Punish negatively repped users?

How what is already there isn't working, as if my previous posts weren't absolutely clear on that. It's a combination of enforcement and the system itself. Negrep is actually a much more useful system than infractions because the user can 'work' it off by helping or participating with other users. This is a sort of self-redemption policy that works great if the punishment system is taken seriously.

However, mods and staff can always keep track of how many times a user has been punished, particularly easily in cases like HT that are so few and far between. If they cause enough trouble and are then more trouble than they're worth, toast them. In HT's case, he probably isn't given enough negative reputation for his attitude and general demeanor in most topics. It's not tough, and yes, I'm sorry, but it requires the staff have half a brain about them and make solid judgment calls.

the user can 'work' it off by helping or participating with other users.

If we magically removed "lulz" rep, then maybe.
You do bring up a good point of the mods just banning anyone, but I don't see why you can't just replace "insta-ban" with "10-point infraction" in your mind.
--donut3.5--

Yeah, guys, shame on you. You need to TOAST ME. Too bad I am sooo "important" that I just don't get banned :P

Originally Posted by Rising_Dusk

How what is already there isn't working, as if my previous posts weren't absolutely clear on that. It's a combination of enforcement and the system itself. Negrep is actually a much more useful system than infractions because the user can 'work' it off by helping or participating with other users. This is a sort of self-redemption policy that works great if the punishment system is taken seriously.

Well, you are correct. But people who get neg reputation usually begin to neglect the entire reputation system. It's also a lot harder for people to who have neg rep to get rep unless they do something really good, that can be good and bad though. People may work harder for the rep, but they might also just give up.

As for infractions they're more or less for one people don't smarten up after being neg repped multiple times.

Originally Posted by donut3.5

If we magically removed "lulz" rep, then maybe

It's called rules. :P

"NO GIVING LULZ REP"

'cause thats going to work. . .

In order to punish negatively repped users, you must first establish grounds that the negative rep has been fairly given out in the first place. And in a few cases, it has not been.

Not only that, but I also don't see as much cracking down on obvious flame bait/trolling by mods as there should be. I wonder why negative rep isn't being handed out for this kind of behavior, when it's being handed out in such abundance for 'double posting'.

The only time I have ever seen someone get neg rep for double posting is if they do it constantly despite being told not to. But then again I don't visit all the various forums so it might be different in some places depending on the moderator.

Originally Posted by Denu

The only time I have ever seen someone get neg rep for double posting is if they do it constantly despite being told not to. But then again I don't visit all the various forums so it might be different in some places depending on the moderator.

I just got neg rep for that and I did it once and it was a new update/bump "double post" no warning no nothing.
Before this can be taken seriously I think the mods need some rules to keep them in check.

Well just don't double post. It is in the rules and it isn't that hard not to do.

I was refering to people who were ignorant of the double posting rule. I don't know much about your situation but if you allready knew about double posting and you were indeed in violation of that rule then you were justly neg-repped.

It isn't impossible that some moderators give out neg rep for double posting regardless of the situation. It is in the rules and everyone has the ability to look at those rules whenever they want. If you didn't know about the rule prior to breaking it then you might consider asking politely the admin who neg repped you to overlook it just this one time.

Break a rule you get punished. That's why you're supposed to read the rules. "Oh, I didn't know rules were important" isn't a good enough excuse.

Originally Posted by Hawkwing

Break a rule you get punished. That's why you're supposed to read the rules. "Oh, I didn't know rules were important" isn't a good enough excuse.

I agree with this statement since all forum and site have quite a similiar rules. It doesn't give a person a excuse just because he is newbie, I often encounter a new users who often violate rules at map section by either mass-upload resources or upload incomplete map for their buddy while the rules already been shown to them at the bottom of the upload button.

Most of the people here who often read and follow the rules doesn't get involve into any trouble at all such as neg rep or infraction.

Reputation system have quite a flaw especially when user often null a neg rep by given the punish user a positive rep, which gradually weaken the efficiency of this system. To have a tough system which cannot be erase by anybody rather than the admin, that is why we have infraction system.

Originally Posted by Septimus

I agree with this statement since all forum and site have quite a similiar rules. It doesn't give a person a excuse just because he is newbie, I often encounter a new users who often violate rules at map section by either mass-upload resources or upload incomplete map for their buddy while the rules already been shown to them at the bottom of the upload button.

Most of the people here who often read and follow the rules doesn't get involve into any trouble at all such as neg rep or infraction.

Reputation system have quite a flaw especially when user often null a neg rep by given the punish user a positive rep, which gradually weaken the efficiency of this system. To have a tough system which cannot be erase by anybody rather than the admin, that is why we have infraction system.

Infractions seem to be a better system. However there needs to be lines drawn for mods as well as users for reputation which I see a complete lack of.
Anyhow that's just my opinion. Take it of leave it.

That is why we have a admin and director to overlook the mod.

As for admin, we have Ralle to overlook them. As for Ralle, we have nobody to overlook him... lol...

I'd still like to make it blaringly obvious about the whole "Oh you have neg rep, here's some rep to cancel it out"

It's really annoying and deceives people. Positive rep doesn't mean much because some people get a ridiculous amount for the stupidest reasons. However, negative rep speaks.

-1 means a slight goof up. -4 or so and beyond means troublemaker. People however go "Here's some rep to get to positive." this needs to stop some way. My suggestion once again, is make it so only staff can rep those in the red.

As for infractions. They are a useful system. But because of the whole 10 and you're gone, it can take too long to get rid of someone who just needs to get shot and banned (A few names come to mind).

-1 means a slight goof up. -4 or so and beyond means troublemaker. People however go "Here's some rep to get to positive." this needs to stop some way. My suggestion once again, is make it so only staff can rep those in the red.

Actually -1 just means they were neg repped by a mod with little rep power, -4 means they were neg repped by someone with a high rep power :P
Also, Elenai has been cracking down on those "pity-reppers", I think he already knocked Void for doing it.
--donut3.5--