A group of FT'ers acting in unision to be disruptive/"clever"? Now who would have thought THAT was possible? ;)

If Randy is to overloaded to deal with the consequences of this feature.......
 

and that is certainly understandable, then it should be turned off.

Properly managed, it could be a tool for great good.

Allowed to run hog wild, it could cause way more problems than it is worth.

I would rather have pictures. :D

WHO determines what abuse is? Surely you can't decide for another person whether or not they should agree with your posts?

Having Randy invest time in investigating childish jabs as someones useless online "reputation" is ludicrous. The system either works, or it doesn't, and I've heard the same people claim both things now several times...

Randy would have to investigate 100's of "dings", ask the user why he/she did it, listen to 100's of claims by people on how nasty the other person is, read loads of links to stuff in the past and then make a decision? That's a fulltime job handling something that can be solved by simply turning off an option in your control panel.

The system is about reputation. There are plenty of people on FT I don't like, and wouldn't award a positive point if they paid me to do it, but I don't think leaving silly anonymous points will be the solution to my feelings about them.

Punki, if the system bothers you this much then follow Glens wise advice, turn it off. Let the kiddies play around with your reputation as much as they want, not having it visable will stop them in a day. Add them to your ignore list and get on with life, worrying about a bunch of juvenile kiddies wastes energy that can be spent on much nicer things.

Removing someones privaleges because they clicked on your little scales is an insane idea, the reputation serves no purpose and doesn't affect you in real life. When you log out of FT people and head to the grocery store the people there won't see a "shameless grey" box over your head.

FT reputation won't get you into an elite line, an airline lounge and it won't get you upgraded...

Exactly. I've voted negatively for a number of users who I think are detrimental influences of the forum, just like I'm sure a number of them would do to me if I actually cared enough to turn it back on.

Punki, nobody is forcing you to participate in this great popularity charade. However, if you choose to participate and don't get the results you seek, it is probably more indicative of how the userbase truly feels about your value to the forum rather than "abuse".

:confused: I don't know. What do you mean? Certainly no one here on FT. Couldn't be. Not in a million, gazillion years. Absolutely not. No.






:D :D

No kidding. If one doesn't like the reputation one has as reflected in these 'scores,' then just the darn thing off. All this whining and "I've asked Randy to tell me who is saying bad things about me" is below even lunch box age. At this rate we'll be encountering newborns with more maturity than some FT members. :(

Ultimately, I would disagree.

You of all people should know that using an anonymous sock to "diss" other members is reprehensible. Likewise, dissing people's reputation anonymously using an FT feature should also be considered a no-no.

My $0.02.

I can understand the desire to have such a rating on Coupon Exchange, but what has happened is FT now has a witch hunt going on, with those who disagree with opinions slapping negative ratings on people. Or otherwise playing out personal vendettas. For those with few computer skills, turning on or off a function is of little help, as it assumes a literacy that exists only among a few with such skills. In returning to FT last weekend, I found no reference to this -- and many other new functions -- and searched in vain to understand most of what was now being lauded as valuable new functions. The only thing I could see was the utterly painful slow speed that has resulted from this overburdon on new and for the most part dubious functions.

This particular function must be removed immediately, or it will inhibit free and open discussion and the posting of dissenting opinion. As I have posted elsewhere, FT is now akin to a New England village in the time of the Salem Witch Hunts. It is no longer a community that tolerates diversity of opinion. While I am sure there have been some who have been cheated on Coupon Exchange, one can pretty much gauge an offerer's reputation by their number of posts and length of tenure on FT. Those who cheat other members of this community are quickly found out. FT is not eBay or other similar site and does not need this function. Otherwise, it will be used as it apparently now has been: to impune peoples' integrity and reputation in a purely malevolent fashion with little or no accountability. This is mob rule at its worst, and it is a shame this has now taken over FT.

There is a BIG difference between some scumbag coward using a bunch of TOS violating multiple handles (I think you mentioned them all on page one) and using a Flyertalk provided feature.

There isn't a rule that says you are only allowed to leave positive feedback and I am sure there are plenty of members who have some pretty negative feedback for some of the members on FT as B747-437 pointed out.

When a system lets you pick "approve" or "disapprove" then it's logical that some people will be picking the latter.

And how ironic is it to publicly insist Randy use his time to conduct investigations of "reputation abuse" but at the same time publicly bemoan the amount of time Randy will have to spend conducting said investigations?

BTW, as pointed out by others you can't just sit there and pound the same person with negative feedback again and again, they system won't let you-- and not just on one thread, system-wide, you can't "stalk" one person w/ negative feedback in a short period of time.

Case in point, this guy/girl:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...3&postcount=89

And reaction:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...5&postcount=91

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...8&postcount=94

Now, I know this discussion was a while back, but I just thought I would refresh your memory... :D

I disagree. The principle is identical. Using the cloak of anonymity to impugn members' reputations. Already, wharvey has indicated that another member sent him ANONYMOUSLY a homophobic personal attack - very white hood, IMO.

Your mileage may vary. :)

Once again, a big difference between attacks that violate the TOS spewing vile comment and simply clicking a button saying "disapprove".

I agree that the attack on Wharvey is a nasty one.

With the new tools on FT it will be possible to identify who was behind those multiple handles BTW.

I think that's great!

I'd also like to request, since it was implied that I was the individual behind those attacks, that you publicly identify who was behind those fake usernames, or at least confirm publicly that it was not me.

Quick question...
 

Why does everyone care so much about the reputation function? If your score goes negative, does it prevent you from doing anything on FT? For example, if I were to go to OMNI and write a pro-Bush post, I imagine my score would probably go to -100 or something. Will that impede my ability to post on MilesBuzz or my favorite airline forum? I don't think it will...as least not that I can tell.

I kind of like the reputation function. I can leave comments and praise for other posters that have provided information useful to me. People have done the same for me. Congas to boost your score are kinda stupid if you ask me, but they don't effect the real, legitimate feedback I've gotten and given so far. I hope Randy doesn't turn it off - I like the feature. I don't really care what my score is, as long as it doesn't affect my ability to use all of the forums in FT. (Since I post in OMNI, and occasionally post in political threads, I just assume that some negative points are part of the territory.)