Idea: Reputation System, Anti-Troll Gun Options

[Uronacid]

Recently I have become upset with a very specific member. I gave this member a percentage of my time, and in return they pissed me off. There has been a sudden increase in annoying members here on cB. This sudden increase of annoying members has had me thinking of a solution. I was thinking about how to make this place better. We obviously can't ban these annoying people for good. Technically they aren't breaking any rules, but suddenly it hit me. A reputation system. What if I could know there reputation before they pissed me off. If I knew what to expect then they wouldn't have bothered me in the first place.

A Reputation System

Xbox Live has a reputation system. You can give feedback on each gamer you come across, and their reputation will precede them on whatever game they play. This way, when you come across someone with a bad reputation, you'll know what to expect. You don't waste your time with people you know are a waste of time. Can you imagine if create blog had a system like this one? Trolls will loose their touch because members will know whether or not to give them the time of day.

Official members of the community would have the ability to vote on each post that a member makes within one week of the day that they posted it. Similar to the "report" button, you could have a "feedback" button. You would click this button and rate the post based on a number of positive and negative choices:

• Negative Examples:
  • Racist
  • Bad Language
  • Annoying
  • Mean
• Positive Examples:
  • Helpful
  • Funny
  • Nice
  • Open-Minded

The votes would tally up, and members of the community could view any member's reputation based on the percentages of the last 1000 votes. We obviously can't do anything like this yet, it would have to wait for mivron, but what do you think of this idea?

[freeflow]

I think its a good idea overall. The only thing I would see as a bad part is people teaming up to vote negative on a certain person.

[Uronacid]

I think its a good idea overall. The only thing I would see as a bad part is people teaming up to vote negative on a certain person.

Yeah, but that's why you would have to vote on a post within 7 days of it's creation (It might be good to have it so they can only vote withing the first 24 hours of that posts creation). That way people wouldn't be running around from topic to topic voting on old posts.

The ganging up thing wouldn't be bad if people got into the swing of voting. They would vote as posts came. I think that votes would even out. People would only gang up on members who are ultra annoying.

[MissHygienic]

I'm not sure if you're directing this more at the staff, but I've been pretty active on this forum for the past 2.5 weeks, and I personally think that this idea seems like a pain in the ass. It's appropriate for XBox because serious players don't want to play with jerk-offs and so they have that reputation system. But a forum? I don't see any need for all of us to go out of our way to vote negatively or positively for every some other post.

We're in no way being forced to handle these annoying people or people who ask relatively dumb questions. We can leave the topic alone, and that should already be an incentive for "trolls" to troll elsewhere, and not on CreateBlog. Instead, we're responding and fueling the fire by answering their questions which encourages them to create more and more posts. That's probably the reason why.

I know what you mean by the negative examples, but bad language and being mean? That would make this forum into some kiss-ass, happy-go-lucky, sweet-family type of forum, and that'd be essentially unappealing to everyone.

[freeflow]

Good point. Sounds good then at least to me. (referring to Josh)

Edit// I don't think the overall point is to turn this board into a goody-goody place but rather to give feedback on the members. And ^ said yes people could simply not reply to there threads but do you see how many people are on this forum? Seriously no matter one someone is going to reply to their topic and it gets going from there.

Really I don't see how this could hurt at all.

[MissHygienic]

Edit// I don't think the overall point is to turn this board into a goody-goody place but rather to give feedback on the members. And ^ said yes people could simply not reply to there threads but do you see how many people are on this forum? Seriously no matter one someone is going to reply to their topic and it gets going from there.

Really I don't see how this could hurt at all.

I'm not saying that it's the point to change the forum into a nicer, caring community. I'm saying that if there were restrictions to everything we say, then what purpose would subsections like The Lounge serve? Who's to judge what's mean? A few members could interpret my posts with some of the things I've said as rude, and other people may not agree. How is one supposed to regulate this? Am I going to get a bad reputation because of saying a few "f**ks" and "shits" because perhaps it offends new members?

Or, hypothetically, it is without a doubt that the older members here will cut themselves and their friends slack, even if they do spam, as opposed to new members. I think this would cause some injustice.

[Uronacid]

I'm not sure if you're directing this more at the staff, but I've been pretty active on this forum for the past 2.5 weeks, and I personally think that this idea seems like a pain in the ass. It's appropriate for XBox because serious players don't want to play with jerk-offs and so they have that reputation system. But a forum? I don't see any need for all of us to go out of our way to vote negatively or positively for every some other post.

We're in no way being forced to handle these annoying people or people who ask relatively dumb questions. We can leave the topic alone, and that should already be an incentive for "trolls" to troll elsewhere, and not on CreateBlog. Instead, we're responding and fueling the fire by answering their questions which encourages them to create more and more posts. That's probably the reason why.

I know what you mean by the negative examples, but bad language and being mean? That would make this forum into some kiss-ass, happy-go-lucky, sweet-family type of forum, and that'd be essentially unappealing to everyone.

I'm not directing this at staff at all. I'm directing this at the community. I believe it would reduce the amount of drama tremendously.

You wouldn't be forced to vote. It would be entirely up to you. If you were effected positively by a member then you might want to do them a favor and give them some positive feedback. However, if someone is bugging you then you would be able to anonymously give them some bad feed back so the next member will know what to expect and be less frustrated with an obnoxious post.

It's more unrealistic to expect everyone to ignore trolls that they don't know are trolls than to ignore trolls that can visibly see are trolls.

Also, this is just the brain storming stage of this idea. Those obviously wouldn't be the actual choices you would have to choose from. Those are just examples so that people understand.

I'm not saying that it's the point to change the forum into a nicer, caring community. I'm saying that if there were restrictions to everything we say, then what purpose would subsections like The Lounge serve? Who's to judge what's mean? A few members could interpret my posts with some of the things I've said as rude, and other people may not agree. How is one supposed to regulate this? Am I going to get a bad reputation because of saying a few "f**ks" and "shits" because perhaps it offends new members?

Or, hypothetically, it is without a doubt that the older members here will cut themselves and their friends slack, even if they do spam, as opposed to new members. I think this would cause some injustice.

Then they would vote on your posts accordingly. If the majority of the members in the community find your posts offensive then you would receive negative feedback if the members gave it to you. I'm sure no-one will have a perfect record, but if the majority of your feedback is positive then you shouldn't have a problem. This idea wouldn't restrict any of your posting ability. It would simply give members an idea of how the community perceives you.

Would you give your friends bad feedback? NO, an there is nothing wrong with that. You understand your friends. Of course people will abuse the system in the beginning. That always happens when new things are put into effect. I just don't' think that a few friends are going to save a member from the wrath of an entire community (that is, if you're a real bastard).

[MissHygienic]

I'm not directing this at staff at all. I'm directing this at the community. I believe it would reduce the amount of drama tremendously.

You wouldn't be forced to vote. It would be entirely up to you. If you were effected positively by a member then you might want to do them a favor and give them some positive feedback. However, if someone is bugging you then you would be able to anonymously give them some bad feed back so the next member will know what to expect and be less frustrated with an obnoxious post.

It's more unrealistic to expect everyone to ignore trolls that they don't know are trolls than to ignore trolls that can visibly see are trolls.

Also, this is just the brain storming stage of this idea. Those obviously wouldn't be the actual choices you would have to choose from. Those are just examples so that people understand.

I suppose it might be unrealistic to expect annoying people to leave as that's why they are annoying, but don't we have some sort of system already? We could PM an administrator if someone is being uncontrollably annoying? We've already set up numerous posts for those gems. "Who is the most idiotic person?" "This is for Liana." Stuff like this. Within time, people will catch up.

Isn't it unrealistic to expect people to look at someone's "poor" rating and then not post a response? I find that people are more entertained when they do respond to blatantly annoying people than not. I'm not sure. I do like the idea, but when I read your post at first and imagined myself being in that kind of system, it seemed like a pain in the ass.

Oh, and yeah, I'm brainstorming along with you. Even if it may seem as if I'm speaking like it's going to be put into place, no. I just wanted to share some of the flaws that I saw.

