Who monitors the Neg Repers?

[Hambo]

+1

You don't hear many cathode ray tube jokes anymore.
.

In a vacuum (tube) no one can hear you laugh!

[Emizand]

I could see someone neg repping this post. Yer engaging in namecalling to strengthen yer argument.

I hardly consider 'self appointed judges' as name calling, as a matter of fact that is extremelly mild for the streets of Liverpool.

Later posts where you mention that you recieved neg rep, will likely be neg repped as well, as several posters consider that neg rep worthy.

Should it be? If so make it a rule, then people may be clearer where they stand. Personally I find it ironic at best and bullying at worst that neg rep is awarded for asking what happens to people who give neg rep if it is found to be unjustified. Just my view.

[Phemt81]

i Have Reported It. Thanks! Seems A Shame To Waste Someones Time With It Though

This^^^

+1

[Lleren]

I hardly consider 'self appointed judges' as name calling, as a matter of fact that is extremelly mild for the streets of Liverpool.




Should it be? If so make it a rule, then people may be clearer where they stand. Personally I find it ironic at best and bullying at worst that neg rep is awarded for asking what happens to people who give neg rep if it is found to be unjustified. Just my view.

/shrug. I don't care where it is mild for. It is the main reason I'd see that post getting neg repped, other then the talking about neg rep gets you neg repped forum standard. Later posts where better examples of talkin bout neg rep gets you neg rep.

Supposedly there a rule against reputation fishing. I'm not claiming there is, as I'm not going to go look up a link or dev quotes.

Edit: If I was to consider neg repping as bullying, then I would consider "self appointed judges" to be namecalling for the sake of consistency.

[irivan]

I will say it again....

The reputation system is a high school popularity contest, those that like you will give you rep as long as you are a part of the consensus, those that don't, will neg rep you, even for simply disagreeing with them.

Don't fail to be ultra polite or they will neg rep you.

For my part, i am, as i have since the very day they started the high school popularity contest, am boycotting the system, it is useless and does nothing to encourage the free flow of ideas, and was invented by a lazy group of mods that didn't want to police their own population any more, with out realizing before hand what it would come to, and now that it has, are to lazy to dismantle it.

Every time i read one of these posts i laugh, and then come make my obligatory response to it all.

BOYCOTT the REP SYSTEM!!!

[Thrudh]

The fact that someone can be rep trolled into automod by a few individuals whose rep has high impact is a pathetic highscool-esque mentality, and the fact that its still alowed is absurd.

They can't.

(1) You can only rep someone once a week or so, so even a forum gang of 10 evil guys can't do that much damage
(2) You can report, and get neg rep removed. If the gang of 10 continue, and you continue to report, the mods will take action against them.

You're upset about something that doesn't exist.

How in the world do you have over 10,000 rep if the system is so easy to abuse? You're one of the most confrontational posters on these boards (but you also make good points). You've obviously gotten a ton more positive rep than negative rep even though the "evil gang" was forum-rep bullying you.

The system works fine.

[Thrudh]

Would +1 rep for your concise and insightful arguements/points, but need to spread more around first.

Case in point why it's hard to abuse the system, either positive or negative.

[Thrudh]

Maybe I'm insulated since I never got much neg rep, but I have NEVER seen anyone with 4 red bars or more who I liked as a person or a poster or would give pos rep too. I don't recall ever pos repping them for anything. I don't recall ever negging someone who had tons of red bars, but I probably would if they said something awful.

From my perspective, the use of negs to stick someone into automod status is a good thing, and I wouldn't call it bullying, but rather reasonable and useful. Moral of the story: don't **** off established vets on your first day on the forums, keep to yourself and make intelligent or useful posts and you'll get enough greenies to insulate you from the trolls. Most of the people I know of who are deep in the red made a bunch of arrogant, insulting, and inflammatory posts at one point, usually on their first few days here.

This.

Everyone I have seen in automod status (deep line of reds) deserved it.

[Thrudh]

I hardly consider 'self appointed judges' as name calling, as a matter of fact that is extremelly mild for the streets of Liverpool.

