Skidmark, Cliff and Forum, The 'cliques' in this forum could prevent the discussion of good information if they are allowed to vote out unpopular opinions. Then, after all individual viewpoints have been eliminated the rest can "jump on the bandwagon" and roll right over the cliff (one happy family). Popular vote should not be used and the cancellation of a PFF member should ONLY be done bey the Administrator. ******************************
quote
Originally posted by SKIDMARK: Cliff,I think it's a great idea but I also think you should have the final say when someone is voted out. This would prevent someone from being banned just for having an unpopular opinion. It would also prevent a clique from banning someone for not agreeing with their group. What does everyone else think?
I love the idea, Maybe it would cut done on some of the stupid sh!t that happens here.... I feel for the most part our members (97%)are great. Its the other 3% I could do with out
Cliff, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought he meant that he was going to have us vote on whether we think someone should be removed and then he would remove them if he saw fit, so as to weed out any possibility of 'cliques' voting out others.
Am I wrong? I think this is a good way to do it even if I am
just reread the original post and I was wrong. But I still think it's a good idea. Maybe a temporary suspension until a decision is made?
[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 10-29-2001).]
I don't really know that any of this is necessary... I mean, Cliff keeps a good watch over things here, and if any of us are having problems with a particular member, we can just send Cliff a off-board note or Private Message, and I imagine that if Cliff is seeing a *lot* of justified complaints against a certain poster, then he can contact them privately to discuss the situation, or he can ban them if he deems it necessary.
The simplest solution is *usually* the best.
If Cliff doesn't mind us sending him private notes regarding problem individuals, then I'm not sure that any changes need to be made. However, if he would prefer to automate the system, then yes, a popular voting sytem would be the way to go... but with this many members at all levels of interaction, it will be a long, complicated process to keep it working properly and fairly for everyone.
Oh, and in response to a few earlier comments/concerns... I really don't think this sort of group would vote someone out for not expressing themselves precisely and succinctly - it's usually pretty easy to tell the difference between a deliberately rude message and a possibly poorly-phrased one. Deliberate rudeness would need to be quashed, but phrasing ability can be improved over time with care, use and attention *IF* one wishes improvement to be made. I think we're all patient enough to realize that. If the individual does not seek improvement, then if it becomes a large enough problem, than that would be something that would have to be looked at in time.
And as far as the whole 'cliques voting others off the island' thing - with this vast number of individuals here, I think it would take a pretty huge 'clique' in order to get someone banned who was actually undeserving of a ban. One might say that the 'clique' would have to be a 'majority', and if that is the case, that if a 'majority' finds a certain individual deserving of a ban, then doesn't it seem that the individual truly *would* be deserving of a ban?
Besides... I would think that bannings would not occur automatically - I'm sure the system would most likely send a red flag to Cliff, who would turn his attention to the individual in question and then make a personal decision as to whether or not a ban is needed at that time. That seems more fair, and more like something a fair-minded person like Cliff would put into play here.
Just my two cents worth...
------------------ Patrick W. Heinske -- LZeitgeist@aol.com 1988 Red Fiero Formula - 1st Place - Stock Coupe - FOCOSEVA 2000 - 3rd Place - Stock Formula - FOCOA Nat'l 2001 - Class Winner - 1982 to Present - 2001 Tarheel Tigers All-Pontiac Show
EDIT - typos
[This message has been edited by LZeitgeist (edited 10-29-2001).]
Is there a way to base the rating on the ratio of posts in O/T versus the actual Fiero Channels? Maybe be less tolerant of trouble makers who almost never post in TD&Q or GFC?
Maybe you could build that into the BS flag that Archie mentioned. At least members would know what the Fiero/OT ratio is so they could better ID the trolls....(although they have been pretty darn obvious in the past).
Is there a way to base the rating on the ratio of posts in O/T versus the actual Fiero Channels? Maybe be less tolerant of trouble makers who almost never post in TD&Q or GFC?
Well if thats the case just get rid of O/T all together, Viola! troublemakers gone. :/
There are very few individuals who will,in time,be deserving of banning.As much as some people are irritating,I wouldn't want to be the one to decide if they deserved to be banned.Cliff has done an admirable job to this point and I think the system could be changed,but would it be improved?I think not.
Good idea. I also think that it's a way to see what others think of you. I know it's not supposed to matter, but maybe it'll make people get their heads out of their arses. "Boy, these people think I'm a bastard child; I better be a good little boy now." Not like that's going to change anyone that drastically. It might. Good idea anyway. I give Cliff a 100%. I give myself a 30.
Ok, first I must apologize - I haven't been following this thread for a few days since I was a bit busy implementing the new search. Now that I have been catching up, let me make a few remarks.
