New Feature: Good Post/Bad Post

The post doesn’t get deleted, it’s just hidden. It can be made to re-appear, somehow.

@CWO:

I’d prefer a system in which, after x number of negative flags, a post would be reported to a moderator for review and possible action.  If the system just automatically deletes a post once it has attracted x number of negative flags, we’d have too much potential for mob justice – people ganging up to trigger the automatic deletion of posts they don’t like, without oversight from a higher level.

None of the BBCodes are working. The stupid BBCodes permission plugin, I think, is the problem. I’m looking into it.

@Gamerman01:

And on another note, THE QUOTES ARE NOT WORKING!!!  :-(

There are plenty of more modern forums/communities using this method effectively. Like I said before, ideally you would have to spend your own reputation to downvote something and maybe even provide a reason why.

Plus, you don’t know the threshold and I can change it at any time.

Finally, if something is really bad, report it to a moderator. I haven’t been seeing a lot of those emails lately. It used to be many times a week, now it’s only monthly.

@Gargantua:

MOB Justice > MOD Justice at this stage. :)

• is very important, it how a reputation system is built. Say something good, get a plus vote. You’re going to see that it is different than karma because in a sense you are telling the rest of the internet this post was good, not who posted it but what was said in the post. Karma you could game it just to give a person upvotes. Here, if somebody posts, “Give me votes!” then myself, all the moderators, and a bunch of users are going to downvote it. You’ll need a lot of friends to out number the masses.

With Karma, nobody knew how or why it was coming so the community could not balance it out and the number became meaningless.

And remember, eventually, your name will be associated with all the votes. It’s semi secret now but it will not continue to be so.

Finally, in the future, upvotes will not be the only gamification feature I use. Ideally, somebody, and only somebody, like Krieghund [sic] would have like 1,000,000 reputation and the rest of us (even me) would be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude below that. For instance, posting might give you reputation but voting might be worth more but if somebody has to delete, close, or merge your post, you lose it all maybe even lose reputation if the post is flagged as inappropriate.

@Vance:

@Imperious:

Right the thing should work without a numerical value or rating attached to it.

After X amount of flags, the post should disappear and the post count should reduce by the same. It should not be  ± type of thing. + does not lead to any consequence anyway so why have it?

So if 90 people click + and 10 people click -, would you have it show as +80 or as -10?

So I’m not going to tell you that. Not even the moderators know the answer. I really only want the posts to be hidden in the extreme cases. If there are too many that are hidden, I’m lowering the threshold.

In a sense, the hiding a post part of it is a temporary backup to “report to moderator.” IL is pretty fast but if he is away on vacation and the rest of lag by a few hours, the community might be able to make a porn or spam posts go away without a moderator’s intervention.

So downvoted posts should be hidden only in the extreme cases, 3 downvotes (or whatever) should be more of a signal to the community that this post may not be relevant or appropriate. It’s also a training mechanism for the community. If the community doesn’t like your “style” then you’d better adjust to stop getting downvotes. The training aspect needs work because you should have to provide a comment as to why you downvoted so each member know what they need to do to become a better citizen. e.g., “Downvote because this post was nonsensical and childish.”

@Veqryn:

I don’t really think this will work, BUT lets give it a try.

DJ probably put some effort into this, and it is an Idea to be sure.

Lets all give it a try for 3-4 months and see how it goes.

After that, we can really decide if this is a good addition or not.

(btw, what happens when a post gets a lot of down votes?� how many down votes are required for whatever actions happen to it?)

I want people to collect points. I want people to post good things and be rewarded. I want to build a reputation system that works. That was the idea behind karma but karma had a loophole. The loopholes here should be corrected by, you, the community.

Post “gimmie votes” and the community must downvote it until you start losing reputation instead. Personally, I’m much more willing to downvote a single post than subtract karma from somebody.

This is only the first step and in a sense an experiment.

Also, I can do a simple database query and find the anomalies and delete them, it’s much easier to pinpoint in a system like this.

@jim010:

@Veqryn:

DJ, you should remove that “respect” counter below everyone’s name.

Have the karma be per-post, and not per-person.

If anything, make it so that only admins and moderators can see people’s respect total.

reason: if you give people a counter of any kind, they will try to increase it.�  You will quickly see people giving each other “respect points” purely to give each other points.�  This serves no purpose, and distorts the original intent.

I agree with this.  Just like the Karma of old, it will just lead to ‘collecting’ points.

80, I’d be shocked if the numbers got that high.

@Vance:

@Imperious:

Right the thing should work without a numerical value or rating attached to it.

After X amount of flags, the post should disappear and the post count should reduce by the same. It should not be  ± type of thing. + does not lead to any consequence anyway so why have it?

So if 90 people click + and 10 people click -, would you have it show as +80 or as -10?

BTW, to make this work, everybody need to use the system. A few can be childish with it but if everybody else uses it appropriately, it will balance out.

In that sense, the system is incomplete because the casual user doesn’t have motivation to up vote.