Suggestion: Remove post count/time online as downvote protection

TheOneTrueDesticle · January 13, 2015, 03:09:07 PM

If people downvote someone regularly for saying stupid shit, their rank ought to take some sort of hit.

I'm talking about being able to take someone down to DeeJ if enough people downvote them over time.

None of this:

Spoiler

Also, as has been suggested before, I feel like being lite-banned ought to affect your rank to some degree as well. Do with this what you will.

Mad Max · January 13, 2015, 03:10:44 PM

I'd be inclined to agree. There are...certain users who will exploit this benefit.

TheOneTrueDesticle · January 13, 2015, 03:13:16 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 13, 2015, 03:10:44 PM

I'd be inclined to agree. There are...certain users who will exploit this benefit.

I've got no doubt they will. Maybe downvoting repeatedly could have the added side-effect of decreasing your own "karma" or whatever point system is in place by a tenth of the amount of a downvote or something along those lines. That way, mass downvoters would be affected over time as well.

Mat Cauthon · January 13, 2015, 03:13:44 PM

Especially the ban part, if a warning takes your custom options, a ban should go a good way to reducing your rank.

Mat Cauthon · January 13, 2015, 03:15:02 PM

Quote from: TheOneTrueDesticle on January 13, 2015, 03:13:16 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 13, 2015, 03:10:44 PM
I'd be inclined to agree. There are...certain users who will exploit this benefit.
I've got no doubt they will. Maybe downvoting repeatedly could have the added side-effect of decreasing your own "karma" or whatever point system is in place by a tenth of the amount of a downvote or something along those lines. That way, mass downvoters would be affected over time as well.

That's stupid.

Penalise someone for using an available feature?

Then why not lose your rank when you post?

Magos Domina · January 13, 2015, 03:17:15 PM

We used to have something like that, but people kept "abusing it".

Cheat · January 13, 2015, 03:17:52 PM

I don't think you quite understand what I did with the change to the trust system (which is understandable, considering it's supposed to be kinda a secret).

It's not an immunity. Downvotes count for less on high-ranked-people to keep the ratio more or less even. Before, you had this unstable teeter-totter effect where a high-ranked user would rapidly fall a rank (or two, depending on how many downvotes) when they received downvotes.

And that's because each post you make when you have like 8000 of them counts for very little in comparison to a downvote. So to make it more stable, I set benchmarks that would gradually water down downvotes as you climb the ranks, so you aren't weighted down by them as they are accumulated during your posting career.

TheOneTrueDesticle · January 13, 2015, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: Cheat on January 13, 2015, 03:17:52 PM

I don't think you quite understand what I did with the change to the trust system (which is understandable, considering it's supposed to be kinda a secret).

It's not an immunity. Downvotes count for less on high-ranked-people to keep the ratio more or less even. Before, you had this unstable teeter-totter effect where a high-ranked user would rapidly fall a rank (or two, depending on how many downvotes) when they received downvotes.

And that's because each post you make when you have like 8000 of them counts for very little in comparison to a downvote. So to make it more stable, I set benchmarks that would gradually water down downvotes as you climb the ranks, so you aren't weighted down by them as they are accumulated during your posting career.

I'm not saying that ten people in one day downvoting should drop someone's rank. I'm saying that something in the range of 50 or 100 within a short amount of time could have an impact.

Cheat · January 13, 2015, 03:31:06 PM

Quote from: TheOneTrueDesticle on January 13, 2015, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: Cheat on January 13, 2015, 03:17:52 PM
I don't think you quite understand what I did with the change to the trust system (which is understandable, considering it's supposed to be kinda a secret).

It's not an immunity. Downvotes count for less on high-ranked-people to keep the ratio more or less even. Before, you had this unstable teeter-totter effect where a high-ranked user would rapidly fall a rank (or two, depending on how many downvotes) when they received downvotes.

And that's because each post you make when you have like 8000 of them counts for very little in comparison to a downvote. So to make it more stable, I set benchmarks that would gradually water down downvotes as you climb the ranks, so you aren't weighted down by them as they are accumulated during your posting career.
I'm not saying that ten people in one day downvoting should drop someone's rank. I'm saying that something in the range of 50 or 100 within a short amount of time could have an impact.

I get what you're saying, and we had something like that in the beginning. Basically what happened was people created alts and then downvoted a few users every day for shits and giggles.

It's not exactly a secret that I've moved the Trust system further away from a pure Karma + or - equation, and essentially the reason was asshole jerk faces who decided to cause mayhem with user's titles.

It's not a system that is likely to be overhauled again, as it has been working successfully for a few months, now. I'm open to changing a few of the values and the scales a bit, but going back to the first or second version of the trust system isn't going to happen (probably).

January 13, 2015, 03:33:21 PM

I don't see the value of downvoting/upvoting to begin with. The point should be to encourage good behavior, but it's not as implemented transparent enough to the user in question to actually have a chance of doing that, unlike bans and warnings. If people just want to downrank other people out of spite (and it seems like in at least one case yes they do) then okay I guess

TheOneTrueDesticle · January 13, 2015, 03:43:15 PM

Quote from: Cheat on January 13, 2015, 03:31:06 PM

Quote from: TheOneTrueDesticle on January 13, 2015, 03:22:07 PM
Quote from: Cheat on January 13, 2015, 03:17:52 PM
I don't think you quite understand what I did with the change to the trust system (which is understandable, considering it's supposed to be kinda a secret).

It's not an immunity. Downvotes count for less on high-ranked-people to keep the ratio more or less even. Before, you had this unstable teeter-totter effect where a high-ranked user would rapidly fall a rank (or two, depending on how many downvotes) when they received downvotes.

And that's because each post you make when you have like 8000 of them counts for very little in comparison to a downvote. So to make it more stable, I set benchmarks that would gradually water down downvotes as you climb the ranks, so you aren't weighted down by them as they are accumulated during your posting career.
I'm not saying that ten people in one day downvoting should drop someone's rank. I'm saying that something in the range of 50 or 100 within a short amount of time could have an impact.
I get what you're saying, and we had something like that in the beginning. Basically what happened was people created alts and then downvoted a few users every day for shits and giggles.

It's not exactly a secret that I've moved the Trust system further away from a pure Karma + or - equation, and essentially the reason was asshole jerk faces who decided to cause mayhem with user's titles.

It's not a system that is likely to be overhauled again, as it has been working successfully for a few months, now. I'm open to changing a few of the values and the scales a bit, but going back to the first or second version of the trust system isn't going to happen (probably).

I understand now.

I wasn't exactly suggesting a major change, but maybe just adjusting the scales a bit. The old system does sound easily abusable though. Noted.

SecondClass · January 13, 2015, 03:50:21 PM

The system is fine. If upvotes/downvotes were given more of an effect on your rank, this place would just turn into a popularity contest.

DAS B00T x2 · January 13, 2015, 04:08:18 PM

I would like to be able to downvote by post.

Flee · January 13, 2015, 04:24:28 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

ಠ_ಠ · January 13, 2015, 04:38:57 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on January 13, 2015, 03:50:21 PM

The system is fine. If upvotes/downvotes were given more of an effect on your rank, this place would just turn into a popularity contest.

Before the upvote/downvote system was tweaked, it definitely was one. I'm pretty glad that we don't see the huge circlejerk threads anymore from the first few months of this forum (for the most part, at least).

gats · January 13, 2015, 05:27:42 PM

Losers would spend all their time downvoting individuals. Cheat is basically saving you from wasting your time.