CHANGES TO USER PERMISSIONS

[Cumboi114]

On 11/26/2019 at 6:04 AM, rawTOP said:

Well, you're already up to Junior Member, so you didn't have to wait long for that to be resolved!

Oh I didn't even notice honesty

Edited November 29, 2019 by Cumboi114

[mrpistons2010]

Hi!  I've been unable to upvote or like posts since this changeover happened.  I've had an account since 2011 and, for some reason, and listed as a "New Member."  Is there any way to fix this?

[rawTOP]

11 hours ago, mrpistons2010 said:

Hi!  I've been unable to upvote or like posts since this changeover happened.  I've had an account since 2011 and, for some reason, and listed as a "New Member."  Is there any way to fix this?

Clearly you didn't read the thread before asking your question…

[sluttony]

Honestly, having administered a few forums over the years, I can say first hand that trying to deal with the idiot spammers and malware link generators rapidly becomes a full time job and is actually enough to cause many and admin to give up.

It's a technological arms race that you always lose, and so ultimately the only real way to stay on top is patching (which can also be an almost full time job in itself) and restricting what new users can do.

And when you do the latter on an already established site, it always causes a small amount of pain and complaints, but I am all for it, personally because it will free up Rawtop and the admins to do more of what they want to do and will help to protect the community... and I'm sure no one here wants him to throw up his arms and give up.

Thanks for all you do. I know it's a ton of work.

[CumJunkiePig]

I seem to be a member of the "no chem sex" group.  While that was true at one time, I rather like chemsex now.  Is it possible to take me out of that group, and made a junior member or member as appropriate?  I haven't found anything in the site to guide me in anything I should do for this.  Thanks

[rawTOP]

On 3/25/2021 at 12:41 PM, CumJunkiePig said:

I seem to be a member of the "no chem sex" group.  While that was true at one time, I rather like chemsex now.  Is it possible to take me out of that group, and made a junior member or member as appropriate?  I haven't found anything in the site to guide me in anything I should do for this.  Thanks

The change has been made.

[e38dhj9ht89h349h]

I'd like to be able to rate more. I've spotted profiles are clearly the same person pretending to be different people and it gets really tiring to see long fake stories outside the fantasy section. I don't want to be a moderator but I want to contribute with rating down things that are clearly trash, without wasting my allocation to rate actual good content. Have you thought about it? If someone's using their ratings to mark down, they also lose that to mark good posts up. It shouldn't be that way.

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, boy4dad said:

I'd like to be able to rate more. I've spotted profiles are clearly the same person pretending to be different people and it gets really tiring to see long fake stories outside the fantasy section. I don't want to be a moderator but I want to contribute with rating down things that are clearly trash, without wasting my allocation to rate actual good content. Have you thought about it? If someone's using their ratings to mark down, they also lose that to mark good posts up. It shouldn't be that way.

As the owner & moderators have noted before - you get the ability to react (ie rate) more posts by posting more and increasing your level of participation on the site. With 23 posts to your credit (as of your posting above) that's not going to grant you a lot of access just yet.

[e38dhj9ht89h349h]

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

As the owner & moderators have noted before - you get the ability to react (ie rate) more posts by posting more and increasing your level of participation on the site. With 23 posts to your credit (as of your posting above) that's not going to grant you a lot of access just yet.

I understood how the system works. My comment applies to all levels. If I have 23, then if I had to rate 23 posts down that would leave me with zero to rate up, so the way it's set up it will take longer for "good" users to move up as they're not able to be voted up after you used all your allocations to mark down bad posts. If the ratings will be used as a factor to decide then I'm saying the way it's set up now doesn't seem to be the best.

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, boy4dad said:

I understood how the system works. My comment applies to all levels. If I have 23, then if I had to rate 23 posts down that would leave me with zero to rate up, so the way it's set up it will take longer for "good" users to move up as they're not able to be voted up after you used all your allocations to mark down bad posts. If the ratings will be used as a factor to decide then I'm saying the way it's set up now doesn't seem to be the best.

Counterpoint: assume, for a moment, that relatively new users could react to, say, 100 posts a day. What you're likely to see, very quickly, is Person A making a post that Person B dislikes, and Person B then creates 5 or 10 throwaway accounts (easy to do with as many web mail services there are out there), and uses each one to downvote 100 of Person A's past posts. In minutes, Person A's online "score" (for lack of a better term) gets trashed.

Most of the restrictions here (not being able to send private messages at first, for instance) are the result of past abuses. 

And nobody's saying you need to use your allocated posts to "downvote" people first, then upvote afterward. In fact, I would think that itself is a sign of someone who's not actively trying to fit himself into the community. If a member finds so many posts objectionable that his first instinct is to downvote far and wide, maybe the site's not a good fit for that member.

