it, so I do my best to stay away from ANY interaction. My family and friends get enough of it without me annoying the world as well.

Seriously though, I turned off my rep when this thread was only up to page 2. I'd already been thinking about it, since to me it's little more than advertising "Someone likes me!", at best. Then I notice that it loses even that dubious benefit when compared to the people who're just repping each other over and over. What the hell is the point of something if you can't tell the genuinely helpful people, those who provide guides and actual services for the community, from the ones who're engaging in a back-scratching contest for teh lulz? Useless.

And that's the difference between you and me Primal.

Inclined to agree. I've banged on about the use of the Thank Option as it's implemented on Mepislovers.org. I think if the moderators were actually serious about using the forum tools they would go with a similar or identical approach... because it works.

One potential problem is that because of both corporate and player interference, I don't think the moderators can actually be serious in the application of various tools or features available to the vBulletin system. Where as over on Mepislovers, if somebody is an outright troll, we can ban their IP address and wave bai bai. I'm not positive, but I don't think our moderators can actually perma-ban any account without a court order.

There are also certain expectations of the playerbase. Some players only pay because they can grief, cause trouble, or just be jerks. Although proving that these players need to be removed, permanently, is easy to other players, due to complex reasonings such players generally can't be removed without, again, pretty much getting a court order.

Part of me really does feel sorry for the mods here. They pretty much have to deal with the community with their hands wrapped in fuzzy soft fingerless mittens and held behind their backs with equipment designed for Mother Mayhem's bondage costume line.

You add a lot. You can be a disagreeable...guy...sometimes, but overall you being here is better than you not being here.

The Devs can and have permanently banned folks without fear of trespassing any criminal code. Can they be sued over it? Yes, you can sue over anything. Will the suit have a chance of winning? Nope -- most likely be thrown out of court.

AMEN +REP LOLS +1

That's preferable to leaving a comment that the person can actually find apparently, so I guess we're back to the old "90% of posts are unreadable agreements with someone else in the thread" version of the forums.

qf+r

What makes sense is not implementing a system that anyone who's ever spent more than five minutes on a forum knows will be "controversial" (read: thin skinned users will cry about), and that the documentation TELLS YOU OUTRIGHT will be problematic. Heck, they disabled giving players stars on the OLD forums...could that possibly have been a hint about how rep would play out?

As someone who admins a busy forum, I understand the behind-the-scenes work that goes into keeping paying customers in line. If you don't want the bother of maintaining a system, don't turn it on. Especially when it comes wrapped in yellow CAUTION tape with a big warning label on the latch.

Bad decisions, crummy logic and lazy behavior deserve approbation whatever corner of the community they emanate from.

Yes it has. I'm actually a lot nicer and more helpful than ever. It has nothign to do with the little red dots but more to do with how poorly I was representing myself to the community. Some of the comments people left helped me realized I wasn't being a helpful poster and since I like the boards and this game, I decided to change my behavior from full time a$$hat to part time a$$hat.

Not how I would have put it, but yea.

Player sues Sony after being banned from PlayStation Network
If you see some of the Youtube videos this guy who's raising this lawsuit about Sony, you would immediately say, "I'd ban his butt too!"

Nuff said.

On another note, Why the knee-jerk reaction mods? seriously? the rep system has a miraid of options allowing the complete inability to neg rep anybody WITHOUT removing the comments.
Take it from someone who has used the vbulletin system from version 1.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.
'Approbation' means approval.
I think you meant 'opprobrium'.

They can and have. No one has any right to these forums - they aren't included in any service agreement. Moreover, the game's admins can remove someone's ability to play for any reason whatever. People have actually been banned from both the game and forums for inappropriate behavior in the past.

Edit: I just read the linked article about the guy who got banned from the PS3 network. He's actually claiming that this infringes his first amendment rights and additionally causes him "pain and suffering" because agoraphobia means his PS3 is his primary means of social interaction. I can barely imagine a stronger cocktail of fail, and any judge who lets that get beyond the most preliminary stages is a moron. There are grounds you can successfully sue a gaming for if you can convince the judge/jury they played out certain ways - the above should not be two of them.

This. With all the ***** fests about the MA commenting and voting system (and the tweaks made to it to stop 0 staring) and stars system on the old forums (which they disabled cause once again SHOCKINGLY folks abused the hell out of it), I /faceplamed upon seeing them try a similar system a THIRD time.

Anyone who's been here long enough could have told them how it would turn out.

And yet again here we are, having been proven right about how when you give folks the ability to anonymously rate and spew garbage at one another folks WILL abuse it.

It wasn't rocket science to see how this would turn out.

EDIT: FULL DISCLOSURE: I've longed turned off my rep and ability to see comments, so I didn't care if the system existed. However, I predicted that the system WOULD generate epic amounts of more work for them with them having to eventually turn it off.

A system more benign (star system) was in place on the old forums back in the day, without comments.

Adding said system back, WITH comments (which always works soooo well with the MA system--sarcasm if you didn't catch that) was bound to generate more work for them, with people deliberately acting like idiots.

Comments like this surprise me.

Folks are actually saying that the FLAME WARS and pages of arguments with other posters (in some instances years of this), wasn't even a SMALL hint that folks should change their behavior? But an anonymous commenting system was? BWAH?

It's even more surprising coming from more veteran posters.

*scratches head*

EDIT: I'm specifically addressing the part I've bolded above. Folks, people were probably ALREADY posting that so and so wasn't being helpful NON ANONYMOUSLY. Someone needs to explain it to me.

Most times posters would just report my posts or start a flame war. There was RARELY someone calm enough to point out why my post was in poor taste. I have many comments in my CP from people that state calmly/rationally why my post was negative. And in most cases, they are right.

You are only assuming people were ALREADY posting that. From my experience, no they were NOT.