Time Out For Bad Babies?

[LuvsGurl]

Just a minor suggestion. We've got this + or - thing at the bottom of every post. How about we actually put it to use for something?

It's pretty obvious that we've got some members who are just trolling, posting outlandish things just to get a rise out of the ensuing argument.

Seems to me that these bad babies could use a time out.

Simple proposal. If you've been bad enough to get your Reputation to -50, you get a warning. At -100 you get to take a week off. At -200 you are out of here.

How about it? I know I'm sick of seeing these trolls posting all over offering nothing in the way of sane intelligent discussion. IMO we'd be a lot better off without the people who are constantly misbehaving. It seems pretty ridiculous to me that we have a number of active posters who are below -200 on the ratings scale.

[Codymoogle]

It's a great idea in theory. If that was implemented, however, what's to say people won't "gang up" on people they don't like for whatever reason just to try and get them banned?

I think that something like that should definitely be put into place, but that the DD staff should review the accused before placing penalties.

~ moogle

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Bad idea: Ruputation ups and downs are anonymous, therefore unsourced therefore unattributed which means two things

1 They are simple gossip

2 Anyone who takes it seriously is a few stones short of a tiara

[belinda_sue_fox]

Plus you can vote up your own posts.

And no one has over -100 from what i remember, so yea a few flaws.

[LuvsGurl]

It's a great idea in theory. If that was implemented, however, what's to say people won't "gang up" on people they don't like for whatever reason just to try and get them banned?

Considered that, which is why I'm suggesting the 50/100/200 level instead of a smaller number.

You can only + or - a post once, the regular users only get 3+ and 3- per day and you can + or - your own posts.

So, to get someone to -100 would take a concentrated effort by a large group of people over several days. To get someone to -200 would take even longer. You'd have to be on the bad side of 20 or more regularly active members for it to even be feasible.

And let's face it, if you've managed to piss off 20 or more regulars, you probably deserve the ban.

[Repaid1]

I think that something like that should definitely be put into place, but that the DD staff should review the accused before placing penalties.

~ moogle

Which is exactly what we do. We generally don't look at the reputation level of members as that is left to the populous of this site to vote on posts as it were. It's not there to vote on a members status. And trust me it is totally misused in alot of situations. As moderators we can see who votes on the system on each post. And it just seems some people don't like other people and continually flag their post with a neg, regardless of what the post contains.

We do however (Mods) have our own system under your profile, The Warn meter system/status. While you can only see your own, we see each members on each post.. That is the general system the admin use to administer warnings and punishment. We also have our own forum (hidden from you all) where we daily post messages and topics to each other regarding issues one of us may have taken with the daily onslaught of reports, that you also don't get to see. Also we don't make it a habit of airing the dirty laundry of members here that may get a verbal or administrative punishment. Things like restricting thier access to the site or chat or whatever aren't made public news. But are passed onto those who may have had a interest in the action.

We are constantly putting people on time out and writing to them in pm's describing what actions are going to be taken. And why we are taking them. So rest assured this site is being monitored and patrolled and actions are being implemented. Just don't look at the small picture as we generally don't have the lights and sirens on. There is the occasional "Member Banned" flag that seems to bring some people joy on certain members... so maybe keep your eyes open for that on such members that you feel need a time out... ya never know who is watching ya on here!

[AutieAB]

Or we could, you know, just trust the mods to do their (difficult) job.

Timeouting and banning users on any forum is a balancing act because quite often, it can make the situation worse - sock puppets ahoy, etc...

And it just seems some people don't like other people and continually flag their post with a neg, regardless of what the post contains.

You don't have to be a mod to see when that's happening . It's patently obvious to anybody observant enough just who -1's the same people no matter what they say and who upvotes their own posts immediately after entering them

[BabyTara]

+1 point to Repaid1

Edited by Repaid: Nope I +1'd you!

[LuvsGurl]

And no one has over -100 from what i remember, so yea a few flaws.

http://www.dailydiapers.com/board/index.php?showuser=32206 User with score below -200

http://www.dailydiapers.com/board/index.php?showuser=27920 -74 there, someone needs a warning

So there's two right off the first page of active posters from today, without even looking hard.

Not saying there are tons of people needing reform out there, but I believe there are enough to warrant a little action.

If ABDL is a community of peers, shouldn't we all have some say on what is and isn't acceptable behavior?

[pampywamp]

Havent - anyone yet but just seen my profile im -9 if people have a promblem with my views y not just get in touch with me rather than any backstabbing

[Zander]

I think this is a poor idea (that's not a personal attack - let me explain why ) ...

1. People are disproportionately likely to 'negative flag' things than they are to 'positively flag' them by a large margin, all things being equal. Most customer service centers know this trait of human psychology well - its not unusual to see 50-plus complaints to 1 positive feedback item, even when all other metrics show the service as being good. Without an incentive, people generally broadcast their bad experiences far more than positive ones (one would hope because positive experiences are more common!)

