|
Post by Gary on Apr 8, 2007 8:07:47 GMT -5
Based on a brief poll and some (mostly) helpful discussion over in the Debate Lounge, I have a proposal that I would like to hear some constructive feedback around.
The "karma" feature, while basically fun, also has a deeper significance - it allows the mods to see if someone is being disruptive, acting as a troll, or is generally unwelcome. I'm not talking about the "Battle For Jay's Soul" type of thing, but people getting -25 and lower scores.
So, here's my idea.
If someone reaches -25, they receive a 24 hour "time out" from the forum. If they reach -50, it results in a one week break. If it reaches -100, the ban becomes permanent.
What do you think?
|
|
Laura Rice
Senior Forumite
Just full of sass and sunshine!
Posts: 3,264
|
Post by Laura Rice on Apr 8, 2007 8:09:41 GMT -5
I think this is a good idea, Gary.
|
|
|
Post by bignana on Apr 8, 2007 8:30:34 GMT -5
I know that the Battle for Jay was just for fun, but are you saying there is a way to know if it is just for fun or someone is pissed and wants to get someone a timeout or worse banned? If so I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 8, 2007 8:36:05 GMT -5
Bignana, I think it's generally fairly obvious when a karmic thing is for fun and when it is serious. We have a moderator for each category that keeps an eye on things, and four global moderators who keep on on the entire forum - it's not just me that's making the decision.
|
|
Kordax
Senior Forumite
Hank Rearden
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by Kordax on Apr 8, 2007 9:42:23 GMT -5
I think it's generally fairly obvious when a karmic thing is for fun and when it is serious.
This encapsulates the dilemma. When any member (or an organized group of members) can click a plus or a minus karma thing for any reason multiple times a day, it seems to me that it compromises moderators’' overview & judgment & cedes too much authority to anonymous, unexplained mouse clicks ....
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 8, 2007 10:28:47 GMT -5
However, one can only "smite" once per hour at the maximum, Kordax. And wth the combination of moderator overview ("is this person getting smited for a reason?") and the difficulty in focusing on one person, I think it gives us a good guideline.
If someone is obviously an unjust target, karma can be reset to eliminate the problem.
|
|
joedog
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,830
|
Post by joedog on Apr 8, 2007 10:52:15 GMT -5
QUESTIONCan you see who is giving the said smites? If you can you can see if the smiter(s) is having an attack fetish. Seriously there could be coordinated attack upon someone via PM to a few of their friends. Now I do believe a nice little PM from you when a Karma reaches say -15 to -20 just asking whats up along with the "whats gonna happen rule" would also be a good thing. Its AMAZING the attitude change after one of those, King Gary.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 8, 2007 10:56:08 GMT -5
> Can you see who is giving the said smites?
Nope. Your suggestion of a PM question is a good one.
|
|
|
Post by one on Apr 8, 2007 11:21:52 GMT -5
2 days ago I had 8 Karma, today I m at 2.
I have not even been posting, so I know it's just a particular a-hole chipping away at it whenever they get a chance. This same incident can happen to anyone on a larger scale where they are simply the target of someone trying to attack the person of interest, then what....you'll "ban" them?
If karma is supposed to be so much "FUN", GARY...... then why would you use this "fun" to punish individuals? You need to make a decision to use this against people or not because once you punish people for it, it is no longer "fun".
This is an adult internet chat board, not damn high school, turn the stupid feature off.
|
|
joedog
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,830
|
Post by joedog on Apr 8, 2007 11:35:22 GMT -5
I think he may take my PM suggestion to mind. That may just be the safety valve needed to prevent an unjust action. Plus it gives the person in question a chance to defend themselves. "Innocent until proven guilty" If they can convince Gary it is an attack, he has the power to erase the -'s back to ZERO so it is a no loss.
|
|
gdc25
Regular
Mr. IGDS
Posts: 89
|
Post by gdc25 on Apr 8, 2007 11:41:38 GMT -5
Karma?? I really need to visit here more. I need that Smite thing for our IOT deptartment at work!!!
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on Apr 8, 2007 12:19:48 GMT -5
gdc25 exclaimed: I need that Smite thing for our IOT deptartment at work!!! Might come in handy on the SWI Softball board, too. Not saying, just saying.
|
|
Milk
Senior Member
Sweet Brown Liquor God
Sweet Brown Liquor God
Posts: 545
|
Post by Milk on Apr 8, 2007 12:27:51 GMT -5
I don't think the karma feature is an accurate representation of the "worth" of any particular member, except as a measure of how much people are paying attention to him/her. IMO, it should not lead to banning.
