posted by BluenoseJake on Mon 11th May 2009 22:46
Conversations What's up with the limitation for modding users up? I agree that some people abuse the mod system, but prohibiting users from modding up a user up if they already modded them up earlier, that's quite annoying. I think I can decide when I agree with somebody, or disagree with them

You may as well disable the mod system altogether.
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Comments:
I think its per person based...
by hollovoid on Tue 12th May 2009 01:54 UTC
hollovoid
Member since:
2005-09-21

There are certain people Ive modded up back to back with no issues, and others it has been telling me I just modded them up when I haven't in days/weeks. Either its a bug, or the reason is other than the description... given some of the people it doesn't let me mod, I think its the people themselves... Not the frequency in which I mod them.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 12th May 2009 05:27 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I ran across the same issue not too long ago; I was modding a whole lot of people up and found that I was presented with a message that I should let someone else do it. I too find it funny given that I understand on moderating down - but why the same restriction on moderating up?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 12th May 2009 10:44 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Because abusing the mod system can be done both upwards and downwards. If someone is systematically modded up (without deserving it), it's just as damaging as moderating down.

Of course, it's important to note that no damage is done at all by systematic down/up modding, the system is too clever for that. The reason we implemented this was to please the people who are too hell-bent on that stupid little number next to their comments.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by fretinator on Tue 12th May 2009 17:47 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

+1 agreeable

Reply Score: 2

OS News is progressively getting worse.
by tupp on Wed 13th May 2009 18:42 UTC
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

After Eugenia departed, I had hoped that OS News would have become more professional and fair.

Instead, the site has gotten more crazy, and OS News is apparently run on the fleeting whims of a few individuals.

Now, OS News is sort of like that Twilight Zone episode in which Billy Mumy as an evil child terrorizes a town. "You'd better think good thoughts!" I have even had a couple of my OS News posts "sent to the cornfield!"

If OS News wants to be truly fair and professional, it cannot be selective about comments which it allows, nor can it disallow any mods up nor down, regardless of whether or not one has commented in a thread and regardless of whether or not one has modded another poster up or down "recently." It's that simple.

What is especially baffling is that these wild, strange notions on forum rules are actually dreamed-up by someone.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

After Eugenia departed, I had hoped that OS News would have become more professional and fair.

Instead, the site has gotten more crazy, and OS News is apparently run on the fleeting whims of a few individuals.

Now, OS News is sort of like that Twilight Zone episode in which Billy Mumy as an evil child terrorizes a town. "You'd better think good thoughts!" I have even had a couple of my OS News posts "sent to the cornfield!"


I feel your pain. Only today I got modded down 4 times because I suggested Macs use the same components as PCs do.
Damned fanboys are obviously hyper-sensitive this week.

While I agree with modding down for spam, grossly off topic and trolling posts. I don't see the point in modding down for disagreement (or at the very least, some rule to say that on topic posts with unpopular opinions can't be modded down past zero - thus still visable to readers).

Had I been abusive with my comments, then I'd expect my comments to be hidden from public view. But unpopular opinions - particularly ones based on fact - shouldn't be.

That's my 2c anyway.

Reply Score: 2