Re: we need a new "reputation" measure besides "rank"
Posted: 08 Jan 2008, 08:50
Anything that relies on votes is basically making Tired a moderator.
Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.com/phpbb/
What do you mean? WE are the dark side!neddiedrow wrote:I might just have to go over to the dark side.
How many times have I told you not to discuss our plans in public?KingRaptor wrote:That way, LCC as the largest clan will become the power bloc in Spring. We can even browbeat the few moderators who aren't already in our clan into being assimilated, thus ensuring that there is no-one to contest our absolute dominance over the community.
Today the Spring lobby, tomorrow the world!
. . .manored wrote:We just need a way to keep people from "disguising" thenselfes. Maybe a system where you can mark people and if they enter the lobby with other account you can see that its then in another account through ip...
Moderators arent bots, they have emotions, they have prejudice(note, not meaning this word just negatively here) over people, they have assumptions over some people's behaviour.kiki wrote:Sleska's insensitivity for anyone and anything really bothers me. We should have reputations that are moderator controlled.
what forum rules does sleSka break?~~That way, since the moderators let Sleska break forum rules, they could easily rep him down to make up for the fact that he is not banned.
zZzAlso, nice helpful people, or people who are just awesome (forb, smoth, arg, agorm to name just a FEW Dont get mad at me if I did not mention you) could get repped up by mods. Since mods are made mods due to their maturity to handle power thoughtfully and carefully, they should be in charge of rep. Separately (or maybe not separately), rank should be determined by ladder matches and such.
The gods have spoken.A. We're never ever going to display a user voted popularity ranking. It's so massively abusable it's laughable. Get over it.
B. It's not possible to evaluate player ethical performance by mathematical function. Ethics are situational, so the altorithm would just break every time someone did something outside of the programmed ideal situation.
C. Both systems, even when working properly, create more work for moderators.
who made peet mod! :[Anything that relies on votes is basically making Tired a moderator.
The X-tremely handsome War goats will prevail over LCCI agree with this idea as long as only members of top level clans will be allowed to change people's reputation. That way, LCC as the largest clan will become the power bloc in Spring. We can even browbeat the few moderators who aren't already in our clan into being assimilated, thus ensuring that there is no-one to contest our absolute dominance over the community.
Most likely a Springie server wasn't around to answer. But yeah, betalord found out the client was sending out its IP to too many people and stopped it, mucking up !smurfs.Teutooni wrote: . . .
!smurfs
Why did it get removed in the first place? To protect privacy?
yaBaNa wrote:gah why turn this into a dickwaving contest. Our community is small enough that people have reputations anyway, you dont have to press a -1 button to vote that someone is an asshole, just remember it.
It reads like you want moderators to favour certain people because you like them and disfavour certain people because you don't like them. Don't backseat mod. Also naming a few people who you think are awesome is pretty silly if you're trying to make a post that people take seriously.kiki wrote:Sleska's insensitivity for anyone and anything really bothers me. We should have reputations that are moderator controlled. That way, since the moderators let Sleska break forum rules, they could easily rep him down to make up for the fact that he is not banned. Also, nice helpful people, or people who are just awesome (forb, smoth, arg, agorm to name just a FEW Dont get mad at me if I did not mention you) could get repped up by mods. Since mods are made mods due to their maturity to handle power thoughtfully and carefully, they should be in charge of rep. Separately (or maybe not separately), rank should be determined by ladder matches and such.
He speaketh the truest words, listen to his wisdom you must.BaNa wrote:gah why turn this into a dickwaving contest. Our community is small enough that people have reputations anyway, you dont have to press a -1 button to vote that someone is an asshole, just remember it.
^Yoda sentence inversionFoxomaniac wrote:He speaketh the truest words, listen to his wisdom you must.BaNa wrote:gah why turn this into a dickwaving contest. Our community is small enough that people have reputations anyway, you dont have to press a -1 button to vote that someone is an asshole, just remember it.
I hope those situations were quite different.SinbadEV wrote: if you want you can make your own personal spreadsheet to monitor people you like/don't like playing with... I've done this before myself in other situations.
Namely playing Magic the Gathering through free online software (listing people I liked playing with and people who had rage-quited on me) and online browser based war games where I listed people who attacked me and lost so I could attack them back... and I used a text file at the time.Boirunner wrote:I hope those situations were quite different.SinbadEV wrote: if you want you can make your own personal spreadsheet to monitor people you like/don't like playing with... I've done this before myself in other situations.