Reputation points

[Zzyzx]

I think that for people with an extreamly low reputation, maybe their posts should be evaluated by a moderator before it is posted. This way it is not compleate censorship, but does give people an opertunity to review possibly inappropriate posts from a user infamous for bad posts. I also feel that only the administrators, modorators, or the person who posted should have the right to deleate already existing posts.

[indieFan]

I have to disagree with having posts from those with low reputations moderated. First, the moderators would have a lot more work to do than they already have. Second, who is to say what type of postings the reputations have come from?

I haven't posted very often simply because I don't feel that there is much more for me to add to a current discussion, esp. if M. Krass has responded before me. Therefore, the number of my posts is still under 100, as is my reputation, even though I've been around these forums since 2001. In addition, one of those posts that would be waiting for the moderators to approve may be the critical answer to your problem that must be solved in the next 10 min.

One of the interesting issues that is posed by having people post any time they want is that the reader must determine what information is valid. The same goes for any site on the internet.

indieFan

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by indieFan

I have to disagree with having posts from those with low reputations moderated. First, the moderators would have a lot more work to do than they already have. Second, who is to say what type of postings the reputations have come from?

I don't think the suggestion was for low but positive reputations, but for the (very) few people that have extremely negative reputations.

I haven't finished working through my mind as to what I think about that, though.

[Madison]

Cory, I understand that the fine folks in Michigan and the moderators scattered across the country are free to close, move, modify or delete any posts or threads that they'd like. I'm also happy to say that, with some exceptions, I feel that they use those privileges wisely and sparingly. Censorship isn't a problem on these forums so far.

Everyone, there are also only two people with an overwhelmingly negative reputation among the thousands of members. For that reason alone, discussion about censoring their ability to speak seems fruitless and wasted. One of those members hasn't posted in over a year, before the reputation system even existed, suggesting to me that their extremely negative reputation probably isn't deserved.

Remember also that the forums have an "Ignore" function that automatically removes the text from posts by certain individuals. You can choose to view individual posts if you'd like, but on the whole, you can spare yourself from their inane stupidity, ramblings, or trite commentary.

Numerous methods of censorship exist already on these forums, so suggesting a site-wide policy of censorship that lay in the grasp of the majority is overwhelmingly dangerous and completely unnecessary. Around here, we don't get to vote people off the island, but we can pretty easily pretend they don't exist.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I agree. If you censor one thing, it sets a dangerous precident to enable censoring in the future. That's the theory behind Slashdot- No posts can be deleted or edited.

I don't particularly like some of the moderation that happens here on CD. For instance, I think threads get closed more often than they should when discussion gets intense. However, I also feel that moderation on CD is a good thing. All in all, the moderators do a great job.

The difference between CD and Slashdot is Slashdot geared for nerds and was started by a group of friends and now financed by the Open Source Devlopers Network. The open source comminuity tends to be extremely liberal and would frown upon censorship of any kind. There is also no specific age group with Slashdot.

CD I would assume is financed by Delphi, or at the very least something with reasonle enough ties to Delphi that it would damage their reputation if you could post whatever you wanted here. There's also a specific age group on CD; high school students, most of whom are under 18. Granted, some of us are older, but we go to robotics everyday knowing that we have to keep it PG13.

[Cory]

whoa, you can ignore someone?

How did I miss this...

Cory

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

The difference between CD and Slashdot is Slashdot geared for nerds...

That can't possible be a difference.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I don't think the suggestion was for low but positive reputations, but for the (very) few people that have extremely negative reputations.

I haven't finished working through my mind as to what I think about that, though.

I really don't think it's in our best interest to moderate low or negative rep point members. My problem is that this is an online forum, and I get really antsy when contributing or reading to a moderated thread when hours goes by and posts havn't been aproved. This is an online forum and I really like the instantaneous nature of online discussion. If there's wasn't CD on the internet, we might be using carrier pigeons to hande PMs

Anyways, what I think should happen is there should be a method to as M. Krass put it "vote people of the island." Right now I can only think of 1 person who has never added to a thread in a positive manner. I could use the ignore option, but I really have trouble justifying to myself why I should be authorised to ignore someone. If CD officially banished someone, it wouldn't feel so personal and I would be happier about seeing them go.

Perhaps after more than 3 posts of immense negative reputation you should be banished from CD?

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Cory

whoa, you can ignore someone?

How did I miss this...

Cory

Under the User CP screen, way down at the bottom under the Miscellaneous category, there's an option for Buddy/Ignore Lists. Adding people to the ignore list will make the text, "This person is on your ignore list," or similar appear in place of the text of their posts.

