[Reddit discusses forums] Chris has now posted

"

I_NO wrote:

I'm like one of the kindest people out their like don't get me wrong I am a princess that gets anything that she wants and seems to stuck up but It's just fun when toying with people from time to time anyway.

And holy people apparently get mad when I do a signature line like ''Alligators with jetpacks on their back'' or flying cows with lasers on their ass or something you get the point. By all means if it makes them mad I tend to have a small sadistic side of me that seems to enjoy it simply because it's such a small thing and I'll continue to do it because It's funny to me.

Yeah god dam right.

http://i.imgur.com/H0ixbMX.jpg

@I_NO: You just like to troll and the Reddit complaints are feeding you :) Thing is, if they expect to have an environment without some trolling and other types of posters they don't like, that's extremely naive. Internet environments are always full of different groups of people who annoy each other. As I said, people in this age and time should develop a thicker skin and the ability to ignore some stuff. Being driven out of the forum by dinosaur and Arnold spam, -peace Boem- and one-liners is... funny. Although I sympathise with the -peace Boem- crowd.

To put it in a different perspective, when someone is beeing annoying to you, you can still choose your reaction. If you react with anger, it means you're allowing them to actually hurt you. Attempting to hurt them back doesn't help.

In the words of someone I admire, just try to be a little kinder.

Post rating and, worse still, sorting and even hiding posts based on said ratings just reinforces the herd mentality that's so prevalent on SJW-infested platforms such as reddit. We don't need that here.

They have to face the fact that they're dealing with gamers. Gamers will take what ever rule structure you impose on them and work it to their advantage. Some of them will look for ways to harm others to advance themselves. That's the nature of their game.

The rule structure we have now hurts some people, but it hurts them far less than a rule structure that would allow name/shame. Currently, GGG deletes your rage post. You get over it. If GGG allowed name/shame, there would be no way they could rebuild your reputation if the community was tricked into blacklisting you. You could be the target... or someone else could be. But it would happen.

"

Holocaustus wrote:

Post rating and, worse still, sorting and even hiding posts based on said ratings just reinforces the herd mentality that's so prevalent on SJW-infested platforms such as reddit. We don't need that here.

There is a distinct difference between a system that only allows upvotes, but doesn't allow down-votes and only enables a limited amount of upvotes per member on a daily basis.

Attaching a minimum of monetary contribution to such a system also imply's a certain commitment from a person that engages with it.

Also +1 to shags and +1 to grant_m as VP.

Peace,

-Boem-

I've often over the years suggested a deposit of some amount, say $100, that could be refunded at any time by request. If you were caught breaking the rules, you would forfeit the deposit. That would serve many purposes. It would encourage enforcement of the rules... monetarily. It would encourage people to stick within the rule structure.

The logistics are probably prohibitive. Moving money around like that has costs I don't understand.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

I've often over the years suggested a deposit of some amount, say $100, that could be refunded at any time by request. If you were caught breaking the rules, you would forfeit the deposit. That would serve many purposes. It would encourage enforcement of the rules... monetarily. It would encourage people to stick within the rule structure.

The logistics are probably prohibitive. Moving money around like that has costs I don't understand.

That sounds extremely limiting given the player-base and the model GGG utilizes.

My suggestion is to provide a premium forum status with some added benefits only, the most relevant one being the 5 upvotes gained every day.

1) upvotes wouldn't be limitless, thus abuse is controlled indirectly
2) the upvote system is linked to a small fee, this ensures a person has shown commitment to the system to begin with.(the fee should be low though, it is only there to physically demonstrate the commitment)

Every free-2-play account could still manage and browse the forums as they currently can, so it would not change anything all to drastically.

But people committed to the community would be given the tools to indirectly manipulate forums for the better.(as in upvoting things they consider relevant, given the two previous factors i think it would yield high relevant/positive results as an outcome)

Hell throw in some stash tabs in the premium forum pack or something :), the fee is only there to make sure people appreciate the forums.(which is not necessarily the case for people free-loading, i think people show a lot more respect to services they have payed for, irrelevant of price tag)

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : typo

Think it still gets into this "worthy" stuff. No matter how you dole out a resource (your upvotes) someone is going to complain that they didn't get treated fairly.

assumptions while contemplating my suggestion.

1) non premium forum participants will not directly have a worse experience. I think the opposite would occur in such a system, they would be provided with more relevant information more visibly.

2) the system only allows active up-voting and passive down-voting (as a result of the former) thus it disables a lot of abuse cases.

3) limiting the amount of upvotes per user/daily bases makes them a scarce resource to utilize, as a consequence i think a user will contemplate utilizing them instead of in a free upvote system where they are just thrown around at random without much consideration or thought.

In practice the paying forum users would facilitate a better forum experience for the non-paying users as a result of these factors.

Note : the forum rules and rules of conduct still apply, so in theory if a malicious post get's upvoted repeatedly it can still be reported and nuked from orbit. An example would be a "git gud" post that get's a lot of traction by the paying customers. Nuke it.

These are all assumptions though, so i would like for you to poke holes in it to see if they can hold there ground.

Peace,

-Boem-