i will have you know that i have had wars with the madrover's gimmick account

you guys r so gay for each other its retarted

possibly the worst idea evar.

what about posters like me that are disliked because ppl are jealous of our awesomeness?

why is it that OOT is the only forum that feels it needs to outwardly embarrass and punish bad posters? a simply lock with a courteous explantion will suffice. a mod can keep track of bad posts in the posters notes. if the abuse continues, then more severe action may be appropiate.

allowing the posters of OOT to vote will lead to more cullins, desevredly or not. some of the better posters have exiled from OOT but when you consider the average age of OTT'ers teenager to early 20's, its easy to understand mature posters dont fit in.

great idea imo

Why was the * system eliminated anyway?

This actually works really well on the Tucker Max forums, although they do have a lot of mods there too. The rep there also lets you comment to the individual about the post, so a ton of cluttering is eliminated. They also ban super ******ed people there about 2308238230583x faster and the forums are much more readable, so maybe kyleb is on to something.

When you flood the market with so much *'s, each one diminishes in value.

Two words:
bor
ring

OOT isn't the only forum like that on 2+2, much less the internet.

NT,

FWIW, I don't think any systems are really necessary. As a few people have said in various threads, just lock, delete, and ban away.

agree. note the first bad post somewhere. if the user screws up again, note the second bad post. if they screw up a third time then it's probably time for a ban.

would be nice if we could make the demerit marks public though so that there would be a little incentive to not screw up in the first place....

I agree that reputation for a user gets pretty lame pretty fast. But what about a slashdot-like system where individual threads are rated. Then let users set the minimum rating of threads to display. Obviously there'd still be the really crappy/inappropriate/wrong forum posts that could be moved by the mods, but a lot of locks are subjective. It would be good to let more people be in on the decision of if something sucks or not.

To make the blood-thirsty happy if a thread gets a low enough rating from enough people that person is suspended/banned.

Ron Paul for OOT Mod! He'll ensure every * is backed with gold in the OOT Treasury. No theft by * inflation.

Not in favor of quick locks of threads unless they truly suck. As many have noted, lousy posters often make a thread that winds up great. I've seen many threads on many forums that were active and even excellent get locked because one poster starts cussing or something stupid like that, torpedoing a great thread almost instantly for a nonsensical reason. I'm pretty sure it would be easy to sabotage threads like that at will for posters, and for mods to act out and sabotage threads the same way, using one poor post or poster as an excuse.

Don't punish the thread, punish the poster.

Be glad you even have a good thread, even if it's not to some particular mod's tastes. Edit out an offensive word or delete an offensive post or picture, but let a good thread stand. The dumbest thing is to see a thread locked because it's so popular it even attracts as*holes.

Repeat: don't punish the thread, punish the poster.

I like this motto.

I don't like it because it's easier for people just to do a "mass repping" on one guy and then watch him suck at posting for life. It also allows people who have built up a huge rep to suck temporarily at posting since they can afford to lose the rep and still be on the forums.

I couldn't get past this line in the OP:

I'm not sure what you could really do about this. I mean, if its temporary then they'll get back to posting good. If they suck consistently over a long run, people will notice whether there's a formalized rep system or not. Under the current system, its not like anyone is going to ban bison even if he craps all over a thread.

I don't know if it's a Monday thing or the lack of *s and NT hammerings, but the googletards and bad thread starters are out in full effect right now.

the alternative should be walk softly and carry a big stick

Kyleb, didn't you just breakup with your live-in girlfriend? I'm sensing that something has you very angry. I don't want to speculate but...

but seriously, more bannings. I'm not a big fan of lockings/deletions, because crappy OP's often turn into pretty fun threads (see, e.g., "I can't win at stars" parts one and deux in the zoo)

but explanations for both the imposition and the length/severity of bannings is also imperative - the consistent criticism of NT is his inconsistency (I'm not judging the accuracy of this criticism, just observing that it is out there), and I think developing some sort of precedent for what is and isn't a sucky post or abusive trolling would both preemptively reduce the amount of crap and lead to less hard feelings and drama when bans are handed down.

i agree with all of this.

It probably has more to do with him playing hands like a girl at parkers.