Edit:

Anyways, what I think should happen is there should be a method to as M. Krass put it "vote people of the island." Right now I can only think of 1 person who has never added to a thread in a positive manner. I could use the ignore option, but I really have trouble justifying to myself why I should be authorised to ignore someone. If CD officially banished someone, it wouldn't feel so personal and I would be happier about seeing them go.

With respect, you should feel personally responsible for the actions you take when you ignore someone and you should be mindful of why you're ignoring them. It is not and should never be ChiefDelphi's burden to make you feel less guilty about dismissing the effort (however minimal) someone takes to participate here. Passing that burden on to someone else is little more than sloth and irresponsibility. Make your own decisions and deal with the varied consequences of those actions; don't pretend you're being humble by leaving those decisions to someone else.

[Andy Baker]

There is more of an issue here than just plain censorship. Many of you are not seeing the forest through the trees. I have seen that most of SilenceNoMore's posts are stirring things up. He/she is challenging the normal paradigms we have and many people are rising up and defending their positions with conviction. Is this a bad thing? No. People need to defend their beliefs and it is good to have someone question what you believe in once in a while.

While sometimes, certain posts by certain people may be deemed inappropriate, their opinions still need to be heard. I actually like the fact that some people (even SilenceNoMore) come in here and have the guts to say what they feel, even if their opinion is in the minority. While I don't agree with what they say, I respect their opinions.

Also... there is another point here that needs to be heard. Many people who start posting on here initially say some silly things. Over time, they learn, mature, and grow up. They gain experience and realize that some of their previous posts were regretted. I'll give you 2 examples: JosephM and Tytus. When each of these two guys started posting, they grated on many people's nerves. If we had rep points back then, they would have red dots out the wazoo. However, we have all seen these two guys grow into fine young men and they are very positive contributors to this community. I look forward to seeing what these two guys have to say. They both have matured into credible young adults. If their comments were banned and not heard at all, they would not be where they are today.

As for the people who "stir the pot", I say let 'em speak. The moderators can handle the job of keeping things appropriate if things get too turbulent. We need differing opinions in here, and it would not be good to ban certain people because they have unpopular views.

Andy B.

[Bharat Nain]

I agree with the freedom of speech etc. We need differing viewpoints and thats what this forum is meant for. At the same time the moderators do a good job moderating this place..

I mean I know people like SilenceNoMore get on peoples nerves, but its not too bad. Sometimes its good humor too. At the same time this is no political forum, therefore we dont need cencorship etc. The mods do their job, so let them do it.

[Zzyzx]

In my prior post, when I stated low rep points, I should have specified that I ment negative rep points, like -250 or somthing like that. I compleately understand how some people have a low rep score because they do not post as often as other people, and that should not make them suseptable to censorship. I was trying to state that it would only affect people who have a great deal of negative rep points.

[Bharat Nain]

Sorry for posting again, but I think this is needed. I like what Andy said about new members. When I came in new to this forum, the first 5 reputation points I got were negative. So 1 red dot. About a month after that the "Collaboration" thread started. I observed people, and the forum etique and learnt a lot. I did not participate in the discussion because I did not want more negative reputations . Wel anyways, Andy is soo right, it does take time to develop and learn to post right.

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

While sometimes, certain posts by certain people may be deemed inappropriate, their opinions still need to be heard. I actually like the fact that some people (even SilenceNoMore) come in here and have the guts to say what they feel, even if their opinion is in the minority. While I don't agree with what they say, I respect their opinions.

I have no problems with free speech and the expression of personal opinion. Granted, I do not have tolerance for rudeness and attacks upon other people and their personal morals and decisions. I believe that, upon multiple occassions, SilenceNoMore specifically has transcended this. Some of the posts he makes are not what would fall under "constructive criticism" or a personal opinion about a topic. These fall more to the criticizing of a member of team 25 apologizing for some things that happened at PARC, as this member felt the personal responsibility to apologize on behalf of his team.

Just to sum it up, I have absolutely NO problems with free speech, it facilitates the spreading of ideas, but there are some instances where people cross the boundaries.

Now to get back on topic, I think that reputations given by members with strongly negative reps, khssoccer16 and SilenceNoMore are the only ones I've seen, should be monitored. So that at least the reps given out by them be checked to make sure that the reps they give out are just. Because truly, I expect to an extent that those with higher reputations are more respectable and trustworthy, as I would trust Andy Baker, JVN, DJ Fluck, et al to to be fair and responsible.

[Goobergunch]

According to the Memberlist, there are currently only two ChiefDelphi members with red dots next to their names.