[annalucky]

This would be a good idea, but some people wouldn't take it seriously and would vote negatively on a person they know just as a joke or something like that. Then it'll show the community a false perception of what other people think of you.

edit:
ha, nvm. just caught that you addressed this already. my mistake.

[Uronacid]

I suppose it might be unrealistic to expect annoying people to leave as that's why they are annoying, but don't we have some sort of system already? We could PM an administrator if someone is being uncontrollably annoying? We've already set up numerous posts for those gems. "Who is the most idiotic person?" "This is for Liana." Stuff like this. Within time, people will catch up.

Isn't it unrealistic to expect people to look at someone's "poor" rating and then not post a response? I find that people are more entertained when they do respond to blatantly annoying people than not. I'm not sure. I do like the idea, but when I read your post at first and imagined myself being in that kind of system, it seemed like a pain in the ass.

Yes, but here on cB members are free to speak their minds no matter how annoying they can be. We can't punish them if they aren't breaking the rules, but if this system is in place their reputation can.

This would be a good idea, but some people wouldn't take it seriously and would vote negatively on a person they know just as a joke or something like that. Then it'll show the community a false perception of what other people think of you.

edit:
ha, nvm. just caught that you addressed this already. my mistake.

Yeah, a few friends aren't going to save you from an entire community.

[S-Majere]

On first view, a sterling idea.

It concerns me however, that transferring an opinion of a person (as derived from their posts) into a rating may not perhaps be a wise idea. There will be competition with who gets the better ratings, who is allowed to rate, on what basis for comparison there is (for example if a normally 'sensitive' member posts an insensitive post, will this one-off ruin their standing within the community?) and a feeling that whatever one posts will be judged by members that really should have no immediate power on ones reputation.

We all get online reputations, and regular members know each other - and know online personalities. I can't really see how this will help in the long run - apart from to divide opinion and lower respect.

[MissHygienic]

Yes, but here on cB members are free to speak their minds no matter how annoying they can be. We can't punish them if they aren't breaking the rules, but if this system is in place their reputation can.
Yeah, a few friends aren't going to save you from an entire community.

True. Now, clarify for me how this would dissuade trolls who are not breaking the rules. Trolls, more than anyone else, will probably find that their poor reputation is a "good" thing because they want to be annoying. There still would be clutter from their mindless questions and responses. Is there going to be some sort of "post deletion" after X amount of negative votes?

Which, again would cause injustice because if enough members vote, a completely valid post might get deleted.

[Uronacid]

True. Now, clarify for me how this would dissuade trolls who are not breaking the rules. Trolls, more than anyone else, will probably find that their poor reputation is a "good" thing because they want to be annoying. There still would be clutter from their mindless questions and responses. Is there going to be some sort of "post deletion" after X amount of negative votes?

Which, again would cause injustice because if enough members vote, a completely valid post might get deleted.

No, no effects will be applied to your membership or your posts. Your reputation will only precede you. My thinking is that if a troll has a bad reputation then people will be less likely to pay attention because they will already know what to expect. It will be visually available.

On first view, a sterling idea.

It concerns me however, that transferring an opinion of a person (as derived from their posts) into a rating may not perhaps be a wise idea. There will be competition with who gets the better ratings, who is allowed to rate, on what basis for comparison there is (for example if a normally 'sensitive' member posts an insensitive post, will this one-off ruin their standing within the community?) and a feeling that whatever one posts will be judged by members that really should have no immediate power on ones reputation.

We all get online reputations, and regular members know each other - and know online personalities. I can't really see how this will help in the long run - apart from to divide opinion and lower respect.

One bad post isn't going to ruin your reputation. Your rep will be based upon the percentage of a large number of votes. No-one will have a perfect reputation. No-one is perfect, but if your generally good person then theoretically the majority of your votes would be positive.

There may be a better way to limit the votes on a members reputation. I just haven't thought of it yet. Maybe you could limit each member to 3 reputation votes per day. It would encourage them to use those votes if they only had a limited supply.

