Some sort of community control...

[Gkar]

Well we do review posts in the off hours, but I can confirm that we did have an error in the system for a while where users who were supposed to be in moderation where popping in/out of the queue. Gharet has corrected that issue for us.

Thank you, that's useful information and restores some confidence in the system

Also note that moderated status is not indefinite. When a user reaches a point that they seem safe to release back into the wild, they are removed from moderated. Now that doesn't mean they don't go back to their erroneous ways, in which case they go back in rehab.

That was the idea behind temporary infraction points as well, but of course now you no longer have temp infraction points. Interesting difference.

[Cyr]

I will admit however that we've seen a disturbing trend from users to issue rep against posts they don't agree with rather than placing people on their ignore list, which is not appropriate, and can result in Cube meetings

Which I have pointed out time and time again is mostly a matter of opinion. One persons trolling or inflammatory post is anothers rallying cry. You can not judge another person's interpertation of terms that pretty clearly differ from person to person.

Lots of times if someone's post is annoying enough that you would be tempted to squelch them then you probably personally view it as trolling and/or inflammatory also.

[Cyr]

It appears at times some people are allowed to post questionable things and then suddenly someone posts a reply and bam, we lose another long time member. Yeah, yeah, ignore button... people are human though. You would think that possibly a moderator might look to protect from that sort of thing too. I dunno, I could be way off base though.

Nah, and the people posting and neg repping that user couldn't possibly be doing it because they think that user is trolling in an intent to draw responses that they can report either...

[stainer]

Nah, and the people posting and neg repping that user couldn't possibly be doing it because they think that user is trolling in an intent to draw responses that they can report either...

It is always the kid that throws the last punch that gets sent to the office.

[Pallol_One-Eye]

Which I have pointed out time and time again is mostly a matter of opinion. One persons trolling or inflammatory post is anothers rallying cry. You can not judge another person's interpertation of terms that pretty clearly differ from person to person.

Lots of times if someone's post is annoying enough that you would be tempted to squelch them then you probably personally view it as trolling and/or inflammatory also.

I honestly have to believe that most here with the capability of adding a red twizzler to someone's greenis don't do so from simple spite. Maybe I am more of a simpleton than I let on with this belief.

Personally, I would never neg someone for an idea I didn't necessarily agree with. I would be more than willing to debate its relative merits and simply agree to disagree.

This is more of a straight, inflammatory thread issue than anything else. Like a certain thread threatening to grief people during a certain Epic Raid. Was it just looking for reaction, who really knows. Didi it get the reaction that was WARRANTED? The magic 8-ball says all signs point to yes.

[DoctorWhofan]

Rehabilitation is a delicate process because very often in these situations a user will get targeted for being who they are and not for what they're doing. It makes the process take longer because you have to cull out all the provocations and self-defense from the equation. They have to be breaking the rules, and others have to be reporting/repping when they do, not just because they existed at all.

Post Script: The third problem is we can't publicly discuss what is happening to the rehab person behind the scenes due to policy, so people jump to conclusions assuming that the rehabilitating player is "not in trouble," and then they instigate flame wars/provocations over it.

Point...I'd rather not wave my dirty laundry in the public eye... And I have had some doozies...oops! Not suppose to discuss infraction points....


I do understand that, but do you have a judgment for some who come from a previous IP thatwas making problems on various accounts in the past? I know f2p has probably made this job a living he double hockey sticks, but the simple knowledge saying you do look at their IP may cause a huge sigh of relief to many here.

[SableShadow]

If they're worth neg'ing, they're worth reporting ... it's just a couple more buttons, after all. /shrug

[Chai]

I'm not sure I understand, how is it not currently working? When a user is a problem, we review their content. Getting low neg rep does not mean a person is banned or removed from the community. Getting low neg rep draws moderator aggro. That is its purpose.

I will admit however that we've seen a disturbing trend from users to issue rep against posts they don't agree with rather than placing people on their ignore list, which is not appropriate, and can result in Cube meetings

You answered your own question you ask in the first line of your post, in the second line of your post.

The rep system does_not_work, due to the fact that it is more commonly used as an agree / disagree label and not to flag something as trolling or offensive.

The sheer number of pile on style threads where one person posts and gets slammed with huge amounts of neg rep, combined with the amount of neg rep they are receiving (it is flood controlled nowdays so it isnt coming from a small number of sources) - followed by the fact that nothing is really done about it in either direction, shows us one of three things is happening here.

1. The person being piled on is abusing the system, with no real lasting consequences.
2. The large number of people neg repping them for simple disagreement, past or present, are abusing the rep system, with no lasting consequences.
3. Both.