First of all, it will be a rating system, not a voting system. This means that a rating can be both negative as positive as well as anything in between (for instance from -5 to +5). So for instance if someone has gotten 10 positive ratings, he needs to get at least 10 negative ratings for him to get into the "danger zone".
Nobody will be able to see who rated who.
If you rate a person, your old rating for this person will be replaced (so effectively, you can rate a person only once, but you can change your rating for this person).
Banning will not be an automatic process. The rating system is just an indicator (for yourself and me) of what the majority thinks of you. A rating is never a guarantee that you will or will not be banned. You can have a positive rating and still be banned (to prevent people from "using up credits"). However, a rating of -5 will almost certainly mean being banned, since nobody found it worthwhile to give you a positive rating.
Ratings "age", which mean that your rating always reflects the past few months or so.
I currently think it's best if you can only view your own rating (I dont't want you to be "labeled").
And last but not least, this is still just an idea so there's no guarantee I will ever implement such a thing.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: I currently think it's best if you can only view your own rating (I dont't want you to be "labeled").
Glad I read the whole thread. I agree - the rating system should be mostly hidden. You get to see only your own score and the administrator weilds the axe
A suggestion would be a system similar to the one they use on Slashdot. The score is your "karma" and you win/lose karma through moderation. Randomly, you permit qualified users to mod individual posts up or down. Any registered user can meta-moderate (i.e. mod the moderator). Check out their FAQ here.
They also have the source for their forum available. I'm sure the logic would be fairly easy to port to any scripting tool of choice.
I'm not saying go to their whole nested forum, but the logic of moderation could surely be applied on UBB I would think. You could even extend that to filter comments as Archie suggested. A logged in user would set a threshold that would automagically skip posts that were modded down for famebait, redundancy, etc.
sounds like a good idea to me Cliff, my only reservation is the # of posts.... I don't post much at all, I use my CD for info and post only when i can't find what I'm looking for.
------------------ 86 SE I'm addicted and proud of it Kevin
Go for it. I think it will help save some bandwidth. If you have been here long enough (2yrs for me) you know who is who. You know who knows what and whos comments you can trust in which areas. I can say that probably 99% of the forum members will be ok. We know the 1% of bad apples to be ignored.
------------------ Alex4mula :) Red-Original Owner & White-1/94 with PM (:
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: It seems that lately the forum is flooded by new members that really don't have anything to say other than "my car r0X0rz, all other car SuX0rz!" (forgive me if I don't have the "l337"-spelling right). There are also certain members that seem to do nothing else than to stir trouble.
I kind of recent that. But I have always made it perfectly clear that I do not ban people from the forum easily. The reason is simple: because if I do so, it will always be because they have crossed a line I have set [b]personally and chances are it is not a reflection of the feelings of the forum community in general.
That's why I'm thinking of implementing a Member Rating System. Each member will be able to rate another member. If someone's rating drops below a certain point, this member will be automaticallty banned.
You will only be able to rate another member once (so you can't single handedly make another member's rating drop significantly). Also, you'll need to have a certain amount of posts made on your name before you can rate (to prevent someone from registering under different usernames just so he/she can influence another member's rating). This minimum amount of posts will be set quite high - like a hundred posts or so.
Ok, that's the idea. Let me know what you think.[/B]
With resent events, I think the best Rating system is already in place. The one where Cliff boots the SOB when he finally proves that he is the weakest link.
This may have been suggested already, but why not also delete all accounts that have been inactive for over 3 months? The 3000+ members we have is a freakishly inflated number from what we really have. Double accounts, people only registering to troll for a bit then leave, people registering and never coming back, etc. Its just taking up your hard drive space and only makes it harder to find people when you do a member search.
The member rating system: Love it. I'd have your children if I were, well, not a guy. And werent straight.
PEACE -Sootah
------------------ Never pull your pants down in Cosco, the dang monkeys will getcha AIM: KSSouter
Sootah--what about those that can't make it to the forum due to circumstances beyond their control. The member that immediately comes to mind is Decadence R. He was a member in good standing until he left for the military. I'm sure, once he gets his basic and AIT done, he'll be back. What if he just has a few minutes. It would be a shame for him to have to log on again, wait to have his password sent, etc.
Originally posted by Sootah: This may have been suggested already, but why not also delete all accounts that have been inactive for over 3 months? The 3000+ members we have is a freakishly inflated number from what we really have.[/i] [/B]
The 3500+ number might be inflated for the number of people that post regularly but it's most certainly not inflated for the number of people that visit this site on a daily basis. It gives you a good idea how large the audience really is.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: The 3500+ number might be inflated for the number of people that post [b]regularly but it's most certainly not inflated for the number of people that visit this site on a daily basis. It gives you a good idea how large the audience really is.[/B]
Cliff, are the IPs logged when people vist? or just when they post. Sorry, just wondering. (can I even hide from the "eyes" of Cliff?!?!?! )
"eyes" 
)
