# The idea of naming and shaming



## Ginnel (Jul 25, 2008)

I'm not sure if this belongs in the meta forum, I've posted it here because this is where the subject in question seems to have the most impact.

Would it assist the site at all in to name and shame those posters who receive short bans and have threads locked because of their behaviour?

A nice list of names in a sticky where people who are intolerent can just put them on to ignore or just skip past their posts? If they've done something which causes a locked thread/ban should the users know about it?


----------



## Kzach (Jul 25, 2008)

Leave the moderation to the moderators.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 25, 2008)

Agree with Kzach


----------



## Morrus (Jul 25, 2008)

90% of moderation happens in private behind the scenes; generally, we don't aim to embarrass people.

I'll slide this over to Meta, BTW.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 25, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> I'm not sure if this belongs in the meta forum, I've posted it here because this is where the subject in question seems to have the most impact.
> 
> Would it assist the site at all in to name and shame those posters who receive short bans and have threads locked because of their behaviour?
> 
> A nice list of names in a sticky where people who are intolerent can just put them on to ignore or just skip past their posts? If they've done something which causes a locked thread/ban should the users know about it?




The information exists, if I am not mistaken - look at the member profiles. But I am not in favor of posting them somewhere in a list.

Circus Maximus has its Dignitas system, basically a "post-rep" function. If you see a "Barbarian" or something like that around, you know that you might get a poster that's a little to agressive or has "questionable posting methods", and can be careful. This is only controlled by members voting, so it is a way of self-moderation that doesn't mean you get banned (as far as I know.)
That method seems slightly better. But I am not sure if it's a good idea for EN World. Probably not. 

I think I prefer the mods handling this.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That method seems slightly better. But I am not sure if it's a good idea for EN World. Probably not.




Heh, wait until you get some negrep for something completely stupid because some turd has a grudge, then you won't think the system is so crash hot


----------



## Morrus (Jul 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Circus Maximus has its Dignitas system, basically a "post-rep" function. If you see a "Barbarian" or something like that around, you know that you might get a poster that's a little to agressive or has "questionable posting methods", and can be careful. This is only controlled by members voting, so it is a way of self-moderation that doesn't mean you get banned (as far as I know.)
> That method seems slightly better. But I am not sure if it's a good idea for EN World. Probably not.




Rep has existed as a core part of vBulletin for years.  We've always switched it off on EN World.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 25, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Heh, wait until you get some negrep for something completely stupid because some turd has a grudge, then you won't think the system is so crash hot




Bah, most of the time you'll get negrepped for complaining about negrep.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 25, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> Would it assist the site at all in to name and shame those posters who receive short bans and have threads locked because of their behaviour?




This would be wonderful, and it's something that I've wanted for years (not that I have any realistic hope of it happening). Right now I just keep it sort of in my head regarding those who get temp-banned or kicked out of threads. Needless to say, the results aren't surprising for the certain 'usual suspects'.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2008)

HellHound said:


> Bah, most of the time you'll get negrepped for complaining about negrep.




Plus, you have some people that wear it like a badge of honor.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 25, 2008)

We don't need a virtual pillory here. It's one of the reasons EN World rises above other communities.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 25, 2008)

It bears repeating: the best way to deal with trolls, idiots, and jerks, especially on the internet, is to ignore them.

I know, I know, ignoring people is the Paladin's Code of the internet - difficult to follow, but it's worth it try and rewarding when you succeed.


----------



## shaylon (Jul 26, 2008)

HellHound said:


> Bah, most of the time you'll get negrepped for complaining about negrep.




Don't forget negrep if you say you are sorry!

-Shay


----------



## Crothian (Jul 26, 2008)

:|

:|


----------



## reveal (Jul 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The information exists, if I am not mistaken - look at the member profiles. But I am not in favor of posting them somewhere in a list.
> 
> Circus Maximus has its Dignitas system, basically a "post-rep" function. If you see a "Barbarian" or something like that around, you know that you might get a poster that's a little to agressive or has "questionable posting methods", and can be careful. This is only controlled by members voting, so it is a way of self-moderation that doesn't mean you get banned (as far as I know.)
> That method seems slightly better. But I am not sure if it's a good idea for EN World. Probably not.
> ...



