Rating Members (Page 8/12)
Return of Fiero OCT 26, 03:44 PM
It seems David and the gent above him (i hope your male, but if not sorry, i dont remeber the name on the prior post)are on the same track as i am. A thought has come across my little mind, a way to moderate the "booting" of a member. when someone has been booted, or "warned" because of message, or comment, and in some case the lack of adiquit amounts of either.(you know, the messages of ) if the message was sent to the offender in a form the can not be edited, that says something like, hey, jerk, you did this, "bla bla" and were reported for the content of it, you rating has gone down to XXX if you wish to contest, press "this" button. then it would send it back for reveiw, giving this person a fair chance to keep their name good. the problems with this are simple to figure out. Cliff, this will add work for you. every person who sends a message back to you would have to be read, evaluated, then adjusted as aplicable for the content. therefor my idea may be just beyond feasable (but it would also show you what people, if any, are falsly sending negative markings.)if you went into 10 of these a day, and all ten had my name as the complainee, and seemed to be invalid complaints, obviously im the jerk, not the accused.(useing myself for sake of arguement) sorry, minds just spinning again. anyhow, i will allow you all to get to some other things, as i have to cook dinner.
Myke
Return of Fiero OCT 26, 03:57 PM
opps, also, it there going to be a way to give a good rating for people?
myke
Sage OCT 26, 05:19 PM
Cliff:

Originally I said if my vote counts, to go ahead and do it. Maybe what I could have said instead is, Cliff, you have my vote. What that means is that ultimately, whatever you decide is probably going to be ok by me. Obviously you have been contemplating the need for some kind of "ratings" system, or you wouldn't have started this thread.

Personally, I believe in communication. There are too many people in one place here to always agree on everything. Two people in one place long enough gives you the same circumstance! In the words of a Ricky Nelson song; "You can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself.".

Ebay does it and people either comply, disappear, or start over. If you want to spend the time that it will take to write the program that will give us this system, then it has to be because you have been tested once too often by an unthinking or immature member, and have reached the conclusion that the "banning tool" has to be available. I can understand from several different viewpoints why you wouldn't want to carry this power alone. Thing is...you do.

If there were an individual that you just didn't want to be here any more, it is within your capacity to make it happen. Your integrity and wisdom(beyond your years it seems at times, to me) have been proven through your own words and actions. Everybody here (with the possible exception of new members) has been witness to it at one time or another. What you are proposing could be compared to a form of self governing that sometimes works very well, and sometimes not. Kind of depends on who the people are, the rules made and who makes them, among other things.

Going back to the communication issue, you have given us private messaging, which allows any individual to communicate with any other individual, about anything they like, including everything from varying viewpoints, to out and out bashing of one another. When somebody brings a passionately felt response to the open forum, generally it is because they are looking for support or verification for what they are saying. Some folks believe that getting your point across is more important than whether your point is valid or not. Another symptom of what I refer to as "Me-itis" We all have it, just with different manifestations and to varying degrees.

If all were as willing to at least consider another's perspective, there might not be arguments, but rather healthy exchanges of knowledge and information. However...we are all at different levels most of the time. That's as it has to be, nobody can change that. The situation is a basic one as I see it. It's the situation that makes somebody throw the first punch instead of working the problem out. The only form of communication that some of us understand is force. Not a new problem.

I think the rules you outline in the forum opening page, should have covered about everything that needed covered to govern people's actions in your house, but that's obviously, sometimes, painfully not the case.

Just rambling on some thoughts on the matter at hand since it seems to have garnered a fair amount of attention.

I could go on and on, but to what end? I will at this point just rephrase my original response to read..."If it counts, and Cliff wants to do it...do it."

PAX

------------------
Have a good one!

Mach10 OCT 27, 06:43 PM
Only things I can suggest are to make it 2-way. Positive, AND negative feedback.

Also, don't automate user removal. If a person crosses the threshold, script it to email you or any other moderators (you are the only one, right?), this would lessen the abuse factor.

Maybe consider linking the rating system to particular posts, and to "brand" the vote to a particular post. That way, you can inventory what the complaints are about, and making the final decision based on that. This would remove some of the potential for abuse by adding an accountability factor. anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of Cliff

sloth85GT OCT 27, 09:58 PM
It seems that most people here agree with Cliff and we need some sort of rating system. I agree as well, and Mach10 made a good point above, about the sytem not being automated.

