It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionExtreme downvoating? (329 posts)(329 posts)
(329 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
13
14
15
16
17
22
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
Fairfox: you'd ask that tauto dont keel over? tricky...
Tauto has some good points, though, and I like having him around for them more than not having him here.
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
Fairfox: you'd ask that tauto dont keel over? tricky...
avatar
GameRager: Tauto has some good points, though, and I like having him around for them more than not having him here.
but tbh i'm flighty an' bored nao. gud luck!

*Moded, please be polite when posting.
ff edit: *three 'd's, ash
Post edited July 08, 2019 by Fairfox
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
Tauto: It's been reported.
avatar
GameRager: I meant a staff WARNING and that's likely what they will get...we will wait and see. Still, if it were me i'd have asked the user to not say such things in the future....but again I am usually exceedingly forgiving.
She's been warned/temp banned before. She got really cynical a year or so back and she decided to be bitter with the world.
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
GameRager: I meant a staff WARNING and that's likely what they will get...we will wait and see. Still, if it were me i'd have asked the user to not say such things in the future....but again I am usually exceedingly forgiving.
avatar
paladin181: She's been warned/temp banned before. She got really cynical a year or so back and she decided to be bitter with the world.
actually, she is entirely correct in this post: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/extreme_downvoating/post201
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
paladin181: She's been warned/temp banned before. She got really cynical a year or so back and she decided to be bitter with the world.
avatar
Sachys: actually, she is entirely correct in this post: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/extreme_downvoating/post201
I know the facts are generally right. I've been around. :P
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
richlind33: I think he's trying to tell you that it isn't working. And I think he might be right. lol
avatar
GameRager: Eh, I try...what more can one do?
People who like themselves are generally well-liked.
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
GameRager: Was so so until the last line. I can tolerate a bit of roasting of others but wishing ill to others is a no no for me. :\
avatar
Breja: For Fairfox this is actually pretty mild. At least she didn't provide a more graphic description of the death she wishes on someone, like she did in the past.

That's the real problem with this forum - not some silly rep points, but the fact that people can get away here with pretty much everything. Wishing death on other users, calling people of other race "subhuman trash" etc. And I don't just mean that they get away with it because the mods would at most delete a post and maybe, maybe ban someone temporarily, but beacause the forum failed miserably to self-moderate. People who do that shit should be effectively ostracized.
Said the guy who once wished me to be sodomised.
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
skeletonbow: … The best thing GOG could do at this point is to remove the Rep score completely, and replace the rate up/down buttons with a single "Report" button to report posts which are believed to violate GOG's terms of service agreement, and a dialogue that queries you as to what the violation/problem is giving multiple-choice options based on the actual terms of services, similar to how Twitch.tv does it. Then, when someone reports someone for a violation, keep track of an internal score nobody else can see in which if someone reports someone for a violation and it isn't a violation or just seems vindictive, they get a -1 to their internal score, and if they report a legit violation they get a +1 internal score.

Have all reports put in a queue, where each report is weighted based on the internal accumulated reputation of the people reporting posts, and act upon them in-order. Posts that are only reported by people with very low/negative scores get the lowest priority to investigate, and those who consistently issue false reports end up at some negative threshold eventually being completely untrusted in their ability to report legitimate violations. …
avatar
scientiae: This is actually a good idea. It's not perfect (since even an untrustworthy account may legitimately capture a violation), but it is certainly both economical and sensible. It would pay for itself pretty quickly, if there were a lot of reports to police. (I'm not sure that is the case, however.)
That's fine though because if someone with a low trust actually reports something properly which is in violation, the chances are that there will be many more people reporting it too. So the combination trust of all the people who submit a report is what will affect its position in the queue. If the report gets approved as a violation, then everyone who reported it has their score elevated including those with low trust, so they can still gain trust.

But people who abuse the system more than they use it properly will always end up with a lower trust metric. If someone has a change of face eventually and starts being more responsible with how they use the forums and report things, then they'll gradually gain system trust over time again.

The system would be a sliding trust metric, with some amount higher weight placed on more recent activity than older activity, thus rewarding people who contribute in a positive manner to the system, even if they were the opposite at a previous point in time.

The exact algorithms and how they're tweaked would be an internal thing that is adjusted over time based on how well it works to get the desired results, and to manage corner cases or any ways in which someone figures out a way to abuse the system.
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
GameRager: Eh, I try...what more can one do?
avatar
richlind33: People who like themselves are generally well-liked.
I tend to think I like myself...albeit not to ultra high levels of vanity. o.0

avatar
scientiae: This is actually a good idea. It's not perfect (since even an untrustworthy account may legitimately capture a violation), but it is certainly both economical and sensible. It would pay for itself pretty quickly, if there were a lot of reports to police. (I'm not sure that is the case, however.)
avatar
skeletonbow: That's fine though because if someone with a low trust actually reports something properly which is in violation, the chances are that there will be many more people reporting it too. So the combination trust of all the people who submit a report is what will affect its position in the queue. If the report gets approved as a violation, then everyone who reported it has their score elevated including those with low trust, so they can still gain trust.

But people who abuse the system more than they use it properly will always end up with a lower trust metric. If someone has a change of face eventually and starts being more responsible with how they use the forums and report things, then they'll gradually gain system trust over time again.

The system would be a sliding trust metric, with some amount higher weight placed on more recent activity than older activity, thus rewarding people who contribute in a positive manner to the system, even if they were the opposite at a previous point in time.

The exact algorithms and how they're tweaked would be an internal thing that is adjusted over time based on how well it works to get the desired results, and to manage corner cases or any ways in which someone figures out a way to abuse the system.
Again you make some good suggestions. +1
Post edited July 07, 2019 by GameRager
Posted July 07, 2019
I don't get why you can't cancel an up- or downvote, I've done it by accident a few times.
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
ResidentLeever: I've done it by accident a few times.
So have my army of bots. :P
Posted July 07, 2019
low rated
avatar
ResidentLeever: I don't get why you can't cancel an up- or downvote, I've done it by accident a few times.
Good point....the best one can do is push the opposite button. :\
Posted July 08, 2019
low rated
avatar
richlind33: People who like themselves are generally well-liked.
avatar
GameRager: I tend to think I like myself...albeit not to ultra high levels of vanity. o.0
You like yourself so much that you beat your head against a brick wall trying to change dynamics that are beyond your control. And then you come here to cry about the results you're getting, which is guaranteed to add insult to your injuries.
Posted July 08, 2019
low rated
Downvoamiting is a standard forum feature in form of a discharging electron to help users donate their kWatts of dislike to undisclosed alternative energy provider and feel lighter afterwards... ~~~

The real question here is to define the "extreme" as the demand always increase.
Posted July 08, 2019
low rated
Off topic. can someone quote my reply. I think there is a bug where I have a notification that I have a reply but that topic was deleted.
Pages:
1
5
10
13
14
15
16
17
22
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionExtreme downvoating? (329 posts)(329 posts)
(329 posts)