Self-moderated forums?

I was looking at the FAQ on another forum (GameDev.net) and came across an interesting scheme designed to improve forum behaviour by self-moderation (as crazy as that sounds).

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/faq.asp

It's based on a peer rating system. I wondered what people here felt about such a scheme, or if they had experience with it elsewhere. Would it work for us?

This is an extract of their FAQ;

What are these rating numbers under users' posts?

The rating system was implemented recently in a new revision of the site software. Its purpose is threefold:
-To serve as a method of isolating problem users by the community's ratings of troublesome/disruptive posters,
-To give users an idea of their "position" in the GDNet community and what others think of them, and
-To allow users to ignore other users below a certain rating threshhold.

Your rating does not affect your site privileges; it is intended solely for the above purposes. In particular, you will not be banned or suspended if your rating drops too low. You're free to ignore them if you want.

How can I find out how other users rated me?

In your Control Panel you can access the Personal Rating section and see the users who have rated you positively. Users who have rated you negatively are hidden to prevent revenge ratings. Moderators and staff will not tell you who rated you down for this same reason; don't ask.

My rating just dropped a point! Why?

Don't worry about small changes in rating. Gamedev has a very diverse audience with from many different walks of life; this includes people who may take offense at something the majority of people consider to be completely harmless. Don't sweat the small stuff; if one guy can rate you down a point, another guy can rate you back up.

I rated someone, but I changed my mind about them. Can I give them a new rating?

You sure can - just hit the 'Rate this user' link again. Your old rating will be repealed first, as if you'd never made it.

Bah! This is just a method of repressing people with unpopular views!

It's a form of community self-moderation, yes. But it's still very possible to express an unpopular opinion - if you remain polite and calm as you do so, people generally won't rate you down. Sure, there's always a few who will use the rating system as a way to express their disagreement with your viewpoint, but there's an equal if not greater number of people who will actually rate you up for having both the guts to speak out and the intelligence to do it well.

Why do some people seem to be able to affect my rating more than others?

The higher your rating, the more effect you can have on other users. The basic principle is that if you've got a high rating you must be helpful or trustworthy, so we allow your opinion to carry more weight. This is also the reason that all the staff and mods have such high ratings - they were given high values at the very beginning so that they could 'seed' the system, rating up the people they knew to be most helpful and trustworthy in an effort to get things rolling.

What are these "warning levels" above some users' posts?

A user who has a warning level showing up has misbehaved in some way. Warnings can be issued by moderators for any disruptive behavior or violation of the rules. Warning levels are incremented in amounts of 10%, and are taken into account by moderators when punishments are issued.

If after 2 weeks you've stayed out of trouble, your warning level will automatically reduce by 10%. Time suspended does not count towards this. Note that every warning issued is permanently recorded and your warning history is available to moderators.


There is no set level at which you will be suspended or banned, and either can happen without a warning being issued, but the higher your warning level already is, the more likely it is that a moderator will be harsh when issuing a punishment. Your warning history will also be taken into account.


If you currently have a warning level displayed above your posts, clicking on it will allow you to view your warning history. You are unable view the warning history of others. If you have a warning level, you have probably also recieved a brief PM explaining it.
 
Last edited:
This sytem reminds me too much of popularity contests in high school. Who was in the cool crowd and who wasn't. Also too much like politics for me. Goes way too much against my beliefs. And has WAY too much potential to be abused. Someone can give a negative rating for reasons like
1) Don't like the country someone is from.
2) Was on a team with them but no longer, now on competitive teams.
3) You WILL get people who publicly post topics (and bumping them) on why they get bad ratings that push down topics about content and requesting help, etc.
And you will never know because the ratings are hidden so the abuse is very likely.

This system gets a rating of
:n: :n: :n: :n: :n:
out of
:n: :n: :n: :n: :n:
from me.

And that's the only rating I give.
 
Ok lets try this...I'll go first

Dinorius_Redundicus:
Avatar: Cool +1 point
Words Under Avatar: Uncool -3
Overall: -2

StorkNest:
Avatar: Really Cool +2
Signature: Cool +1
Disagreeable: Cool +1
Overall: +4

However my rating is -4,997 (I'am sort of proud of that) so that means Dinorius_Redundicus gets an improved score and StorkNest's score goes down.:hehe:
 
Last edited:
I'm not advocating one way or the other, I just thought it's an interesting approach. Here's what a couple of people from that forum said when I asked how the new rating system had worked so far;

First, a regular member,

"As for the rating system, it works surprising well. Its quite similar to negative reenforcement for operant conditioning in psychology, and it has the same effect. A lot of the users who did something wrong got a rate down, then they knew not to do that again. Some even go to great lengths to figure out what they have done wrong. Then you have others who flame others for being rated down (even though neg rating are anonymous), these people usually get scorned so bad from the community or outright banned that we don't see them again. Though, i can't lie, the more popular people have higher ratings. But this is more so due to the more popular people being the most helpful in the first place.
Overall i'd say the system works well, it mainly just filters out the trolls from the helpful community members."


And then one of the moderators (using his spelling, not mine, and please note, they still use moderators);

"As for the rating system, I'd call it a success.
Before it was implimented posts where everywhere and crap posts were a problem.
The day after the rating system came into effect the affect was evident; the crap was pretty much gone and general over all quality improved."

So, it does have its supporters...
 
Huh?

Self-moderated forums? That just does not sound good. I give that system a two thumbs down. And if Auran had that, AJ would not have a moderating job! You still have your job AJ. I don't see any self-moderating system coming here anytime in the next eternity.

-quakers1
 
Self-moderated forums? That just does not sound good. I give that system a two thumbs down. And if Auran had that, AJ would not have a moderating job! You still have your job AJ. I don't see any self-moderating system coming here anytime in the next eternity.

-quakers1

Quakers1, you obviously just read the thread title but none of the information describing what the system actually is. At least do that before passing judgements!

-5 for you!
:o
 
Quakers1, you obviously just read the thread title but none of the information describing what the system actually is. At least do that before passing judgements!

-5 for you!
:o

:eek:
And this is one of the reasons why I don't support self moderated forums. Someone expresses an opinion disagreeing with an idea, the response is blatant assumption. :confused:

What works on one forum is not necessarily going to work on another. And from issues I've seen here in the past 2 years, this system will cause more problems here, not fix anything. As someone who has done troubleshooting work in certain job fields, I've become good at looking at systems like this and working through the results of what happens when it is implemented.
Results not good here.
 
I read the info about the system. My opinion is based on the facts about it. Looking at the facts, it's bad.

-quakers1
 
Back
Top