(Moved to Vote)Remove Negative Reputation

[Ragabash]

I propose to remove negative reputation wholly. Moderators can give cautions/warnings and I cannot think of a one good reason why content staff needs this ability.

Proposer: [user]Ragabash[/user]
Supporters: [user]Tacticalwithdrawal[/user], [user]Gaius Baltar[/user], [user]Hotspur[/user], [user]Evariste[/user], [user]deRougemont[/user]

Curial Decision on Reputation

Remove Negative Reputation wholly.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

supported

[Gaius Baltar]

Support

[Spiff]

I would remove reputation wholly, but ultimately its just a bit of fun - and the rings look good..

Since rep is enabled and counts for essentially nothing, i would prefer if everyone could add and take it away. What harm does negative rep do?

[Ragabash]

Either make the negative reputation available for everyone or remove it wholly, but to give it small group of people does not just make sense.

[Arakorn]

No, it'll be abused if everyone has access to it. Therefore I support this.

Another option is to force moderators (those who can hand it out) to leave their names as comments. But it's too impractical.

[Perikles]

No, it'll be abused if everyone has access to it. Therefore I support this.

Another option is to force moderators (those who can hand it out) to leave their names as comments. But it's too impractical.

I always put '-jp' at the end of my rep, I'm sure every moderator signs their negative rep, I think it's common courtesy.

I don't support this.

[Tom Paine]

Why remove it? See, the argument is presently reliant on us proving why we should retain it; but I ask you, why should we remove it and change the status quo?

[Shaun]

I propose to remove negative reputation wholly. Moderators can give cautions/warnings and I cannot think of a one good reason why content staff needs this ability.

Proposer: [user]Ragabash[/user]
Supporters:

Curial Decision on Reputation

Remove Negative Reputation wholly.

Content staff no longer has this ability, might I add. Its only mods and us librarians that have it, to my knowledge.
But I agree, I cannot see why anyone needs to give negative rep, the mods give cautions and warnings, thats the punishment, not negative rep.

[Hotspur]

Support. Mods handing out negative rep feels a little too like back-channel punishment.

[Muizer]

Support. Mods handing out negative rep feels a little too like back-channel punishment.

Well it is, isn't it? If it weren't, there would be no reason who only moderators can hand out negative rep.

[Hotspur]

Well it is, isn't it? If it weren't, there would be no reason who only moderators can hand out negative rep.

AFAIK you can't appeal neg rep. Is neg rep handed out to people who have rep turned off? If not, then the punishment is selectively applied.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

You could just give a -10 facility to each council member, and then say they have to agree before it is imposed.

Would then allow a negative sanction for numpties but very controlled and limited.

Mind you, council could already just agree to tell the technical Hex member to take 10 off an individual's rep (or any number come to that) - so no, scratch that idea.

Just remove it completely. If mods want to warn people then give cautions not negative rep.

[deRougemont]

Support.

The only neg-rep necessary is in the power of everyone already -- the choice to not give rep.

[Evariste]

I support, and am surprised I didn't put out a bill like this earlier.

[happyho]

No, it'll be abused if everyone has access to it. Therefore I support this.

Another option is to force moderators (those who can hand it out) to leave their names as comments. But it's too impractical.

How would it be abused? Somebody makes an offensive post, gets neg rep and cries about it? Is that abuse? No it is not, if on the other hand someone uses neg rep to send insults and personal attacks you report it to an admin and they will take action.

I would think that it would be up to the Moderator to decide whether or not to divulge his identity. Why you people seem so obsessed with knowing who gives you rep is something I'll never understand.

Why remove it? See, the argument is presently reliant on us proving why we should retain it; but I ask you, why should we remove it and change the status quo?

We shouldn't remove it period.

I don't support this.

What he said. Now watch Perikles do a complete 180 degree turn and say that he does now in fact support this proposal.

Content staff no longer has this ability, might I add. Its only mods and us librarians that have it, to my knowledge.
But I agree, I cannot see why anyone needs to give negative rep, the mods give cautions and warnings, thats the punishment, not negative rep.

I think the point is to give someone neg rep instead of putting something permanent on their record, that way the person knows that a moderator is watching them and paying attention to their posts. Maybe they will be more careful before pressing submit next time, knowing a moderator is watching.

Support. Mods handing out negative rep feels a little too like back-channel punishment.

Once again that is the point, it's something done privately, it doesn't hurt the person receiving the neg rep but it does let them know that they need to be more careful when posting.

AFAIK you can't appeal neg rep. Is neg rep handed out to people who have rep turned off? If not, then the punishment is selectively applied.

It does not matter if your rep is disabled. If rep is disabled, it may take longer to notice that you have received rep since you no longer see what rep level you have or the comments made. If you go to options you can re-activate the rep feature and all the rep you have accumulated will be visible.

Reputation has now become completely useless on this site, with only positive rep it's just a matter of time before everyone and their pet llama has as much rep as Garbarsardar. Well that might have been an exaggeration but the point remains the same. Bring back neg rep for everyone, otherwise reputation is useless and I would support it's removal completely without something to counter balance the 'rep-whoring' that is going on.

[Arakorn]

How would it be abused? Somebody makes an offensive post, gets neg rep and cries about it? Is that abuse? No it is not, if on the other hand someone uses neg rep to send insults and personal attacks you report it to an admin and they will take action.

I would think that it would be up to the Moderator to decide whether or not to divulge his identity. Why you people seem so obsessed with knowing who gives you rep is something I'll never understand.

But some people neg-rep people they don't like, even if it's not an abusive post. Therefore it is "legal".

And most people are quite curious, it is in the human nature. That's why I always sign my rep's (mostly anyway, and didn't sign the very rare neg-rep ).

[the Black Prince]

support

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

the other o[ption is to give neg rep to everyone but automatically record the name of the giver.........

Not many options in between that are fair and equitable

[Hotspur]

It does not matter if your rep is disabled. If rep is disabled, it may take longer to notice that you have received rep since you no longer see what rep level you have or the comments made. If you go to options you can re-activate the rep feature and all the rep you have accumulated will be visible.

Which doesn't answer my original question: Do mods give neg rep to people with rep turned off?