2. We have no guidelines on what the rating system is actually for. Some people will use it as a "I agree / disagree", some will use it as a "This person makes a reasoned post / this person is a troll", some will use it as a "I do/don't like the spelling and grammar in this post", some will always +1 their friends etc. etc. The point is people will rate for different reasons and because there is no definition we can map to, we don't actually know what a ratings mean.

3. As someone else has mentioned - there is no attribution and no way of finding why someone has flagged a post a given way. If I didn't like someone here I could negative flag all their posts as I saw them. That would give them a negative rating so that, looking that their profile, people might immediately get the wrong impression about the user. The inverse is also true, obviously .

4. If a post needs review there is already the "Report" button - which I presume puts the post into a process to be properly checked out by a moderator / admin etc. This concept of a process of moderation has been around for centuries if not millennia. It works, generally. I'd be concerned diluting it with another unproven method based on (I hate this phrase, but it seems to apply) the uninformed masses.

5. I expect you'll tend to find certain boards are very disproportionately favoured in the positive votes by their nature. I expect there are a LOT more +ve post-ratings in the Story sections (which I seldom if ever visit) compared to the other boards. This means users who post content in those forums are far more likely to gain positive votes and those not posting in them will not benefit. This means if you don't participate in those boards you are statistically far more likely to be -ve voted compared to those who do. Should that be the case, we could (mis-?)interpret ratings as telling us "those who don't post stories are of detrimental or no positive benefit to the community".

6. You risk changing the behaviour of users and having a 'chilling effect' on what people are willing to post. I.e. you might effectively impose a form of self-censorship on the user-base. People worried about getting a negative rating (because of the consequences) may not post ideas they think are going to be unpopular or may only post things in-line with the current 'mood' of the community. I expect there will be other unintended consequences too - such as seeing people pester others for +1 votes, adding in such things to their signatures as 'If you agree, +1 this post!!' or forming groups to skew the topic of discussion towards/away from certain topics based on manipulating the ratings system.

7. You can scare users off and irritate/upset them when they find out they have been negatively rated. Personally, I was dammed annoyed to look at my profile and see a big red box with "REPUTATION: -1" only a week or so after joining. I didn't think I'd done anything wrong (I still don't), but this left me confused as to what I'd done to get "a reputation of being a jerk". I spent 10 minutes hunting down the post someone had -1'd to try and find out what I had done to upset someone. I still can't see what about my post detailing the absorbency of different Tena brand diapers* so upset someone as to -1 it, but apparently that post damaged my reputation.

Frankly I'd rather the whole "reputation" system was turned off / removed in favour of a system where only threads / posts were rated and not linked to the members profile. At minimum I really don't like the "reputation" being shown as it is, I'd like to see it removed or have the default reputation start at a value more than 0 (e.g. +75 or so), so users have to rack up a lot of negative votes to actually appear on their profile as 'of bad reputation'. Moderators should be able to cause the system to disregard/ignore ratings on contentious and/or controversial topics too.

* - And yes, I went back and +1'd it (because I really thought the post was valuable). I've also +1'd this post myself, but I'd like to think the points I'm making are valid, fair and reasoned.

So, to get someone to -100 would take a concentrated effort by a large group of people over several days. To get someone to -200 would take even longer. You'd have to be on the bad side of 20 or more regularly active members for it to even be feasible.

I'm betting I could get you to -1000 in less than an hour. It would take about 3 mins to register say, 2 new accounts and from then on its its a fairly simple (<1h) programming task to have the computer log into those accounts and trawl the forum, -1 rating every one of your 500+ posts.

And let's face it, if you've managed to piss off 20 or more regulars, you probably deserve the ban.

... you then risk banning people for one controversial post.

[timmyc]

If everyone has the same opinions on all topics what is the point of having a board in the first place. People should be free to be themselves. If they make an ass of themselves it is on them. I happen to find some of the so called troll posts humorous and if I don't like something I scroll past it and move on, but I don't try to dictate what should and should not be here.

Seems like we had this same thread a few moths ago maybe someone can reserect it, oh wait .......

[sarah_ab]

oh my god, repaid, sooooooooooo tempted to -1 your reply just cause i'm a brat like that!!!!

[Repaid1]

http://www.dailydiap...?showuser=32206 User with score below -200

http://www.dailydiap...?showuser=27920 -74 there, someone needs a warning

So there's two right off the first page of active posters from today, without even looking hard.

Not saying there are tons of people needing reform out there, but I believe there are enough to warrant a little action.

If ABDL is a community of peers, shouldn't we all have some say on what is and isn't acceptable behavior?

So as not to out them, I'll just say that one of the members you outlined has a pretty "iffy" status with the mods and has one of the highest warnings I have seen on here. So action has been taken at least 5 times so far. Once again you can't see it but action was taken.

And to Sarah...go ahead and neg me. Don't forget I can see who did it....and better yet I can go in and erase it as well, not to mention I can change my rating to whatever I feel like! So There

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

The idea of members of an alternative lifestyle forum, passing judgement on each, given how they would be viewed by mainstram folks is kind of weird, is it not? Sort of like being an opponent of contact sports at a rollerball game?

