Forum Changes: Negative Reputation Disabled Indefinitely

[danp]

I would also like to state for the record, that I fully expected people to not be giant fans of this change, but I intend to test it out and see how things go.

I would hope that everyone will give me the benefit of the doubt for a little bit and play along until we can measure what effect this truly has on our community.

[Paradigm]

Very nice, now there is no tool for the membership to police the spread of bullshit information, or tag known trolls. How about we just let the adults be adults, and tell those who cry to suck it up? You just flushed a valuable resource down the drain. Hell, you might as well dump the rep thing totally, as without possibility of negative, the positive loses its meaning. Well done

+ eleventy billion

Perhaps if someone gives poor legal advice, starts another OC/CC fight, trolls, or advocates trashing of 2A rights we could...hit the report button? If we just ignore them, then that bad info stays on the site - and the poster has nice, pretty green buttons under their name, giving them credibility.




...but it ain't my site.

[headcase]

People who provide good knowledge will gain reputation, people who do not will stagnate. It will still be very obvious who is proving good information.

The reality of the situation is that when I search the database for negative reputations, I see pages full of childish bullshit (for lack of a better word) sometimes coming from even our oldest members.

From what I have seen, negative reputation simply does not work the way I envisioned it would. If the "positive only" system doesn't work either, I'll probably just do away with it all together.

That's why it's a test for a few months and I will re-evaluate.

For someone at the helm of an organization whose membership is full of people who try to fight daily against a nanny state, that was maybe the most nanny state reasoning I have ever heard. The system works just fine the way it was. Childish bullshit that is between two members, out of sight of the rest of the world, should be between them. Just like PMs. If it gets out of hand, a mod can blow a whistle.


Whatever, it's your boat, sail it where and how you like.

[adymond]

When trolls and those without much pos rep neg folks does it really have a large impact aside from you having to wade through pages and pages of idiotic comments? On the other hand if someone like HC dings me it has a large impact and serves as a notice to others that my voice should not be listened to. Especially if more it's more like HC, GL, Pa. Pat are all hitting me with neg rep for being a troll. It will become evident to all VERY quickly that I am full of shit.

Though this is your site. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and see how things go, but I assume that since the thread wasn't locked you are open to our feedback.

[Atomic Dog]

I miss negative rep. Just like in life you can earn the reputation you deserve, and some people deserve to be in the red. What's the point of feedback if there is no consequence? A stagnant rep tells very little, especially with a low post count. But someone in the red obviously got there for a reason....


We trust you Dan, but I just don't think this will change much, just take childish language to PM's

[GunLawyer001]

All change is resisted, people like to stay in their comfort zones.

With that being said, I've found the red squares to be a useful shorthand for "take what this person says with a grain of salt". With 20,000+ registered users, and maybe 5,000 who post regularly, it's hard for me to keep track of who's credible and who isn't.

The legal stuff isn't a problem for me personally, because when anyone posts legal nonsense I know enough not to get sucked in; but there are plenty of other folks who might be taken in by "just mail that handgun to your cousin in California, there's an exemption for family", or "slap a front grip on that pistol, it's useful for control and there's no law against it". But a bunch of red squares will literally be a red flag so that users will know to read the thread further, before relying on bad advice to their detriment.

When eBay went to the "no negative feedback for buyers" rule, it made feedback useless, like a college transcript that only shows "A" grades.

Regardless, Dan wants the best for the site, moderating is hard work, and no system is without its downsides. If anyone calls for a vote, I vote for the negative rep option; without it, it just takes more effort to stay on top of the bad legal posts.

[Curmudgeon]

It's already all been said, and I can't think of anything I can add. So I just wanted to add my name to the "disappointed with this recent change" column.



I will not, however, neg rep you for it.

[Pa. Patriot]

My prediction is that another consequence to this is that some folks will be more inclined to post things, publicly, they otherwise would not.

[TXDMERC73]

i think this is a great idea it controls the Rep Bosses from neg repping alot of members out of orbit cuz they dont meet their criteria level. maybe alot of members will feel comfortable and come back on and feel more confident to open freely talk their opinions without having to worry about being neg repped out of orbit.

It doesnt matter who knows more then who- its all about freedom of speech and freedom of free responses. I hope this brings back some members we havent seen on in a long time.

[unloved]

My prediction is that another consequence to this is that some folks will be more inclined to post things, publicly, they otherwise would not.

I fear you're prediction is accurate.

I don't often neg people. I think I've done it twice (not counting post-ban Fabiocrow). As my rep power has increased, I have become ever more reluctant to use it against anyone except for what I consider serious issues. Nevertheless, I think it's a valuable tool.