In an effort to prevent a repeat of the Chartist banning debacle, I would like to propose a new feature on the forum: that forumites can provide positive or negative feedback on posts. If too much negative feedback accrues to an author, then they get suspended for a week, after which they can come back with a clean slate. Progressive suspensions become longer and longer. When someone clicks on the "thumbs down" icon to rate a post negatively, they must choose from one of a number of reasons: foul language, lewdness, racism, hate speech, slander, stupidity, etc. For example, I write one of my typical posts. 15 forumites read it and give me the thumbs down for "stupidity". Next time I got the the forum page, I see a negative rating. I can click on the rating to see a bar graph that shows my stupidity index quite high. Notwithstanding this, I post another completely brain-dead message. This time, 12 readers rate it "stupid". This pushes the stupidity index over the threshold, so next time I want to post, the system tells me "Sorry - you've been banned for stupidity; you will be allowed to post again on 18 March 2009". This system will provide the following benefits:
People who post informative messages will be encouraged by readers giving the message the thumbs up, and be inclined to post more.
People who post objectionable messages will be able to see that other forumites find the message objectionable, and may tone down their message before they get suspended.
People will not feel so much need to argue with e.g. racist posts (thereby prolonging the post) - they can simply give the message a thumbs-down.
The system would administer itself; Simon would not need to get involved in individual cases, so no-one would ask whether his decision was correct.
This system would reduce the need for the NetNanny. If we can get rid of that, then we can use phrases like "too*****nock", "*****nal" and "Ad***** Ingram" without all of the stars appearing.
What does the rest of the forum think of this idea? Are there any other ideas on this topic?
Thumbs down to the suggestion - your example is also unfortunate. A stupid question/posting must be enlightened, that's also what the forum is there for. Ignore what's not for you and carry on with what you are here for. We are not here to build an ego, although some of us are in the position to create a following because of certain skills, wittiness, whatever. In short: stick to your core business. AND - everyone should display character = if you f a r t in your own bedroom, beg your pardon to those who are abscent. Do not offend our forum!
But hasn't Chartist been banned before for being obnoxious? It's a thing with him, He's great, and yes, he should be allowed back on the forum, but not for at least 2 weeks. I myself am dissapointed, as I'd love to get some input on the status of the current rally, and the VIX, and his general going on about todays gap, and the reverse head and shoulders et al. But still - he also needs to control those raging homones. What happens when you have 10 thumbs up, and 10 thumbs down? You're brilliant and instightful, but offensive - who gets to decide. Say what you mean to say, just don't get carried away is all.
I like it. On sites that use voting, it simply means your post might still be there, but invisible unless people make some effort to view it. It gives you some idea of how your posts are being seen - whether you should keep at it, or...just keep quiet ;)
Almost true, except that NetNanny has become stricter over time. I also don't realistically hope for it to be implemented. It's just item #219 on their list of customer-driven feature requests that they can ignore in their bored meetings, in true "inspired, motivated, involved" style...