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Apr 8, 2007 14:08:21 GMT -5
I'd rather use the karma/smite as a form of entertainment. I might consider looking at the comportment of someone with a negative 45 or so, but I'd not use that as a cause for bannination.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 8, 2007 14:35:14 GMT -5
I don't think that Gary said that he would use it as a cause for banning, but as a cause to look at just why it is so low. I think that sounds like a good idea, since it would then be up to the judgment of the moderators as to what action, if any, is to be taken.
To use One as an example, is his loss a result of a friend having fun, is it a result of a troll "getting even", or is it the result of something he said? I lost one the other day. I think it was a result of one of the womyn not liking my "he's a man, therefore he's guilty" comment, because it was immediately after that that I was smitten. But, if it happened 28 more times, then the moderators can look at it and ask "why?"
|
|
Tookie
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by Tookie on Apr 9, 2007 0:00:23 GMT -5
>>I don't think the karma feature is an accurate representation of the "worth" of any particular member, except as a measure of how much people are paying attention to him/her. IMO, it should not lead to banning.
I agree.
|
|
Longshot! [ Saint ]
Moderator
Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise
I'm the Broken One who Fixes It
Posts: 4,309
|
Post by Longshot! [ Saint ] on Apr 9, 2007 4:55:44 GMT -5
I think it's a bad idea to impose time outs. You have global moderators to monitor spam and liability. When it comes to banning or temporary suspensions, the buck should stop with One Person to avoid Congress-like "Debate on the Obvious" and to not put the global moderators in awkward positions with their typing peers here. They are watchdogs, not management; YOU are management, Gary.
As it has always been and should be: One Geek to Rule Them All.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Apr 9, 2007 7:21:36 GMT -5
Fun - Punishing individuals
There is some conflict between these two?
Maybe they could have to have some sort of 'dunce' avatar?
|
|
ScarlettP
Senior Forumite
Cookie Fairy
Posts: 4,856
|
Post by ScarlettP on Apr 9, 2007 7:32:35 GMT -5
LOL! I like the Dunce Avatar.
If you misbehave, you have to use George Bush as your avatar.
(Or Hillary - or whichever political figure is most disturbing to the 'dunce'.)
|
|
Longshot! [ Saint ]
Moderator
Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise
I'm the Broken One who Fixes It
Posts: 4,309
|
Post by Longshot! [ Saint ] on Apr 9, 2007 9:02:47 GMT -5
WTF? Why not a 'Clinton' avatar?
Lets settle: How 'bout an Al Sharpton Avatar? THEN we talk turkey, yeah?
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 9, 2007 10:42:40 GMT -5
> If you misbehave, you have to use George Bush as your avatar.
Vox Populi has a George Bush avatar.
Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by Christopher on Apr 9, 2007 10:53:32 GMT -5
WTF? Why not a 'Clinton' avatar? Because Clinton was actually a good President. Why do I suddenly feel my karma falling?
|
|
RuneDeer
Senior Forumite
I look pretty young, but I'm just back-dated.
Posts: 2,937
|
Post by RuneDeer on Apr 9, 2007 11:41:24 GMT -5
Robert T. Nash...
|
|
|
Post by footylicious on Apr 9, 2007 11:48:15 GMT -5
I agree that I like the feature just for amusement.
|
|
|
Post by voxpopuli on Apr 9, 2007 15:54:34 GMT -5
Gary, just sack up and use your own judgment and don't give a rats ass about the whiners. It's what you've done all the years anyway, so why would you want some sort of "cover" to do what needs to be done?
And what's wrong with having a George Bush avatar?
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Apr 9, 2007 16:17:46 GMT -5
And we see why Vox has W as an avatar! Isn't that one of W's policies? ;D It wouldn't be easy to find a particular avatar to annoy everyone. That pic of June in uniform maybe
|
|
|
Post by karyotic on Apr 9, 2007 17:52:27 GMT -5
This encapsulates the dilemma. When any member (or an organized group of members) can click a plus or a minus karma thing for any reason multiple times a day, it seems to me that it compromises moderators’' overview & judgment & cedes too much authority to anonymous, unexplained mouse clicks .... Well, I finally found something in common with Kordax. Especially .. "cedes too much authority to anonymous, unexplained mouse clicks."
|
|
|
Post by bluckarma on Apr 9, 2007 18:03:24 GMT -5
Everytime I see karma in a thread title I think what the heck?!
|
|
|
Post by Christopher on Apr 9, 2007 18:56:30 GMT -5
I think I found one.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Apr 9, 2007 19:29:53 GMT -5
Now THAT'S a pic for karmic retribution!
|
|