Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeronimo
I see there is a reputation with a little green square. Is a simple case of good reputation or bad reputation? Or are there levels of reputation?

---

Every user has a "score," a positive or negative number based on the number of votes for/against them. If you have many votes in one "direction," you can have up to ten of the little or images. There haven't been many votes on the community forums, so you can't see them yet.

quote:

---

My thoughts are, with so many members, are people going to vote for each other??

---

I think only elite members and forum staff should be able to vote, so there's no abuse, and the reputations are given by trusted people. When they see a post they like or don't like, they should vote. If you disagree, please say so.

I think thats a great idea WDZ perhaps rewards for getting great reputations and stuff follow?

i think that would be a very good system. it also makes sure that people cannot just get there without making a dent. so it takes imput from only respected members. i think that would be a great thing. but keep the ranking on the secret stats page of most posts, but dont actually show the postcount.

Ah yes, much clearer thanks WDZ. Yes I think having voting open to all would lead to abuse etc.

As long as the staff aren't too lazy to vote () then its a much better system. There is a good core of people here on the forums that provide accurate, reliable help. A system that helps show this better would be much welcomed

Yeah, I sadly (as much as I'd like to vote ) think it would spoil it to let just anyone do reputations, it must be said...

For it to work the elite members would have to make an effort to make good votes as well as bad votes when they see fit, because it's very easy just to notice and do something about it when it's negative.  I reckon there should also be a policy of not voting on posts where there's a personal issue which would bias things - reputations must not be a way to get at people you don't like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
That's why I think it should be done in the opposite way... everything is deleted except individual threads that people request under very specific conditions.

---

Uhh...

* WDZ slaps crazy ideas like that one around a bit with a large trout.

---

Johnny_Mac's idea was to wipe the entire forums!  I was just suggesting how to rescue important threads

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono

Sorry billiwoods but when i closed the thread, i deleted about 20 off topic messages (talking about why did we delete stfu's thread)
Thats why u dont see the spammy posts
So dont judge if u dont know what was going on

------------------------------


Ok.. hmm i havent read the whole thread but i read the first posts...
See.. in the old days, when there was not such a big ammount of users, the GCC forum had quite a few spammy threads, and they werent moved mainly because there were not many replies to them.
Now theres a different situation, there are lots of spammers out there waiting for these kind of thread..
i used to move these 'spammy'-'silly'-'not useful' threads instantly to T&T when i read them..
but one day u complained that there were threads being moved to T&T that werent really spam..
So i changed my mind, and i was like 'ok, lets see what happens and then ill see if i move it/close it'... then again, u complained that there were spammy thread in GCC..
There will always be people who wont like my job, i know that
But im asking u for a bit of cooperation
We can do a great job if we work together, u know there is this "report" button in every post and u know u can use it
There are some guys who spend a lot of time here but never use it...
I have been spending lots of time here lately, so im reading almost every thread... But u know that when u are a mod sometimes is difficult to take the decision if the thread is just spam or not, cause if u take a wrong decision, there will be lots of guys asking 'why did u close / delete it?'
I was trying to let these surelly-will-be-spammed thread in GCC, and keeping an eye on them.
If u think that there's too much spam, then i can be more strict about it, i have no probs with that.
I need suggestions so i can do my job in a better way
Just remember to report a spammy post when u find it, cause its the best way to get rid of spam quickly (cause sometimes when im busy, i just log in to read the reported posts and then i leave)

Ok enough blah blah, i want to read ur comments

EDITED: I read the whole thread () and i agree with some of cookie and dom's comments.

---

Hmm... again, I was a bit caught by your 'blah blah', so I haven't read much else.

Firstly (setting aside the fact that you ALWAYS misspell my name ), I don't see why threads need to be pruned and locked... one or the other maybe, but not both. It just makes people like me realise that a seemingly innocent thread has been locked for no reason. Putting it into perspective, 20 spammy posts is a lot, but if that's just from one user/group then ban them and delete the posts, don't mark the thread as unkosher and immediately quarantine it by locking it, assuming that if you don't more spam will come and spread.

About the report bit, doesn't this kinda contradict what you're saying? In fact, it seems kind of irrelevant too, and maybe you misunderstood. I can understand deleting posts or locking threads, but when every third post is locked or shoved in T&T, it gets kind of annoying. I want you to be LESS strict with spam!

As for WDZ's idea, I have a slightly more complicated idea on the same theme (naturally), and if he'd like to hear it, I'd be happy to post it... but it means it's slightly more fair on those who aren't elite and up, and also slightly less of a hassle for those who are.

Blah... had to remove most of your emoticons, Chrono, sorry - too many images.

but i think there might need to be more than 13 (plus test_user ) eligible voters. it seems like a great way to do it

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
but i think there might need to be more than 13 (plus test_user ) eligible voters

---

What if when you reach a certain level of reputation, you are allowed to vote? In a way, it would be like the staff members voted you in to do that. Or is this open to abuse too I wonder?

but if someone got that high, they would be less likeley to abuse it. and if they do, they might be reputed down