People are bound to abuse the feature in the beginning(just as they do with every new feature on this site), but I believe that once people get bored of abusing the feature it will become real.

[Simba]

Dang Josh, that'd be humiliating.


I dunno, I don't think it's really necessary. Even when you're out of the loop, you can usually figure out who's the new neighborhood fool just by looking around the forum. They're always put on blast, whether it be a topic dedicated to them or a poll for "the most annoying cBer of 2007."

[S-Majere]

You've come up with some pretty neat answers thar, Josh.

I'm not happy still with the idea, but at least it's gotten some initial ground rules down.

*ponders*

[Uronacid]

Dang Josh, that'd be humiliating.
I dunno, I don't think it's really necessary. Even when you're out of the loop, you can usually figure out who's the new neighborhood fool just by looking around the forum. They're always put on blast, whether it be a topic dedicated to them or a poll for "the most annoying cBer of 2007."

Oh, it's not necessary. I just think that it would make things nice and smooth.

[FoxLucky]

I'm not sure if you're directing this more at the staff, but I've been pretty active on this forum for the past 2.5 weeks, and I personally think that this idea seems like a pain in the ass. It's appropriate for XBox because serious players don't want to play with jerk-offs and so they have that reputation system. But a forum? I don't see any need for all of us to go out of our way to vote negatively or positively for every some other post.

We're in no way being forced to handle these annoying people or people who ask relatively dumb questions. We can leave the topic alone, and that should already be an incentive for "trolls" to troll elsewhere, and not on CreateBlog. Instead, we're responding and fueling the fire by answering their questions which encourages them to create more and more posts. That's probably the reason why.

I agree with her.

I think a lot of this "reputation" would be based on how much people know each other, and would not necessarily reflect someone's true reputation. It would make people write their answers more likely to fit everyone's idea so they don't get a bad "reputation" rather than true opinions. Also if you find certain posts annoying, avoid them. Half of the problem isn't just the person who starts the annoying posts, it's the people retaliating, basically spreading fuel on the fires.

I think what we need is a better warning system for people who have crude & offensive language. Take away their ability to start new topics, the PM's and the ability to post, and keep taking away their "privileges" the more they are warned. It would minimize their contact with the people that actually make a difference on CB. I am pretty sure everyone is tired of all the racist & rude people that have suddenly appeared on CB, and something should definitely be done.

[ersatz]

How in the world would this decrease drama?...The people that are voted as negative would obviously (and rightfully so) be upset, which would in turn create drama. If people would just calm down and ignore the people they observe to be irritating themselves, the world would be a lot nicer of a place. Do it on your own time...we don't need a system implemented for the purpose of telling people that no one likes them.

[Simba]

Simply put, from the looks of it, this system may just create more problems than solved.

[digitalfragrance]

Yeah, I agree with Archie. I think that we can derive our own opinions from their previous behavior or posts. Labeling people does no good.

[*Steven*]

Trolls won't lose their audience.

[Joss-eh-lime]

I like this idea, but it might discourage people from writing how they really feel...

[Uronacid]

It was just an idea. Seeing if you guys liked it. I'm not sure I support it anymore. xD ;]

[MissFits]

I think what we need is a better warning system for people who have crude & offensive language. Take away their ability to start new topics, the PM's and the ability to post, and keep taking away their "privileges" the more they are warned. It would minimize their contact with the people that actually make a difference on CB. I am pretty sure everyone is tired of all the racist & rude people that have suddenly appeared on CB, and something should definitely be done.

I use offensive language. It gets stared out though, so I don't see the problem with that.

[MissHygienic]

I use offensive language. It gets stared out though, so I don't see the problem with that.

Of course you don't see a problem with that, as you clearly have the "fallacy of composition" mindset. As long as you do it and you're okay with it, it should be an exception.

I doubt FoxLucky was talking about offensive language as a whole and to get rid of swear words altogether. Unwarranted offensive speech is more like it. Calling people names such as a "dick-sucking motherf**ker," and whatnot is likely to what Fox was referring. So, yeah, step off the high horse for just a minute and take deep breaths.