Every system can be gamed, not a single system in the world is bullet proof and never will be. However a good system depends on society (community) and the people that are a part of it to diminish the effects others have on gaming that system. This is explained with the benchmark reputation score dropping until it evens out at a number that takes into account "the gaming of the system". From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
I think the first problem is handled well with the flexible reputation benchmark, and as for #2... Unlike on reddit, you cannot have a negative reputation score, so instead you will see a ratio of up votes vs down votes represented by a percentage, like 32%, I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score. But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
I appreciate that. I understand that I can come off as aggressive or at least passionate when I argue. I'll someti...
From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
I appreciate that. I understand that I can come off as aggressive or at least passionate when I argue. I'll sometimes include disclaimers to remind people I'm not calling them idiots when I argue my case.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
While I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
People shouldn't be afraid to express themselves and their opinions no matter how ridiculous they may appear to a majority. As long as their form of expression follows rules set fourth to keep things flowing, we shouldn't as administrators interfere in those interactions, let alone go around banning everyone with an unpopular opinion. Having said that, anyone that breaks the ToS by trolling, abusing, doxxing and or harassing others should still expect to get the good ole boot.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
It's human nature to try and be different, even if it means to harass other people in order to reach the opposite end of the scale. That type of activity needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis with full transparency so that the community can be aware of what happens.
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with so...
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
While I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
People shouldn't be afraid to express themselves and their opinions no matter how ridiculous they may appear to a majority. As long as their form of expression follows rules set fourth to keep things flowing, we shouldn't as administrators interfere in those interactions, let alone go around banning everyone with an unpopular opinion. Having said that, anyone that breaks the ToS by trolling, abusing, doxxing and or harassing others should still expect to get the good ole boot.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
It's human nature to try and be different, even if it means to harass other people in order to reach the opposite end of the scale. That type of activity needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis with full transparency so that the community can be aware of what happens.
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
It is exactly what this platform is trying to do with its reputation and levels. Sure your opinion may not be popular with a majority, but just because your opinion is not embraced doesn't mean it's wrong or better yet, somehow deserving a ban. The people that have "an axe to grind" will do it within the rules set fourth by our administrators, if they break any of those rules they will become a part of the "case by case" process. Otherwise, everything else should be left for the community and our system to mitigate.
While I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're demonstrably disruptive. Reddit identified a group of people whom they could demonstrate were genuinely disruptive and brought the hammer down on them. I don't disagree with that action.
But bans should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. Certainly the conditions under which someone can be banned should be clearly spelled out. I absolutely don't think anyone should be banned for espousing an unpopular opinion. Automatic bans should never be done. But I think there are ways that people who just want to be contrary can be discouraged from being disruptive.
The people that have "an axe to grind" will do it within the rules set fourth by our administrators, if they break any of those rules they will become a part of the "case by case" process. Otherwise, everything else should be left for the community and our system to mitigate.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're demonstrably disruptive. Reddit identified a group of people whom they could demonstrate were genuinely disruptive and brought the hammer down on them. I don't disagree with that action.
I didn't misunderstand you, and I know you aren't in favor of automatic banning. I just wanted to clarify this for anyone else reading our exchange. I'm happy we're in agreement /u/spaceghoti.
Every system can be gamed, not a single system in the world is bullet proof and never will be. However a good system depends on society (community) and the people that are a part of it to diminish the effects others have on gaming that system. This is explained with the benchmark reputation score dropping until it evens out at a number that takes into account "the gaming of the system". From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
I think the first problem is handled well with the flexible reputation benchmark, and as for #2... Unlike on reddit, you cannot have a negative reputation score, so instead you will see a ratio of up votes vs down votes represented by a percentage, like 32%, I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score. But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
I appreciate that. I understand that I can come off as aggressive or at least passionate when I argue. I'll someti...
... Read FullWhile I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
People shouldn't be afraid to express themselves and their opinions no matter how ridiculous they may appear to a majority. As long as their form of expression follows rules set fourth to keep things flowing, we shouldn't as administrators interfere in those interactions, let alone go around banning everyone with an unpopular opinion. Having said that, anyone that breaks the ToS by trolling, abusing, doxxing and or harassing others should still expect to get the good ole boot.
It's human nature to try and be different, even if it means to harass other people in order to reach the opposite end of the scale. That type of activity needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis with full transparency so that the community can be aware of what happens.
... Read FullI think you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're demonstrably disruptive. Reddit identified a group of people whom they could demonstrate were genuinely disruptive and brought the hammer down on them. I don't disagree with that action.
But bans should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. Certainly the conditions under which someone can be banned should be clearly spelled out. I absolutely don't think anyone should be banned for espousing an unpopular opinion. Automatic bans should never be done. But I think there are ways that people who just want to be contrary can be discouraged from being disruptive.
I enthusiastically approve.
I didn't misunderstand you, and I know you aren't in favor of automatic banning. I just wanted to clarify this for anyone else reading our exchange. I'm happy we're in agreement /u/spaceghoti.