My solution to cleaning up the Zoo (and 2+2)

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Ratings encourage groupthink, not discussion.

Also, if you want the forum not to have visitors, instead only valuing the opinions of long-time posters, just turn off the registration feature and do it the right way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more. Last thing we need is a herd mentality or a snotty in-crowd. Real life is tedious and snobby cliquish enough; who needs to come here for more of that?

All the boards without exception that I've been on that had rating systems had people become obsessed with them. All had people ignoring ideas as they stood -- one heck of a big part of the whole point of a net forum, especially a poker one -- to just heap praise on virtually any post written by those with the highest ratings and ignore or put down most everything else. This is a forum, not a personality cult. They had people making "revenge" ratings on others for disliking their posts, had people getting their friends to register and registering different accounts themselves to do the same, etc... Ugh.

What next, are we going to nail a couple of boards to our treehouse and paint on them, No girls alowed! with a backward "S" on the "girls"?

[jasonHoldEm]

Hi jek,

I consider you a friend, but we differ on this issue.

I think 2+2's current system is fine. There is a fine line between keeping out the crap/spam and outright censorship (i.e. banning someone just because their opinions/ideology/ego/attitude/etc doesn't jive with what you think is right). Mat and 2+2 has done a very good job (IMHO) toeing this difficult line with the guidelines that have been established already and I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. If and when Mat ever feels the forums have grown beyond his control I'm confident he'll inform the powers that be and it will be dealt with internally.

I know you're asking, "But why doesn't Mat ban people faster? Poster SoAndSo made this post [insert link here] which is clearly useless, why can't we get rid of him right away?"

The answer is that trolls can (occasionally at least) make brilliant posts (sometimes this is by accident, sometimes by design, but it does happen). This is one of the reasons I've stopped using the ignore function. Mat gives them some leeway before he shitcans them because he wants to make sure they are really trolls and not semi-trolls (like Vehn for example...who I thought was an ass most of the time but he did contribute quite a bit when he was on topic).

Anyways, I trust Mat's judgment, and I think most people need to lighten up a little in regard to these sort of issues. It's better to deal with a little crap/spam occasionally then to have the pendulum swing the other way.

Just my .02
J

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
All had people ignoring ideas as they stood -- one heck of a big part of the whole point of a net forum, especially a poker one -- to just heap praise on virtually any post written by those with the highest ratings and ignore or put down most everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one reason why it's better to rate the posts themselves rather than the posters. Again, one community that has made this work well is Slashdot.

[busguy]

What he said.

I couldn't agree more and can't think of anything that was missed.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] busguy

[itsmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
Admit it, under your plan, you'd have replied then rated me down, attempting to silence me so you can have your last haughty word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the recommended rating system (Slashdot's), you can't post to a thread in which you've rated a post or vice versa.

Martin

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that limiting the number of posts a person can make per week/month is a poor idea, especially for the strategy forums. With the number of posts as high as it is, allowing someone to only post X times will hinder both their ability to learn and the their ability to help others. Sometimes a person will post more than 5 times in a single thread in order to understand a concept or to help others understand a topic. This would also prevent people from responding to all threads even if their input will be productive, this will also hinder their ability to learn and help others. Then it will cause old threads to be bumped blahblahblah....

[/ QUOTE ]

good points

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm living in a dream world here, but I like to think that the established posters won't down rate other posters for just disagreeing with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other reason would there be to rate someone poorly? Clearly anyone who disagrees with me is just plain wrong and deserves to be restricted to a single post consisting of an apology and a promise to never do so again.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Jimbo

[AncientPC]

I don't know, you can just use the ignore user's post feature to block out any troll / spammers.

If you're concerned about troll / spammers making 2+2 a pay site (even if it's something measly like $5 a year) will weed out the majority of troll / spammers. I doubt most people are going to pay $5 just so they can start trouble and get banned. Forums could be still visible to unregistered users, just that they couldn't post / reply.

However that's unlikely to happen, next best solution is just limiting the number of posts a new user makes until they reach a certain date / post count. However, I'm not sure if this feature is already available in the forum software. If it's not then it's highly unlikely that someone's code it . . .

[Terry]

I’ve been gone for a few months, too. The signal to noise ratio is the exact phrase that kept (keeps) going through my mind. There seem to be some other MIAs, judging by the past week or so of lurking.

Oh, well ... I could ramble on ... the good old days, and the downfall, of rec.gambling and r.g.p. ... there too, some of the posters with the least worthwhile to say have been spouting off at great length on a daily basis for over 15 years ...

No answers. No suggestions. Back to occasional lurker status. /sigh

[TerraUbrett]

Excellent idea.