Forum Discussion VII: We had a good run - General

A middle ground could be revoking a person's ability to use ratings without banning them.

Ratings have in fact been bannable. Good old funion got banned for rating everyone rainbow back when that was a rating. Someone else I forgot got banned for spamming boxes. Hell even recently someone got banned for rating an article about children being murdered winner.

Garry pulled a Garry. Got really into a big project (Newpunch) then lost interest.

They're likely in a section that either doesn't exist any more or they're in a locked/hidden one. Basically the move nuked a lot of stuff from public view.

I suggested this earlier and someone said that's still too much (qbetex, I think it was?) Honestly tho, this does seem to be the best way forward. If you do think this is too much please explain why, because I don't see how, judging by comments in this thread it'd probably seem like too little of a punishment.

Getting banned for ratings isn't really fun, Only ban I had on oldpunch came from when I accidentally rated a thread funny and didn't notice until I got swept up in a ban wave. Kind of made me self conscious about posting when the only ban I had made it look like I thought it was funny a trans person killed themselves.

There was that and the old smartness system losing too many points for spelling things wrong (although I enjoyed it as a novelty feature and made me chuckle when I would come back to see I've been banned for losing too many points)

I picked on him because he thought digimon were real (while over the age of 16) and posted racy nudes with his computers that found their way back here. I can't remember what day of the week it is half the time, but I can remember a pasty nerd awkwardly posting with a mips computer in a few pics I've only seen once. The mips logo on that case to me is like the wedding band in a much better pic. Not sure what would push somebody into threatening him though, I mean... lol really?

I don't think garry lost interest, that's a little to easy to say. He worked on an entirely new client for the forums a while back. He's spent a lot of time in the planning stage, unsure which direction to take the forums. "Are forums even still relevant? We need to make a solution that is viable in the future of communication" The new client turned facepunch into more of a real time discussion site... he stopped because he realised this is practically just like any other chat site. I actually liked that approach though, and if Garry does actually just maintain a backend with community supported front-ends, it kinda links them all up. If people wanted a real-time version of the site, it could exist, or people could attempt to stick to the traditional forum (real-time shit will probably change the types of posts people make though) My gut feeling is saying that Garry doesn't know how exactly to innovate the website, not as a forum, but as a community website. There's been so many iterations of the site outside of vBulletin, and this one we're using now is the only one that has stuck. For garry to do all of this work, for zero in return. I would imagine how hard it is to decide on anything, judging an outcome where you know no matter how much effort has to be put into it, the only thing you'll get in return is an emotional one. No profit or revenue, just words of kindness and probably a higher server bill tbh As a side note though, most of Garry's forum experiments were done during a time when (I assume) he was working from home, taking care of his newborn and (are they even married yet?) girlfriend through maternity

I'll weigh in real quick because I feel like I had a hand in starting this discussion. I don't actually think ratings should be bannable and that idea didn't even cross my mind at the time. I was highly irritated and felt the need to point out how some certain people express really shitty opinions through ratings because they're too cowardly to express them through text, which is actually a really low bar for bravery now that I think about it. Ratings express opinions in a similar way to posts, but the effort gap between ratings and posts is vast by design. At some point, a difference in value becomes a difference in kind, and that's why I think ratings and posts shouldn't be held to exactly the same accountability standards. The current rules are probably fine.

Rating abuse will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Spamming ratings (i.e. rating everyone in a thread dumb, or rating all posts from a particular user) is obviously considered abuse and will get you a ban. Consistently rating tragic stuff funny or winner or whatever is also considered abuse/trolling, but again it has to be consistent. It's still easy to accidentally rate on mobile - so singular ratings have to be considered potential accidents. If you see someone consistently rate spamming, report one of their posts with an explanation, or PM one of the moderators on Discord.

Factually wrong though even if it was on a case by case basis, which is also how most bans work fundamentally.

I really don't think anyone's been getting worked up over one single rating anyways. It's pretty reliably people who keep doing it.

