What's new
By:

Reputation Comments, positive and negative

Hopper said:
Hey, Colton, I dont wanna git no mo infractions, so lemme ax ya: Is they some rule against me tryin to stir up trouble by signin sumbuddy else's name to my neg reps? This gunna be fun, if they aint. And if they is, how would ya even know it was me what done it, eh?
Click to expand...

I don't think the moderators have discussed that specific thing yet, but I can see how that might constitute trolling.

As far as how we would know: if someone reports a rep comment, I can look up to see who actually made the comment. So, pretty simple, actually.
 
Hopper said:
Hey, Colton, I dont wanna git no mo infractions, so lemme ax ya: Is they some rule against me tryin to stir up trouble by signin sumbuddy else's name to my neg reps? This gunna be fun, if they aint. And if they is, how would ya even know it was me what done it, eh?
Click to expand...

OK, so I'm not Colton but I'll answer some of this. It is possible for an admin to see who has given specific reputation, and giving infractions or warnings for reputation comments is something that has come up.

As far as getting an infraction for signing someone else's name to the reputation comment, I don't know if that would warrant an automatic infraction or not. It might - or it might depend on the context, and how individual mods viewed the situation.
 
moevillini said:
As far as getting an infraction for signing someone else's name to the reputation comment, I don't know if that would warrant an automatic infraction or not. It might - or it might depend on the context, and how individual mods viewed the situation.
Click to expand...

OK, Mo, fair enough. If ya don't know, ya don't know. When I first joined, I was told that everyone knew the rules, but whenever I ask, no mod seems to know. Go figure, eh?

As you have said in the past, part of the "context" is WHO did it, I guess, but beyond that, I'm not sure what "context" even means here.
 
Hopper said:
OK, Mo, fair enough. If ya don't know, ya don't know. When I first joined, I was told that everyone knew the rules, but whenever I ask, no mod seems to know. Go figure, eh?
Click to expand...

well, as you're aware, rules are subject to interpretation so it's difficult to make a blanket statement. And if something has never come up, it's even more difficult to assess how it might be evaluated.
 
moevillini said:
... if something has never come up, it's even more difficult to assess how it might be evaluated.
Click to expand...

I understand, I think, Mo. It just depends on how mods vote, that's all. Of course nothing ever "comes up" UNTIL it "comes up," so, fact is, no one really knows what the rules are until they are told, ex post facto, by means of an infraction.

I got an infraction (I guess) for sayin (well, not really but....) sumthin Colton said that HE didn't think would merit an infraction, for example. Of course he qualified his personal opinion by sayin it all depended on the vote.

Because there seemed to be substantial ambiguity about the matter I didn't actually say the word, I merely said it rhymed with "day." I guess even that was an infraction. Not sure, because there were references to other things, no one of which was indicated as constituing an infraction.
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
Hey, Colton, I dont wanna git no mo infractions, so lemme ax ya: Is they some rule against me tryin to stir up trouble by signin sumbuddy else's name to my neg reps? This gunna be fun, if they aint. And if they is, how would ya even know it was me what done it, eh?
Click to expand...

I think there should be. I would support that rule. :)
 
Hopper said:
I understand, I think, Mo. It just depends on how mods vote, that's all. Of course nothing ever "comes up" UNTIL it "comes up," so, fact is, no one really knows what the rules are until they are told, ex post facto, by means of an infraction.
Click to expand...

Hopper, how many times do we have to go into this? In this case the rule is "no trolling". Clear enough. The question is whether this would constitute trolling. If you think we can or should list EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY TO TROLL in the rules, then you are sadly mistaken. I don't even think it's possible, because there are probably an infinite number of ways to troll.

So, anytime someone trolls (or comes close to trolling) in a new way, it's necessarily a judgment call on the part of the moderators. No one has brought up this particular trolling method... until today. Someone officially complained to me about it, so I'm going to bring it up with the moderators and see what they think--if infractions should be issued for doing that or not.
 
OK, for what it's worth, I've decided to post this info publicly:

Sloanfield is the one that posted this rep comment to Stickler: "just because i feel like it -archie"

Marty McFly is the one that posted this rep comment to Hopper: "Delete your account, hack. -Archie"

As I just mentioned, I'm going to bring this up with the moderator staff to see if they think Sloanfield and Marty McFly should receive infractions for trolling. Anyone else who is thinking of signing someone else's name to a rep comment like those two did, be warned that it could result in an infraction!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top