If you're from the streets of Liverpool, surely you have thick enough skin to shrug off an occasional neg rep from an unknown person on the Internet...

[Emizand]

/shrug. I don't care where it is mild for.

So just to clarify you consider 'self appointed judges' to be name calling/abusive?

talking about neg rep gets you neg repped forum standard.

Standard, not rule? Who's standard, mine?

Supposedly there a rule against reputation fishing.

Is that an accusation?

If I was to consider neg repping as bullying, then I would consider "self appointed judges" to be namecalling for the sake of consistency.

Do you consider neg repping as bullying? If not you are just making an assumption what you would consider name calling under different circumstances. I would suggest its hard to deal in counterfactuals.

[Emizand]

If you're from the streets of Liverpool, surely you have thick enough skin to shrug off an occasional neg rep from an unknown person on the Internet...

Lol! My skin is thick enough. Its now a point of principal. Also I think this is, by enlarge, a useful discussion.

[Chai]

Maybe I'm insulated since I never got much neg rep, but I have NEVER seen anyone with 4 red bars or more who I liked as a person or a poster or would give pos rep too. I don't recall ever pos repping them for anything. I don't recall ever negging someone who had tons of red bars, but I probably would if they said something awful.

I have seen a few other than myself get negged into automod who didnt deserve it. A couple of their posts were god aweful, but most werent posts I would consider negging.

Another issue is the "crying wolf" situation. If alot of people take it apon themselves to neg rep the same user over a bunch of disagreement several times over, and they get pushed into automod repeatedly simply due to repeated pile ons in every thread they start, then one day their target actually does shoot their proverbial mouths off and say some real demeaning stuff, everyone piles on the neg rep train, but this gets viewed as "oh geez, everyone is piling on so and so again, for the fifth time this week, what else is new" and is casually dismissed. I know of two occasions where this happened. Had the forumites repped and reported the stuff that was actually reppable and reportable instead of piling on for simple entertainment value every time the user posted something new, something would have likely been done about those cases when they were clearly over the line.

From my perspective, the use of negs to stick someone into automod status is a good thing, and I wouldn't call it bullying, but rather reasonable and useful. Moral of the story: don't **** off established vets on your first day on the forums, keep to yourself and make intelligent or useful posts and you'll get enough greenies to insulate you from the trolls. Most of the people I know of who are deep in the red made a bunch of arrogant, insulting, and inflammatory posts at one point, usually on their first few days here.

In my opinion its a good thing when it works correctly. When it does not, and people are getting hosed into automod status due to the combination of disagreeing with the old guard while at the same time being new themselves (one example) - the system fails. If the old vets cant handle disagreement where they have to neg rep someone into oblivion, theres likely more than one issue there. I think the person who was repped into automod should be under review, but ALSO, the vets who negged them into automod should be under review as well. Whoever is found to be abusing the system takes the hit, and its not a one sided street. Instead of looking one way or the other, the entire situation is investigated. The "old vets" shouldnt get a free pass, simply because their friends patted them on the back for 4.5 years enough times to fully charge their green stun rod of doom.

[puget]

I have seen a few other than myself get negged into automod who didnt deserve it. A couple of their posts were god aweful, but most werent posts I would consider negging.



In my opinion its a good thing when it works correctly. When it does not, and people are getting hosed into automod status due to the combination of disagreeing with the old guard while at the same time being new themselves (one example) - the system fails. If the old vets cant handle disagreement where they have to neg rep someone into oblivion, theres likely more than one issue there. I think the person who was repped into automod should be under review, but ALSO, the vets who negged them into automod should be under review as well. Whoever is found to be abusing the system takes the hit, and its not a one sided street. Instead of looking one way or the other, the entire situation is investigated.

I would +1 you, but it would be wasted on you, I will save it for a poor(meaning little or no green bar) bloke that says something deserving, since alot of what you say is deserving and I don't like stroking............people, yeah.

I found when I was new on the forums, vets did not like new posters having their own opinion, and when new posters expressed, and then held onto their opinions, a new poster was neg rep'd pretty hard, just for having and expressing their own opinion the same way alot of vets feel they can do. It is just that new players/posters are not supposed to be expressive of their opinions.

