Discussion: How should we deal with negative karma

[Gary]

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]

I think this is a good idea, Gary.

[bignana]

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.

[Gary]

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]

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 ....

[Gary]

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]

QUESTION
Can 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.

[Gary]

> Can you see who is giving the said smites?

Nope. Your suggestion of a PM question is a good one.

[one]

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]

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]

Karma?? I really need to visit here more. I need that Smite thing for our IOT deptartment at work!!!

[Felix]

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]

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.

[Warkitty]

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.

[el Gusano]

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]

>>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 ]]

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.

[gridbug]

why would you use this "fun" to punish individuals?

Fun - Punishing individuals

There is some conflict between these two?

Maybe they could have to have some sort of 'dunce' avatar?

[ScarlettP]

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 ]]

WTF? Why not a 'Clinton' avatar?

Lets settle: How 'bout an Al Sharpton Avatar? THEN we talk turkey, yeah?

[Gary]

> If you misbehave, you have to use George Bush as your avatar.

Vox Populi has a George Bush avatar.

Just saying...

[Christopher]

longshot said:

WTF? Why not a 'Clinton' avatar?

Because Clinton was actually a good President.



Why do I suddenly feel my karma falling?

[RuneDeer]

Robert T. Nash...

[footylicious]

I agree that I like the feature just for amusement.

[voxpopuli]

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?

[gridbug]

don't give a rats ass about the whiners

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

[karyotic]

kordax said:

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."

[bluckarma]

Everytime I see karma in a thread title I think what the heck?!

[Christopher]

It wouldn't be easy to find a particular avatar to annoy everyone.

I think I found one.

[gridbug]

Now THAT'S a pic for karmic retribution!