I think that the "banned" users should only be banned for a certain amount of time. Kinda like being put in jail so that they can think about the crimes that they have commited. I don't think it's fair to ban someone for life, unless they said a lot of REALLY hainous stuff. And as to how long should they be "banned" for, I think that you (Cliff) would be able to decide that fairly, or you can have a jury vote as to how long they should be banned and take an average of that.

I like the positive and negative feedback idea as opposed to a number rating system because you don't just assign someone a number, you make a comment and it gets left in the negative/positive feedback area that everyone else can red. And I think that once the amount of your negative feedback gets like say 5 more negatives over your total amount of positives, then they should get banned for whatever period of time.

My biggest point in this is that I don't think it would be fair for people to get banned for life. I think they should just be put in the corner to think about what they have done.

dcaprio OCT 27, 10:37 PM
Cliff
I've given this some thought before I sent this reply. I think it's a good idea if done right. I think a 3 strikes and your out system would work. 1st a warning ,2nd banned for a month ,3rd gone for good. This will give a person every chance to clean up his act before being banned.

dcaprio OCT 27, 10:38 PM
Cliff
I've given this some thought before I sent this reply. I think it's a good idea if done right. I think a 3 strikes and your out system would work. 1st a warning ,2nd banned for a month ,3rd gone for good. This will give a person every chance to clean up his act before being banned.

Kasdan OCT 27, 11:32 PM
I think this is a great idea, especially for marking people (i could go on to mention several people i disrespect) as traitors to the fiero community...F13r0z R0x!

------------------
Tyler Morgan, 1986 GT

Aftermarket Power Steering, Rebuilt motor with >100 miles!
Aim=FieroDriver1986

[This message has been edited by Kasdan (edited 10-27-2001).]

tomanyfieros OCT 28, 11:00 AM
i vote YES! i was looking at the replies, and there was a couple make an anonymous vote. and there was another that i saw,

I know from past emails I had received (don't ask how or why), many people had shared with me how they felt, but were afraid to post because they feared they would be retaliated against or ridiculed by others for their opinion or view on the topic.

could we make a anonymous name that anyone can use for when they want to say something and dont want to be scared to say it? EX if i want to say something, and i dont want people to know who i am, so i could go under the anonymous name and post it so no one could tell who i am? does that make sense? cause i know a couple people who will not post because they know people will come back and.... ect. anyways, i dont even know if you could do that. You would have to make it where they sign in as there name, and then make it anonymous so that you could tell if someone u booted did it.... just an idea i would like to request.....
Thanx JAson

Return of Fiero OCT 28, 02:25 PM
Looks like this is would be the last time you see me coment on this subject! (stop cheering!!!) The last few resoponces have the ideas that a few other members and I might find very fitting (sorry for talking for you, just got the same feel from the others) The idea of not having the removal automatated sound more than fair. it would give us the chance to null out the "gang wars" or what have you, also allowing the mamber in question to be "tried" fairly. This idea is very good. Three stikes your out, this would have to be part of the rating anyhow. If i screwed up once and got booted, this would be too hash, as i might have made a misake in how i phrased someing, or just wrote something different than i meant. for the 3 stirkes,it would be as if I flew off the handle at, say Fiero5, he reports me, then I would have a waring for this. If i do it againg, theres strike two, and the aplicable punishment. If there was a stike three, then obviously, either im not bright enough to bite my tounge and act my age, or im not adult enough to understand what i did wrong, and dont deserve to be here. actually, if this was the car, i am more than likely too young to drive anyway, and shouldnt be here.
like i said, stop cheering, i think this whole thing with the rating comes with good intentions, and i hope this new system works very good for all of us (who are mature enough to handle owning a Fiero, and interacting with others)Cliff asked us about the rating system, as im sure clif is watching our posts, and concidering our saninty, he no doubt sees the problems and just wants to negate them to make the experiance more pleasureable to all of us. Thus, if i post this thread again, it will not be with opinion, but with subjestions to help make this already enjoyable forum, a little nicer for all of us.

Myke

PS
yes, no more from me, now stop cheering!!!