I have been meaning to change our trust levels for quite some time. I was spurred to action by the current abuse of our flag system, so jumped in and updated them today.
It will now take longer to reach Trust Level 2, which is our member level. Posts can only be flagged once a forum users reaches Level 2.
Trust Level 3, our Regular level, will take longer to reach. It will also be easier to lose this status if a Regular has many of their posts flagged and approved.
I hope that these changes mean that our flag system is used as intended, and helps overall. Thank you for your time!
You’ve got a Regular title, so by definition, you’ve been Level 3, but you and I both have dropped back to Level 2 due to insufficient recent activity.
If people are abusing the flagging system, they themselves should be penalized by reducing their trust level. I hope that the person flagging posts is reviewed as well as the post that was flagged.
There should be a penalty for abusing powers or just flagging posts because you dislike a certain person or group.
Much like in GOW how players abuse stuff in the game and get their honor levels redacted.
I mean, yeah, this. There is already a community guideline against this, so it is already “against the rules”, but it is unclear to what degree this is enforced.
Hypothetically, if a person can flag with impunity even when they know it is flimsy or nonexistent, they have no reason (I mean, other than common decency) to not do so. Mass flagging has the opportunity to put someone’s posts under a microscope, where it will now be even easier to get the person on a receiving end to have their trust level reduced, especially if said reduction is an automated system looking at the number of posts of theirs that have flags that have been approved, which would actually impart more power on the people willing to abuse the system. Like it or not, you could, realistically, rules-lawyer a lot of posts from basically anyone to have some kind of weak violation in them if you look hard enough and took a hardline stance on the letter of the guidelines, and at least some of those would probably get enforced, but it is still outright abuse of the flagging system to be able to target this scrutiny on a specific person or persons just because you don’t like the ideas they are sharing. I should stress that people should feel safe in flagging stuff as well, so no automating “if you have n rejected flags, reduce trust level”. The people abusing this know who they are, and the people reviewing it should “know it when they see it”, and at the very least be able to issue a direct warning to anyone engaging in this behavior.
If this is already a thing, then nevermind. But if not, the problem should be addressed head-on by directly penalizing abuse of the system rather than just making it more difficult to reach the level where you can abuse it (and making it easier for abuse of the system to target a penalty on people you don’t like or don’t agree with).
Well people who flag a post, should also be scrutinized as well as the post that was flagged.
I got a post flagged, and there wasn’t anything wrong with it.
I sent a message back to challenge the flag that was given to me & ask that the person be checked themselves.
I don’t think “losing regular status” is going to properly punish the people abusing flags. I don’t think they’re making sock puppet accounts at level 1 to do it.
I think the solution is to take away their posting privileges for repeated offenses.
I know full well I could fall afoul of this. I guarantee you I’d hesitate more to repeat offenses if I’d spent a forced week-long vacation from posting than if I suddenly noticed the forum I don’t post in is inaccessible.
I say go warning → 1 week no posts → 1 month no posts → no posting ever.
I think it’s a softball because they know the guilty parties are people who contribute a lot to the forums in terms of “engagement”, so they’re scared to kick them out of the clubhouse even if they’re bad for the club.
Personally, I’d consider using sock puppet accounts to commit flag fraud a bannable offense. It’s not like it’s an accidental or impulsive thing, it takes quite a bit of effort compared to hitting “reply” without thinking too hard. I think the posting vacation would be best for that kind of person’s mental health.
But on the other hand, I’m 99% certain I’m wrong about how frequently that abuse happens, so I don’t feel like going down a rabbit hole or guessing who did it. If I had all the knowledge I’m sure I’d be surprised, for better or worse.
I’ve heard of bans in global chat applied to main accounts based upon what alt accounts have said in chat. I’ve also heard of bans based on filing false reports. I don’t see why these forums would be any different.
I’m not an IT guy, but I imagine it wouldn’t be difficult to identify ip addresses of these so-called sock puppets. I could be wrong tho. It happens quite often. Still, if the devs can determine who is banned in global, why not here?
