Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 31 of 31

Thread: Suggestion for rules change

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Woo, I actually prefer your idea now =P

    If you ever wanted to have more control over the quality of new Jr Mems, this could easily be done by limiting the number of reps a member could give out per month/week/etc.
    The amount of rep a person needs to get could also be changed as well, although that could spark some comments...

    "HOW MUCH REP DO I NEED NOW!" - That kinda thing...

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wednesday
    Posts
    2,446
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    It doesn't actually take that much time to moderate spam posts as long as people report them. What then happens is that in the mod cp, they get a little a flag thing on the post with why people say it needs deleting, then they go check and delete it. This in all can take between 5~15 seconds depending on the length of the post etc. so with a small group of around 5 mods/admins who, between them, are pretty much on the whole day, it doesn't add up to a lot of work. The problem of then relying on rep is that they don't have a clear, visual way of judging whether or not rep is deserved or if a member is just "boosting" up people to Jr as the only way to find out would be to go to the member, find all his rep's to non-Jr's then check the posts that he rep'd (which could be a lot of he is an active member) and then remove the rep from the users they think were unfairly given and send the member a warning (I just used he in the example referring to the member because it's easier) which could range between a minute and 5. Also, Fawaki "disabled the rep" a long time ago because people were "abusing" it, where some people just didn't like some people and -rep'd any post where they did anything wrong, and other users liked each other and +rep'd any above normal post to try and stop/boost them to members (used to be 30 rep = members). Creating a similar system would be less abused like that was, as it is members who are trustworthy (on whole), but friends of their's that join etc. will get the same sort of boosting that happened before and members would still -rep people that they didn't like, because they are all human (except R0b0t1).

    I think the ideal way to filter out the spammers/leechers from the good users, would simply to have an IQ Test to register and they have to get a certain amount to pass or close registration and make it invite only from Community members and SRL Members upwards.
    By reading this signature you agree that mixster is superior to you in each and every way except the bad ways but including the really bad ways.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think the ideal way to filter out the spammers/leechers from the good users, would simply to have an IQ Test to register and they have to get a certain amount to pass or close registration and make it invite only from Community members and SRL Members upwards.
    I know lots of spamming idiots with high IQ's... doesnt make sense really, but yeah.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by splbooth View Post
    I know lots of spamming idiots with high IQ's... doesnt make sense really, but yeah.
    ...and I'm sure people trying to gain access to a site about cheating wouldn't DREAM of cheating on that IQ test, right? LOL Anyway, it doesn't really matter, because that suggestion was obviously just a joke.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Copy pastin to my C#
    Posts
    3,788
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quoted
    29 Post(s)

    Default

    You people don't read The Book enough -

    We merely play "against the rules".
    This site isn't a cheating site, we don't concentrate on being a failure and cheating some real life exam or anything related, we are a RuneScape macroing community, and we trick the system, not ourselves, - that, is what for example cheating in a real life is.

    I understand that an idea sounds good when you first think of it, but think again, and it doesn't sound nearly as good as it did.


    I think the ideal way to filter out the spammers/leechers from the good users, would simply to have an IQ Test to register and they have to get a certain amount to pass or close registration and make it invite only from Community members and SRL Members upwards.
    Think number one would be - "Hey, let's make an IQ filter! That way we'll get only people here who got through the IQ test!"

    Think number two - "Then again, there is other kinds of intelligency than just selecting the right one of a, b, and c."


    Also, in my opinion, building something based on rep is as good idea as building a dozen skyscrapers in an earthquake zone. You cannot force people to give reputation, you cannot prevent them giving bad or plain useless reputation, unless the system was supervised which would be just waste of moderation resources.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote:
    We merely play "against the rules".

    This site isn't a cheating site, we don't concentrate on being a failure and cheating some real life exam or anything related, we are a RuneScape macroing community, and we trick the system, not ourselves, - that, is what for example cheating in a real life is.
    So uh, If i were to go out with 4 other women whilst already out with someone... would that be cheating, or merely "going against the rules"?

    Also, in my opinion, building something based on rep is as good idea as building a dozen skyscrapers in an earthquake zone. You cannot force people to give reputation, you cannot prevent them giving bad or plain useless reputation, unless the system was supervised which would be just waste of moderation resources.
    Just like you cant force people to make useful posts... unless the system was supervised, which like you said, would be too much hassle. TBH, I think you can only settle for a system that doesnt always work

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •