for example say if somebody gets below -10 reputation then the mods are notified about it. at first i thought of auto-bannage but then this could be abused easily so i thought moderator notification would be better.

good idea/crap idea??

I don't think it is a good idea.
If a moderator feel the person should be banned they should do it.
They shouldn't do it because of that persons reputation.

But if a person has a bad reputation then doesnt that mean they might be doing somehting wrong?
I think the idea of notifying the mods is good, then they can act as they wish. Nothing has to be done. Its just like recomemding.

What?

Just because someones reputation is below a certain number doesnt mean they should be banned or warned. What happens if a group of users decide to "gang up" on another user just to get them below that point? If there were to be an implementation like that then it would allow only mods to warn a user then place a temporary ban on them.

User's thoughts (aka reputations), don't justify a ban from the community.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton
If there were to be an implementation like that then it would allow only mods to warn a user then place a temporary ban on them.

---

Need something more like a warn level.

yeh but anything thats automatic can be abused which is why i suggested notifying mods instead of actually automatic bannage so if the mod doesnt think they deserve it they can just ignore it

A warn level is set by mods. That is the whole point. So it shouldn't be abused.

I personally don't like the idea, even if it just triggers a warning...
If a user needs warning about their behaviour a mod will notice, or even a member could just send a friendly PM to a member who is acting inappropriately. When John Anderton's forum attitude was annoying I just sent him a friendly PM with a few tips on how to help people out, where to spam, and generally what to do in situations like the sponsor...He sent a PM back and was polite and told me that he would try to do everything I suggested...doing this on a personal member to member basic is much more effective than having an auto warning to the member, or even a standard warning...
Also I don't think the reputation of a user is linked to their need for banage...they just may be a little arrogant...

We don't use a warning system here. We all keep track of who is doing what thats dodgy, spam and that kind of stuff, then when it gets to a certain stage we will temporarily ban that user. It's pretty well streamlined and well communicated between us staff as it is right now without the addition of some bloat warning system - which would effectively make the staff forum more redundant.

Anubis

The mods are on here alot anyways, so it wouldnt really go unnoticed. However I think it's an allright idea.

yes i believe it is and alright idea, but it also nt needed, im sure admin and moderators are quite capable of taking care of a few spammers

Hmm...I disagree strongly.  That'd be like if the U.S. Army took shot someone after they didnt perform well...fine, a stupid analogy, you get the drift though.

I think that automatic banning is out of the question but why do u need a warning by a mod. U will notice on your posts automatically if yr reputation changes so u'll go and read it. Then u'll automatically improve yourself by reding why they gave u a negative vote. If they continue to do so then eventually the mod's will do something. And leejeffery what did u mean by the "moderator notification" ?? Is it a msg by a moderator to the user or a message to the mod 'bout the user ?? If its the earlier which it is (i think) then the mods will i think be underpressure with quite some work or did u mean a automessaging service ??
Neways i think u shouldn't do any thing.
One more thing since we are talkin bout reputations can there be a list in the stats section 'bout the ppl with the highest (i think thats Wdz with 34 but i swear i saw someone with +36/37/38 but i can't remember) and the lowest (whos that ??) like the page showing the highest posts where i think CookieRevised is the highest with 5 thousand or so posts last time i checked.
EDIT: I thought Patchou cas +32 or +33 isnt that what the counter below his name says or does the counter not go ahead of that number. I maybe mistaken. Well its obvious why he's there cause he created the software we're here for. Newayz who's next after him. Whos the lowest ?? bastellaaa ??
Just one more thing Patchou Rulez

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
And leejeffery what did u mean by the "moderator notification" ??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
(i think thats Wdz with 34 but i swear i saw someone with +36/37/38 but i can't remember)

---