I have the highest rep on CM. So, really, it's not a good indicator of a quality poster.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 27, 2008)

LightPhoenix said:


> It bears repeating: the best way to deal with trolls, idiots, and jerks, especially on the internet, is to ignore them.
> 
> I know, I know, ignoring people is the Paladin's Code of the internet - difficult to follow, but it's worth it try and rewarding when you succeed.




Quoting this so that everyone can see it...  

Sorry, LP, that was too much fun.  

But I agree, the best thing to do is ignore people that are repeatedly trolling, idiotic, or jerkish.  Then pity the mods/admins that we don't get to ignore anyone.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 27, 2008)

For the serious post:

There's a pillar of military leadership:  "Praise in public, chastise in private."  There's great wisdom to this.  I'd rather take someone, have him or her receive a ban and then let him or her know privately why he or she got that ban.  There's much less of a chance that someone will become resentful and starting to act up more here because of feelings of persecution.


----------



## Steve Jung (Jul 27, 2008)

I don't think it would be useful. Either you witnessed the offense and you already know how they behave or you didn't, so you weren't affected.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 27, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:


> Then pity the mods/admins that we don't get to ignore anyone.




It's okay, we can't ignore you either.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jul 27, 2008)

reveal said:


> I have the highest rep on CM. So, really, it's not a good indicator of a quality poster.



You do? - All I see is TILT!


----------



## reveal (Jul 27, 2008)

Michael Morris said:


> You do? - All I see is TILT!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 27, 2008)

reveal said:


> I have the highest rep on CM. So, really, it's not a good indicator of a quality poster.




Slightly better != perfect.  That's why am I ultimately not convinced.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:


> For the serious post:
> 
> There's a pillar of military leadership:  "Praise in public, chastise in private."  There's great wisdom to this.  I'd rather take someone, have him or her receive a ban and then let him or her know privately why he or she got that ban.  There's much less of a chance that someone will become resentful and starting to act up more here because of feelings of persecution.



Which is all very well and good, except it'd be nice to know in some cases and in a public way *why* something/someone is being moderated; often is the time when I see some red letters in what seems like a reasonable thread, or it gets closed, and think to myself "what brought that on?". (of course, sometimes it's obvious, but that's not my point here)  Sending an e-mail to a mod. might answer this for me, but doesn't help anyone else and would just cause more work for the mods...

Lanefan


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 30, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:


> For the serious post:
> 
> There's a pillar of military leadership:  "Praise in public, chastise in private."  There's great wisdom to this.  I'd rather take someone, have him or her receive a ban and then let him or her know privately why he or she got that ban.  There's much less of a chance that someone will become resentful and starting to act up more here because of feelings of persecution.




Speaking of this, I didn't even realize I had a message from you until today, and I couldn't reply to PM.  So... I know.   

(Oooh, secret moderations!  Ahhhh!!!)


----------



## FickleGM (Jul 30, 2008)

I don't agree with the list of the banned, because I've seen at least as many people banned for rising to the bait of those who should have been banned as I have people who deserved to be banned.

I don't agree with rep, because there is no quality control and if a bunch of trolls wanted to come in here and start screwing around with the rep system (posrepping each other and negrepping innocent posters), then the mods would have more to worry about.

Rep only "works" on sites like Circvs Maximvs because it doesn't mean anything and doesn't have any rules.  I can get posrepped or negrepped as much due to whim as due to the quality of my posts.  Yes, in the long run, a person with high rep is probably well received, but I've seen more than one person "in the red" who was still a quality poster, they just didn't have popular opinions.

EDIT: Since my first paragraph could be seen as being anti-mod (especially considering a certain conversation elsewhere), I'll clarify.  It is also incumbant on us, as members of ENW, to report (not respond to) anyone who we feel is doing something wrong.


----------