[sarah_ab]

everyone judges everyone... having a fetish that is considered odd or socially unacceptable does not make one any less human when it comes to judging..

i'm fat... i still judge other fat people who wear disgustingly revealing or tight clothing.

I'm a female, but i still judge other females.

I have a disability, but i still judge others with a disabilty, not because of their disability, but they just happen to have one....

EVERYONE judges.... lets just accept the fact that we are in fact normal human beings in the sense that we are able to have petty squables... revel in the fact that we are not as freakish as we once though because of this... and move on.... dear lord people.....

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I too, judge and make known the results thereof but at no time is it part of the official conduct or part of the fabric of the forum. For 30 years, the alternative lifestyle people have complained about being judged (evil, degenerate, insane, etc) just for being alternative. So having an instrument of judgement as part of an alternativist forum (that is, a meeting ground for those who, as a group have opposed being judege) is sort of like "Meet the New boss, same as the old boss"

Also, you do not want peer-to-peer judgements, where are horizontal relationships to become part of the official conduct here, which are necessarily vertical relationships. It is like when parents make one of the children the executor of the estate

At least you can say it is baby fat

[Bettypooh]

Reputation has no official meaning, but if a person wishes to, they can use it like a mirror It does symbolize what others think of you, and that should tell you something. What you decide to do about your reputation is up to you You don't have to look in the mirror in the morning every day, but I bet that you do- almost everyone does- and I bet you have a good idea of what your reputation score is

Like repaid1 said, Mods can see the whole picture- like unnamed members who apparently neg rep people and not posts after reaching a certain level of disgust with them While their points count the same as anyone elses, those people gets extra scrutiny from us because of that Which brings us around to the bottom line once again:

This is not my website, I do not make the rules. If I am displeased enough, I can cease browsing here. I can choose to try to make positive contributions here, or I can choose to make an a$$ of myself until I get kicked off the site. I am human and not perfect, so not everyone will like me. If I knew of a better website for this part of my life, I'd be there and not here, but as it stands I have made many friends here and I like DD better than any other ABDL website so I choose to stay. Thank you DD for setting this site up and keeping it going- I, for one, it here!

Bettypooh

[Repaid1]

Thank you DD for setting this site up and keeping it going- I, for one, it here!

Bettypooh

Suck up!!!!

[LuvsGurl]

I'm betting I could get you to -1000 in less than an hour. It would take about 3 mins to register say, 2 new accounts and from then on its its a fairly simple (<1h) programming task to have the computer log into those accounts and trawl the forum, -1 rating every one of your 500+ posts.

Except, as I explained, it doesn't work that way.

Each individual account only gets 3 + votes and 3 - votes per 24 hour period. To get me to -1000 in 1 day you'd have to register 333 new accounts.

So as not to out them, I'll just say that one of the members you outlined has a pretty "iffy" status with the mods and has one of the highest warnings I have seen on here. So action has been taken at least 5 times so far. Once again you can't see it but action was taken.

So you admit you've had to warn the guy 5 times and he's still up to the same stuff. Sounds like someone isn't getting the message. How many warnings are really necessary before showing said person the door? I'm a fan of the 3-strikes system myself.

[sarah_ab]

i think though baby bankers get ten of each but i could be wrong

[Bettypooh]

Suck up!!!!

Some folks think I need all the help I can get, so why not? Anyway I just wanted to remind people that there is a lot more good than bad here And it's true- if I knew of a better place to hang out then I'd be there and not here Since it don't exist, here I is

Bettypooh

[Zander]

Except, as I explained, it doesn't work that way.

Each individual account only gets 3 + votes and 3 - votes per 24 hour period. To get me to -1000 in 1 day you'd have to register 333 new accounts.

Even if automatic CAPTCHA solving methods are incredibly inefficient (e.g. less than 0.001%), you're still only talking about few minutes to register 300+ accounts. My point was that anyone who has the technical knowledge (or enough drive) to actually do it, could do it ... and its not a hard task technically-speaking anyway. Fortunately, most people with that level of skill aren't petty idiots who'd waste their time doing something like that.

[Diapered Jason]

Great! With this new system in place, I will have to go hunt down the guy who voted down my views on religion.

Edit: Apparently, someone went through the religion poll and voted down as many atheist posts as possible, so I voted up three atheist posts aside from my own.

Seriously though, I usually don't negate the posts here unless I find them offensive, and all the two posts I voted down I have always replied to their post usually explaining why. Of course, not everyone does it this way, so it is hard to put much weight on the reputation system.

[Bettypooh]

The "Rep system" can be abused, and several people here do that- or something close to abuse anyway Generally it's a fair picture of what others think of a member. It has no more meaning or value than what you want to give it The Admin staff sees it too, and while we don't discriminate in applying the rules, it does help us know who to keep a closer eye on because there's usually a reason for someone having an excessively bad Rep Not always, but there's never an 'always' that works 100% of the time in life

Bettypooh