Ban for excessive NEGATIVE reputation rating

[edouble101 314]

If a member has an excessive negative reputation rating then that member should be banned. Lets keep this site clean and throw out the trash!

Here is an example SSA FORUM MEMBER WITH A REP RATING OF -104

Does everybody agree?

Edited May 16, 2011 by edouble101

[An-i-no 86]

If a member has an excessive negative reputation rating then that member should be banned. Lets keep this site clean and throw out the trash!

Here is an example SSA FORUM MEMBER WITH A REP RATING OF -104

Does everybody agree?

Nope. Because that opens up a huuuuuuge can of worms. What you propose means that if I don't like what someone is saying, I can -1 them, and get a bunch of other people to -1 them until they're gone. That's gay. As long as they stay within the rules they should be able to stay, regardless of whether or not you like the things they say.

"Arrrg that guy edouble is a douche, -1 every thing he posts" and then a few weeks and you're gone. Sound like a good idea?

[S.DeYoung 968]

If a member has an excessive negative reputation rating then that member should be banned. Lets keep this site clean and throw out the trash!

Here is an example SSA FORUM MEMBER WITH A REP RATING OF -104

Does everybody agree?

Nope. Because that opens up a huuuuuuge can of worms. What you propose means that if I don't like what someone is saying, I can -1 them, and get a bunch of other people to -1 them until they're gone. That's gay. As long as they stay within the rules they should be able to stay, regardless of whether or not you like the things they say.

"Arrrg that guy edouble is a douche, -1 every thing he posts" and then a few weeks and you're gone. Sound like a good idea?

^^^ This. Now if they don't follow the rules consistently, ban them.

[Duran 387]

'stealth' just came back from a vacation, he was banned for several reasons, none of which need to be discussed here. Banning members with negative members cannot be done due to the fact that they are not manageable, meaning that function is either on, or off.

[Duran 387]

Also, you cannot track the people who vote posts up or down.

[edouble101 314]

Ah I see.

Sounds like a cap should be implemented to prevent one member from solely giving negative or positive reps to another member more than "x" amount of times.

[Duran 387]

Ah I see.

Sounds like a cap should be implemented to prevent one member from solely giving negative or positive reps to another member more than "x" amount of times.

It's limited to one per post, that's about all.

[Notorious97200 339]

It's not s emme dee here !

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

Stealth was banned for a while, have not banned anyone in ages. Anyway, he explained to me that if he could come back he would chill out. So I am extending the benefit of the doubt conditionally.

[altoncustomtech 773]

Stealth was banned for a while, have not banned anyone in ages. Anyway, he explained to me that if he could come back he would chill out. So I am extending the benefit of the doubt conditionally.

I have no idea what he was banned for either and I think most (or some) knew that me and him didn't co-exist the best on the forum, but I believe this to be a good idea. Everyone deserves a second chance and quite honestly the guy did seem to try hard to help people who were asking questions for help. Whether or not the info he was giving was right or wrong I can't remember, but I believe it to be noble of you to allow him back.