They've always been somewhat bannable due to things like rating spam. Again, I find the difference people make in their head strange. If you post a thread about a mass shooting, and I reply in the thread "I think this is hilarious", I would get banned for being an asshole and nobody would disagree with it. But if I rate funny, suddenly it's ok? You can see both and they communicate the same message. What is actually the difference? The only thing I can think of to liken it to is a kid fucking with you and going "NUH UH, NUH UH, I'M NOT TOUCHING YOUUUUU!"

Come FLY with me lets FLY lets FLY awaaaaaaay~

If you can use some exotic booze there's a bar in far Bombay

Ratings on Knockout will be anonymous after the discussion here.

But then how will I know if Marphy rates me late or informative?

You guess.

We'll do a test run with bringing back anonymous ratings. The hope is that people will get less upset at edgy ratings when there's no names connected to them, and that people will be less likely to troll with edgy ratings when there's no recognition to be had. We'll see if it works out. Nothing is set in stone.

Surely this will just encourage people to spam ratings, it also won't stop people from complaining about inappropriate ratings on news posts. All those people want is a reaction, they don't need their name attached to it.

Anonymous Ratings would make it more likely to troll with edgy ratings

One example; someone tells [X user] to "go kill themselves", and other trolls rate their post Diamond or Winner or Agree.

Ratings are completely different than posts. Let's stop treating them like they're the same thing. The only time I've seen people banned for ratings was when they were spamming them and generally being annoying. I've never seen anybody banned because of a specific rating on a specific post. If it's really an issue then ratings can be removed on a forum by forum basis. Maybe that's the best solution. I don't really understand why you guys are letting ratings upset you. If someone rates a dead baby post winner, (etc), you should ignore it and forget about it. It's not affecting anybody. It's not creating a disruption.

Hey maybe you're right. I personally think that removing the names from the ratings will make the community care less about the insensitive ratings, because they're no longer connected to a personality - instead it'll just be noise in the general consensus. Of course, I can be wrong. If people just don't like it, we'll revert down the line.

Knockout! It would be super cool if we had these quotes used as Tab titles, similar to how halo.bungie.net and halo.bungie.org used them. Refresh those pages a few times to see what I mean.

The fact is FP has shitpost-y vidya threads, then ones about, like, actual murder and stuff. "Big woop" is funny when it's given to a poster that's overly excited about the next naruto convention, not so much when you're talking assault At best it's an unfunny troll, at worst it's a "virtue" signaling bigot, but the fact that, without a lengthy pattern or stated beliefs, you can't actually tell, is divisive in and of itself. There's always gonna be debate and pushback, there's always gonna be a part of the community that will feel targeted from rating bans, because they like edgy humor, and ratings are a low-effort way to indulge in that. And then the people that feel targeted because their genocide is celebrated. Both sides, you know, exactly the same If KO has only Agree, Disagree and Informative in the news sections, I'd be fine with that, but I know a lot of people would hate it. If not, and anonymizing ratings does its job, great. If it doesn't, I'd prefer if people weren't banned for addressing the ratings. Advised against it at most. Either way, at least KO doesn't have these bizarrely passive-aggressive ratings so I guess that's a step up

I'm gonna be real for a second. I don't care if I even agree with your point or not, the phrase "virtue signaling" is fucking dumb and pretty much exists exclusively to hamper quality conversation instead of adding to it so in my eyes it's effectively useless and shouldn't ever be said in a setting like Facepunch

people who genuinely use "virtue signalling" as a phrase are usually """"virtue signalling"""" to everyone they're an anti-feminist hate-fueled mongo, but i think zukriuchen has a point here if you take it for it's raw meaning. If someone spams ratings in an obviously antagonistic way without ever actually trying to debate their side or contribute, they're showing everyone they're an idiot and should be ignored. Personally, I think if you want to rate something, you attach your name to it. No anonymous shiz, raw honesty. Don't ban people for ratings, BUT I think it's fair to say that people who never post and just troll rate threads don't really need to be here.

exactly and I've got to say it's really easy to ignore someone once they're banned, I tell you what