(02-15-2011 04:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 03:55 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I laughed this morning when I saw a new member had 72 reps all from one other member one rep point at a time. It's a little silly.

Who is it so I can send them back to 0?

Mr. Peanut

http://ncaabbs.com/member.php?action=profile&uid=39508

I have been a proponent of hiding reputations and post counts... Just saying.

(02-15-2011 03:13 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  the only changes I'd like to see is take out the ambiguity. Forget stuff like "may" or "could", etc... If it's a violation, it should be handed down to everyone, and not as a mod's choice. That's where the biggest issues come from is seeing some people get in trouble for violations, but others continue to get away with it daily.

It would get this place cleaned up quickly. People still call each other names and insult people daily. If they received a warning for this no matter what (and not when mods choose to), then it would stop pretty quick. If there's not enough mods, then find people who are on the boards enough to handle it.

Its not necessarily about mods choosing to, but we have lives outside here and don't always see everything that's posted. So in the words of what transit agencies tell ya if you see something say something so we know to be looking for it.

(02-15-2011 04:26 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 04:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 03:55 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I laughed this morning when I saw a new member had 72 reps all from one other member one rep point at a time. It's a little silly.

Who is it so I can send them back to 0?

Mr. Peanut

http://ncaabbs.com/member.php?action=profile&uid=39508

And Mr Peanut has, in turn, raised the rep points of the guy that is repping him.

(02-15-2011 03:14 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Suggestion?

Make the non-****** clause apply to everyone, regardless of conference affiliation. There have been plenty of times where a poster is simply attempting to civilly defend against or address lies or misinformation (even with verifiable proof and links) and yet they be the ones labeled as an "instigator" or "flamer" for no other reason than because their school happens to be in a different conference alignment.

I feel like that creates tons of confusion and an awkward atmosphere to conduct civil discussion on this discussion board.

Good suggestion.

(02-15-2011 04:34 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 03:13 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  the only changes I'd like to see is take out the ambiguity. Forget stuff like "may" or "could", etc... If it's a violation, it should be handed down to everyone, and not as a mod's choice. That's where the biggest issues come from is seeing some people get in trouble for violations, but others continue to get away with it daily.

It would get this place cleaned up quickly. People still call each other names and insult people daily. If they received a warning for this no matter what (and not when mods choose to), then it would stop pretty quick. If there's not enough mods, then find people who are on the boards enough to handle it.

Its not necessarily about mods choosing to, but we have lives outside here and don't always see everything that's posted. So in the words of what transit agencies tell ya if you see something say something so we know to be looking for it.

Then I refer you to the rest of my post. If the current mods can't handle it, then get new/more mods who can. I don't know every board b/c I only frequent my school's board, but up until recently we only had 1 real mod. Plenty of others with the title but they were never around. That is slowly changing, but still far from good enough.

But it is also about them choosing to. It is specifically written into our AUP that they "can" do this or "might" do this. That is wrong. Either it's allowed or it's not.

(02-15-2011 04:26 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 04:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 03:55 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I laughed this morning when I saw a new member had 72 reps all from one other member one rep point at a time. It's a little silly.

Who is it so I can send them back to 0?

Mr. Peanut

http://ncaabbs.com/member.php?action=profile&uid=39508

What a pity. Both their reputations got alot smaller.

Well, I'm glad to see that we are still permitted to say douchey and dam it.

Too be clear, we are permitted to use words having the root of douchey as an adverb or adjective, however the root cannot be used as a noun, albeit hyphenated with another word representing a pouch of liquid. Am I getting that right?

As regards the reputation issue, to be honest I've never thought much at all about the significance of the reputation indicator. I'm surprised there would be such a big hubbub over it. Why not simply allow only positive points to be given, or is there some kind of special privileges or rewards related to it? If not, seems like much-a-douchey about nothing.

Whatever you do is fine, though. You won't hear me complaining.

I like the idea of limiting the number of reputation points any user can give out. Maybe each user could be limited to 5 positive and 3 negative reputation points each month.

(02-15-2011 04:59 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 04:26 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 04:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 03:55 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I laughed this morning when I saw a new member had 72 reps all from one other member one rep point at a time. It's a little silly.

Who is it so I can send them back to 0?

Mr. Peanut

http://ncaabbs.com/member.php?action=profile&uid=39508

What a pity. Both their reputations got alot smaller.

(02-15-2011 06:08 PM)jamammy Wrote:  But I did start a fun thread on the Sports Bar, it's just nobody ever looks there. Hell, I linked it to other message boards. That's gotta count for something.

If you're going to have something other than a ghost town of an empty board, there has to be some folks willing to step up and say they want it. Right now that count is 1 ... you.

(02-15-2011 09:07 PM)jamammy Wrote:  Right now the count is zero. I don't care. I guess it will be a board filled with bitchters and moaners for happy go lucky Tiger fans to get quickly apathied. Plus, if you are going to take 68tiger's rep points away, why not do the same across the board. I earn mine. I am the best. Can't say the same for you or the others.

Let me know who else has engaged in obvious rep inflation/deflation and I will delete theirs, too.

(02-16-2011 12:39 AM)jamammy Wrote:  No, thanks. I am not in the habit of narcing people out. Leave that shtt to Beaver. I just wanted somwhere to talk Tigers without getting bombarded by the same kind of double standard you just issued me. It's cool, I am your punching bag. Great. #doublestandard

you're a trip

(02-16-2011 12:39 AM)jamammy Wrote:  

FIFY.

(02-15-2011 10:04 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 09:07 PM)jamammy Wrote:  Right now the count is zero. I don't care. I guess it will be a board filled with bitchters and moaners for happy go lucky Tiger fans to get quickly apathied. Plus, if you are going to take 68tiger's rep points away, why not do the same across the board. I earn mine. I am the best. Can't say the same for you or the others.

Let me know who else has engaged in obvious rep inflation/deflation and I will delete theirs, too.

Heck just hang out in Memphis--700, 800, 900 rep points. Really?

Are counseling services being offered to perpetrators and victims? A committee should also be formed so that we can develop a ten stage reform program. Has someone contacted the Obama administration to see if federal funding might be available?

Oh and another thing, there should be an appeal process for both positive and negative reputation rating points.

If anyone objects to any particular bequest of positive or negative rating points, for any particular member, an appeal process should be available. A "Rating Points Appeal Committee" could be established (committee membership being based on rating, of course), and the Committee would then hear arguments presented both for and against any particular rating. If the affected member disagrees with the Committee's decision, administrative remedies would then be available though the Supreme Oversight Panel, which would convene on the second Wednesday of each month. Final decisions of the Panel then would be issued within six months of the "Petition for Reconsideration" being submitted.

Some of the finer details of this process could be worked out at a later date.

"Ultimate fairness" must be achieved!

there's a lot of whining in this thread.

GTS,

I noticed this announcement:
Copyright Infringement
Incidental +10% || Expires after: 1 week
Very Obvious +20% || Expires after: 2 weeks
Link: http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=481360

I received a warning for posting an entire SI Insiders article. This I understand.

However, I just noticed that my warning was issued on Feb. 11, and it expires on May 6. Can you explain why there's a 3 month wait on my expiration, when the above says 2 weeks? (My warning info is below.)

Latest Warnings Received
Warning Date Issued Expiry Date Issued By
Copyright Infringement (Very Obvious) (+20 points)
for post: Remembering the X-Man 02-11-2011, 08:31 AM 05-06-2011, 08:31 AM Derby

(02-16-2011 04:18 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  there's a lot of whining in this thread.

Quit complaining about the whining.