I do not sign onto most of these new moderation suggestions easily, due to the fact that I feel that the current system fails to work in the first place, so I dont feel we need to add more ways for it to fail. A player moderated system basically becomes a grade school playground, where you are either in with the cool kids, or being slapped around by the bullies. Disagreeing with the majority now becomes "wrong" - and the law of the pixelated land is you either conform, or your posting privilages are revoked.

[Dispel]

If they're worth neg'ing, they're worth reporting ... it's just a couple more buttons, after all. /shrug

True, but while they can get away with negative reppin', they cannot report without reason.

[KoboldKiller]

It's generally pretty easy to tell when someone is posting just to start an issue.

Spamming threads with the same rhetoric.

Starting 5+ threads a day with just silly suggestions hoping to cause a stir.

Following certain people around the threads and making sure they comment in opposition to whatever the person has posted.

These are the type of people who seem to continually slip through the filters.

[Chai]

It is always the kid that throws the last punch that gets sent to the office.

Yeap, in Wisconsin we call this a hockey game. Its not the antogonist who is sitting in the penalty box. Its the person who decked the antogonist, and possibly the person on the antagonists team who decked the person who decked the antagonist. The person who started it all is still on the ice, grinning at the powerplay opportunity they just created.

[Tolero]

Which I have pointed out time and time again is mostly a matter of opinion. One persons trolling or inflammatory post is anothers rallying cry. You can not judge another person's interpertation of terms that pretty clearly differ from person to person.

Lots of times if someone's post is annoying enough that you would be tempted to squelch them then you probably personally view it as trolling and/or inflammatory also.

I tend to go by the "your momma" rule. When you say something to someone, would it make the hair on the back of your neck stand up if Tolero said it about you and/or your mother? Then it probably shouldn't be posted in that way. Examples:

• Tolero says you and your momma have obviously never played D&D
• Tolero says you and your momma are pikers
• Tolero says you and your momma are just a bunch of fanboys
• Tolero says you and your momma can't do simple math
• Tolero says she wouldn't be caught dead in you or your momma's guild
• Tolero says you and your momma are lying and are just trying to troll

It covers most every "should that be said" problem that people tend to get themselves in trouble over.

[Pallol_One-Eye]

I tend to go by the "your momma" rule. When you say something to someone, would it make the hair on the back of your neck stand up if Tolero said it about you and/or your mother? Then it probably shouldn't be posted in that way. Examples:

• Tolero says you and your momma have obviously never played D&D
• Tolero says you and your momma are pikers
• Tolero says you and your momma are just a bunch of fanboys
• Tolero says you and your momma can't do simple math
• Tolero says she wouldn't be caught dead in you or your momma's guild
• Tolero says you and your momma are lying and are just trying to troll

It covers most every "should that be said" problems that people tend to get themselves in trouble over.

Sorry Tolero, but it needs to be said;

Not everyone here exercises that sort of simple common sense. Some are simply not born with it, never learned it, or simply don't care.

Sad but true.

Apologies if this came across as fatalistic or not, just a sad commentary on today I guess.

[amethystdragon]

Add a third colour then. THe disagree with your idea but you are not trolling colour. Yellow, perhaps.

I think this is a good idea. I would also like to see a fourth color added, one just for humorous/funny posts.

[Talon_Moonshadow]

More colours, then.

Red: for offensive beaviour.

Green: for good funny posts

Yellow: for I disagree with you posts.

I dunno...throwing ideas out there...

And bright pink, for: "that is really offensive, but dang, I find it hilarious!"

[Thrudh]

Except that's not true. We have seen people with several thousand points of neg rep who continue to post at will

That's my only problem with the rep system... It does not appear that people with neg rep are moderated.

[KoboldKiller]

And bright pink, for: "that is really offensive, but dang, I find it hilarious!"

If that were the case my "dwarves in thongs" posts would have given me a solid pink bar.

[stainer]

Did someone say something about my mom?

[Thrudh]

Well we do review posts in the off hours, but I can confirm that we did have an error in the system for a while where users who were supposed to be in moderation where popping in/out of the queue. Gharet has corrected that issue for us.

Also note that moderated status is not indefinite. When a user reaches a point that they seem safe to release back into the wild, they are removed from moderated. Now that doesn't mean they don't go back to their erroneous ways, in which case they go back in rehab.

Okay, good to know! Thanks for the update...

[Memnir]

That's my only problem with the rep system... It does not appear that people with neg rep are moderated.

At least not evenly moderated.