Global Ignore as "De-rep"

• Maenad wrote on 2012-04-18 20:38
  People that need to ignore eachother on the forums do not do it nearly enough. I say we give them incentive to, by making it so that when they globally ignore them, reputation is deducted from that person, but given back if they choose to stop ignoring them. The amount deducted would depend on the person choosing to ignore's own reputation, so they wouldn't be able to make any accounts to troll.
  
  It would also prevent further problems from occurring between those people.
• Claudia wrote on 2012-04-18 20:59
  Hey now, you wouldn't want to give yourself negative reputation now, would you?
  
  I don't see how de-repping people is incentive for anything. Maybe if reputation had any meaning it might, but it doesn't do jack shit so it's pretty much pointless and irrelevant.
• Cide wrote on 2012-04-18 21:02
  you would have less rep than anyone on this site.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-04-18 21:04

  Quote from Claudia;841893:

  Hey now, you wouldn't want to give yourself negative reputation now, would you?
  
  I don't see how de-repping people is incentive for anything. Maybe if reputation had any meaning it might, but it doesn't do jack shit so it's pretty much pointless and irrelevant.

  
  
  But Claudia, you're forgetting that rep is short for 'representation of our e-peenor'!
  
  Of course rep matters you silly goose.
  
  [SIZE="1"]/playful sarcasm btw[/SIZE]
• Kyubey wrote on 2012-04-18 21:05
  >implying people care about rep
• Maenad wrote on 2012-04-18 21:05

  Quote from Cide;841897:

  you would have less rep than anyone on this site.

  
  
  And then I'd never have to deal with any of you again. It's a win-win.
• Claudia wrote on 2012-04-18 21:17
  Anyways...
  
  

  Quote from Kyubey;841901:

  >implying people care about rep

  
  
  ^ crux of what i'm saying and the main argument against this, I guess. I can see where you're going with the idea but sadly it wouldn't work.
• Maenad wrote on 2012-04-18 21:44

  Quote from Claudia;841917:

  Anyways...
  
  
  
  ^ crux of what i'm saying and the main argument against this, I guess. I can see where you're going with the idea but sadly it wouldn't work.

  
  
  Better than the moderators stating that both users should ignore eachother and doing nothing to make it happen every single time something happens.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-04-18 21:54
  This would just create a lot of problems.
  
  People do care about rep and pretend they don't, so we'd end up with a lot of "well I didn't really care about it anyway!" posts when someone who really doesn't care wouldn't mention it in the first place. This happens all the time everywhere on the internet. It already did happen here when people could put a star rating on threads. Even if some people legitimately do not care, it would cause problems for others regardless.
  

  Quote from Claudia;841917:

  ^ crux of what i'm saying and the main argument against this, I guess. I can see where you're going with the idea but sadly it wouldn't work.

  
  If people "don't care", what difference does it make? It clearly does make a difference and that's the reason it shouldn't be implemented.
• Arsik wrote on 2012-04-18 22:00
  Didn't realize that the staff had to power to put individual people on other individual people's ignore lists. Could have sworn that the people we talked to about it would be mature enough to either stop arguing over nothing, or actually put the other person on their ignore list without having someone have to hold their hand and make sure they do do it.
  
  But as for the topic: What's the point of derepping a person that goes on the global ignore, a function that makes it so that the person that's on the list is completely invisible to everyone but the staff? And how would derepping even begin to get people from stopping their petty arguments, when you won't know who ignored that person, or to stop them from making retaliating attacks on you for dropping their epeen, or having their friends do it to you in revenge? All it's going to do is cause drama, which was the reason that the derep feature was removed in the first place.
  
  The way I see it, a staff member should only have to tell two people to put the other person on their ignore list twice before they start handing out infractions, because neither party can be civilized and listen to what the mod has to say. The first time is a suggestion, one with good intentions so that you and the other person don't have to deal with the stress/anger/whatever. The second time they tell you, it's more so that you stop causing problems on the site, and not so much for your sake anymore. Then the third time that they have to do so, they should already consider the two people lost causes and start the infractions, because obviously punishment is the only way to get people to learn how to cope with other people.
• Taycat wrote on 2012-04-18 23:00
  This is a bad idea.
  
  The reason we don't have derep in the first place is because we don't want to start flame wars.
  
  So this is a huge NO.
• Elena wrote on 2012-04-19 00:57

  Quote from Araria;841879:

  People that need to ignore eachother on the forums do not do it nearly enough. I say we give them incentive to, by making it so that when they globally ignore them, reputation is deducted from that person, but given back if they choose to stop ignoring them. The amount deducted would depend on the person choosing to ignore's own reputation, so they wouldn't be able to make any accounts to troll.
  
  It would also prevent further problems from occurring between those people.

  
  
  Negative reputation only serves to cause drama and to cater to the people who can't just simply bring themselves to block another person for themselves. By no means would it prevent a problem for that person. Just because one person thinks that someone is worth blocking doesn't mean that person actually deserves the negative reputation they could get.
  
  If you have people you want to block, just do it. You don't need any other incentive other than not having to deal with people you find difficult. Why people don't already use this function enough is beyond me. Decreasing rep just seems petty and spiteful. Ignore and move on.
• Ithiliel wrote on 2012-04-19 00:59

  Quote from Araria;841946:

  Better than the moderators stating that both users should ignore eachother and doing nothing to make it happen every single time something happens.

  
  It is NOT our duty to put users on your list because you're too childish to put them on the list yourself. If you're not mature enough to stop arguing after being told multiple times, then clearly the fault lies with you, not anyone else and certainly not the mods. The moderators are not your babysitters, we're not here to hold your hand and make sure you've put someone on ignore after we've told you to do it. You either act mature and listen to the mods, or you don't and suffer the consequences.
  
  The yours and it's different forms are directed at everyone, fyi.
  

  Quote from Arsik;841969:

  Didn't realize that the staff had to power to put individual people on other individual people's ignore lists. Could have sworn that the people we talked to about it would be mature enough to either stop arguing over nothing, or actually put the other person on their ignore list without having someone have to hold their hand and make sure they do do it.
  
  But as for the topic: What's the point of derepping a person that goes on the global ignore, a function that makes it so that the person that's on the list is completely invisible to everyone but the staff? And how would derepping even begin to get people from stopping their petty arguments, when you won't know who ignored that person, or to stop them from making retaliating attacks on you for dropping their epeen, or having their friends do it to you in revenge? All it's going to do is cause drama, which was the reason that the derep feature was removed in the first place.
  
  The way I see it, a staff member should only have to tell two people to put the other person on their ignore list twice before they start handing out infractions, because neither party can be civilized and listen to what the mod has to say. The first time is a suggestion, one with good intentions so that you and the other person don't have to deal with the stress/anger/whatever. The second time they tell you, it's more so that you stop causing problems on the site, and not so much for your sake anymore. Then the third time that they have to do so, they should already consider the two people lost causes and start the infractions, because obviously punishment is the only way to get people to learn how to cope with other people.

  
  
  Also, I think EVERYONE should read this post.
• Taycat wrote on 2012-04-19 02:00
  I could not have said it any better myself Ithi.
  
  You too Arsik.
  
  You are both great users ;-;b
• akm88 wrote on 2012-04-24 04:10
  I am new to this forums........