Man, the heat is getting to me today. Time for the slip and slide outside so I can make sense of what I am trying to sensibly say.

[Mellkor]

Meh.

If you don't get neg repped every now and again, yer doing something wrong!!

[Rumbaar]

Received a reply today apologising for the delay but assuring me that the matter will be fully investigated. I am hoping that it is resolved prior to my payment date next month.

Wow you got a response. Well you necro'd this thread and I received a negative for my comments in here from weeks ago.

Good luck with your investigation.

I wont even bother asking for a review from Turbine.

[Phemt81]

The system works fine.

Wow, you are the first one i read saying that!

And nice quad-posting

[Lleren]

So just to clarify you consider 'self appointed judges' to be name calling/abusive?




Standard, not rule? Who's standard, mine?




Is that an accusation?




Do you consider neg repping as bullying? If not you are just making an assumption what you would consider name calling under different circumstances. I would suggest its hard to deal in counterfactuals.

You seem to be trying to break this up into bits.
Online tone depends on the reader. Red Boxes happen. I would be hard pressed to see red boxing me as bullying, but I can see some would. Much like I can see some would consider "self appointed judges" to be name calling, many of those some would be the same folks.

Some posters claim they where neg repped for fairly inoffensive posts.
Dev quotage has been seen claiming many of those posters to be lying, and if a lie, a way to farm positive rep.
Several posters mentioned they like to neg rep the previous posters for reputation fishing afterwords.
Not going to try and find the dev quotage or rules, trying to make it simpler to understand where the red is coming from. It happens this way. It is a recognisable standard among the forum posters.

I use a differnet standard, the "maybe I should report this standard". This is another of the recognisable standards for much neg rep recieved. Though I do like to neg rep for certain gamer dialect forms of name caling: noob, elitist, etcetera.


Edit:

Meh.

If you don't get neg repped every now and again, yer doing something wrong!!

This is likely true as well.

[Skavenaps]

i actually like to be neg rep. yeah, really.

Peeps things that is youtube or facebook, aka like it / dont like it.

if that makes they feel better bulling peeps go ahead. neg rep me. i will not care less.

[Emizand]

Online tone depends on the reader. Red Boxes happen. I would be hard pressed to see red boxing me as bullying, but I can see some would. Much like I can see some would consider "self appointed judges" to be name calling, many of those some would be the same folks.

Yeah this is just a differance of opinion and when I am talking about bullying I am talking about extreme cases like the ones cited by Chai. Under no circumstances would I consider "self appointed judges" to be name calling, but have to accept that others may.

Several posters mentioned they like to neg rep the previous posters for reputation fishing afterwords.
Not going to try and find the dev quotage or rules, trying to make it simpler to understand where the red is coming from. It happens this way. It is a recognisable standard among the forum posters.

Again this is a judgement call. I have mentioned recieving neg rep in this thread and I can assure you that I was not fishing for pos rep, but honestly shocked that (what I believed to be an inoffensive post) neg rep was given.

I use a differnet standard, the "maybe I should report this standard". This is another of the recognisable standards for much neg rep recieved. Though I do like to neg rep for certain gamer dialect forms of name caling: noob, elitist, etcetera.

I can agree that if a post needs to be reported it should be, should it be negged as well, honestly dont know. I dont think I would ever neg rep someone for using noob or elitist, but as I said we are all different.

Also if people were aware a person had recieved neg rep for a post they may not add more themselves. For example you read a post and think thats slightly out of order I am going to neg it, would the fact that they had already been hit for a couple of hundred neg change your mind? When this thread started I didnt have that much of an opinion about the rep system, but through the course of this thread I am developing my understanding and opinion.

P.S. Sorry about the breaking it up thing, I think its just the way I process information.

[Skavenaps]

i actually like to be neg rep. yeah, really.

Peeps things that is youtube or facebook, aka like it / dont like it.

if that makes they feel better bulling peeps go ahead. neg rep me. i will not care less.

to prove my point, i have been neg rep for that post.

edit: not 1 time, 3 atm! keep them coming guys!