[e38dhj9ht89h349h]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Counterpoint: assume, for a moment, that relatively new users could react to, say, 100 posts a day. What you're likely to see, very quickly, is Person A making a post that Person B dislikes, and Person B then creates 5 or 10 throwaway accounts (easy to do with as many web mail services there are out there), and uses each one to downvote 100 of Person A's past posts. In minutes, Person A's online "score" (for lack of a better term) gets trashed.

Most of the restrictions here (not being able to send private messages at first, for instance) are the result of past abuses. 

And nobody's saying you need to use your allocated posts to "downvote" people first, then upvote afterward. In fact, I would think that itself is a sign of someone who's not actively trying to fit himself into the community. If a member finds so many posts objectionable that his first instinct is to downvote far and wide, maybe the site's not a good fit for that member.

Dude, please don't distort it. The site owner said himself that's what he wants. He wants objectionable material to be reported. You can't have your cake and eat it, if you want members to help then you have to give them the tools and means. You have to accept tradeoffs in situations like these because there is no perfect way of managing a forum. As you said it's very easy to create fake accounts and there's a person here who's doing that a lot. They create fake profiles and then uses them to upvote each other. They did this before the restrictions so now this person has a ton of "power" because all of their fake profiles are now considered genuine due to all the fake upvotes they gave themselves. How is that fair? I mean duh. If you want genuine users to help then help them help you. I've said what I had to say and now I'm leaving this post as I have nothing else to add and no time to discuss. Thanks.

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by boy4dad
Typo

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, boy4dad said:

Dude, please don't distort it. The site owner said himself that's what he wants. He wants objectionable material to be reported. You can't have your cake and eat it, if you want members to help then you have to give them the tools and means. You have to accept tradeoffs in situations like these because there is no perfect way of managing a forum. As you said it's very easy to create fake accounts and there's a person here who's doing that a lot. They create fake profiles and then uses them to upvote each other. They did this before the restrictions so now this person has a ton of "power" because all of their fake profiles are now considered genuine due to all the fake upvotes they gave themselves. How is that fair? I mean duh. If you want genuine users to help then help them help you. I've said what I had to say and now I'm leaving this post as I have nothing else to add and no time to discuss. Thanks.

 

Reporting is not the same thing as up/down voting. It's not done with the same tools and those "reaction" actions do ZERO to report a post that is a problem.

Reporting is done by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of a post, which creates a message that's sent to the moderators about a post on which you have concerns. While there may not be a moderator logged in at the moment, he'll see that report as soon as he logs in, and can deal with the post if it is in fact problematic. THAT is what the site management encourages - and anyone can report a post that's problematic, if I'm not mistaken.

Reactions - that is, upvoting, downvoting, thanking, or otherwise indicating one's opinion of a post - does zero for reporting. It simply records your opinion, and that opinion is factored into the poster's reputation, but it doesn't cause the owner or moderators of the site to do diddly squat.

I love people who make a post, respond to someone else's comments, and then flounce out declaring the matter closed as far as they're concerned. That's the antithesis of discussion; maybe your lack of understanding about the difference between reactions and reporting, between discussing and declarations, is part of why you're running into problems with the site.

[rawTOP]

10 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Reporting is not the same thing as up/down voting. It's not done with the same tools and those "reaction" actions do ZERO to report a post that is a problem.

Reporting is done by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of a post, which creates a message that's sent to the moderators about a post on which you have concerns. While there may not be a moderator logged in at the moment, he'll see that report as soon as he logs in, and can deal with the post if it is in fact problematic. THAT is what the site management encourages - and anyone can report a post that's problematic, if I'm not mistaken.

Reactions - that is, upvoting, downvoting, thanking, or otherwise indicating one's opinion of a post - does zero for reporting. It simply records your opinion, and that opinion is factored into the poster's reputation, but it doesn't cause the owner or moderators of the site to do diddly squat.

I love people who make a post, respond to someone else's comments, and then flounce out declaring the matter closed as far as they're concerned. That's the antithesis of discussion; maybe your lack of understanding about the difference between reactions and reporting, between discussing and declarations, is part of why you're running into problems with the site.

^^^This^^^ is correct. If you see something that violates the rules of the site, report it. There is no limit on the number of things you can report per day.

But the scenario @boy4dad described wasn't necessarily rule violations - they were scenarios that were appropriate for downvoting - "low quality" posts.

But to boy4dad's question - downvoting can be abused just like upvoting, which is why both have the same limits.

So if you see a rule violation, report it and only downvote it if you feel you've got spare votes for the day. Save your votes for stuff you like or low quality content that isn't necessarily a rule violation.

[Guest]

On 3/25/2021 at 5:41 PM, CumJunkiePig said:

I seem to be a member of the "no chem sex" group.  While that was true at one time, I rather like chemsex now.  Is it possible to take me out of that group, and made a junior member or member as appropriate?  I haven't found anything in the site to guide me in anything I should do for this.  Thanks

We have groups we can join? Cool.
Where are they?

[rawTOP]

7 hours ago, BareLover073 said:

We have groups we can join? Cool.
Where are they?

You're in the "Senior Members" group. They're membership groups, not discussion groups.