Requested feature overview description.

The ability to remove certain abilities from users who are abusing or misusing them, such as commenting, tagging, or uploading.

Why would it be useful?

As it stands, when a user is repeating a problem, the only way to deal with them permanently is with a full-out ban. However, it might be possible that a user has some advantages - perhaps their comments border on "creepy" too often, but they do a good job of tagging. Perhaps they mistag frequently, but contribute well on the forums. Selected privilege removal might allow them to still be a useful member in some way.

Obviously, this would be for users who aren't thought to just be trolls trying to stir the pot, even if they focused on only one form of vandalism.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?

A lot? Tagging, forums, comments? User-privileges affect a lot of different things.

I wholeheartedly want this. From a moral standpoint, seeing a person unable to make mistakes is a better option than seeing a person unable to use the site, in extreme circumstances. But that is my opinion.

No.

When you register for a site, you make an agreement to comply with the site's terms. If you decide to fuck around, I really don't care how "helpful" you are in other ways-- you're still causing problems on the site, and problems we have to deal with. You are told when you fuck up when you fuck up, so how about, I don't know...listening to the records you're given, like an adult?

If you get a ban, it's probably deserved.

Ratte said:
No.

When you register for a site, you make an agreement to comply with the site's terms. If you decide to fuck around, I really don't care how "helpful" you are in other ways-- you're still causing problems on the site, and problems we have to deal with. You are told when you fuck up when you fuck up, so how about, I don't know...listening to the records you're given, like an adult?

If you get a ban, it's probably deserved.

I feel like this is assuming a user has malicious intent. That the user decided to mess around rather than just being incompetent at a task.

I like the old saying, "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".

Clawdragons said:
I feel like this is assuming a user has malicious intent. That the user decided to mess around rather than just being incompetent at a task.

I like the old saying, "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".

Intent doesn't matter as much as the result. Again, if you're causing problems and you get a record, that should be your signal to stop doing whatever got you a record. Intent aside, you're still causing problems that other people have to clean up and deal with.

This will not be happening.

But if user gets warned about doing a thing, they have the ability to stop doing the thing. Nobody is requiring them to do something on here.

Also I would imagine this being insane amount of work to implement, just to exlude specific features from specific users and insane amount of more work to staff as they now need to manage individual features of user account instead of account as whole.

I envisioned this as a replacement, under certain circumstances, for a temporary ban? And, for those circumstances, a longer period of time; you can put baby in the corner for 10 minutes, or you can take away the toy for one hour (silly analogy, take it as you wish). I should have been more specific, I don't like seeing people temporarily unable to use the site, it felt like salt in the wound.

Siral_Exan said:
I envisioned this as a replacement, under certain circumstances, for a temporary ban? And, for those circumstances, a longer period of time; you can put baby in the corner for 10 minutes, or you can take away the toy for one hour (silly analogy, take it as you wish). I should have been more specific, I don't like seeing people temporarily unable to use the site, it felt like salt in the wound.

If the rule-breaker can't learn, how they feel when facing a punishment for repeated offenses is irrelevant.

Siral_Exan said:
I envisioned this as a replacement, under certain circumstances, for a temporary ban? And, for those circumstances, a longer period of time; you can put baby in the corner for 10 minutes, or you can take away the toy for one hour (silly analogy, take it as you wish).

If you're all supposedly adults, how about acting like it? Stop doing what got you records. It's really that simple.

Siral_Exan said:
I should have been more specific, I don't like seeing people temporarily unable to use the site, it felt like salt in the wound.

Good.

Ratte said:
If you're all supposedly adults, how about acting like it? Stop doing what got you records. It's really that simple.

The amount of hostility I'm seeing from you right now is honestly quite astounding. I feel like I touched a very raw nerve, and that wasn't my intent.

Mario69 said:
But if user gets warned about doing a thing, they have the ability to stop doing the thing. Nobody is requiring them to do something on here.

Sure, but at the same time this site takes the attitude of "tagging / uploading / being constructive is everyone's responsibility", so I think someone trying and failing to be helpful deserves to at least be thought of in a different light than someone actively trying to be unhelpful.

[/quote]
Also I would imagine this being insane amount of work to implement, just to exlude specific features from specific users and insane amount of more work to staff as they now need to manage individual features of user account instead of account as whole.
[/quote]

I was thinking of something more along the lines of "restricted" account types which would have have the restrictions built in. So it would be the same basic code / function as is used for "privileged" or "janitor" or whatever else. So it would be an expansion of an existing system rather than a separate one.

Bah. Well, like I said, I obviously touched a major nerve here. Might as well have this locked then.

The problem is that we do not just ban people that genuinely want to help, on the contrary all of my staff actually quite like explaining things for people and show them around. The problem is when people ignore the help of 4 different staff members and 5 records because then they no longer qualify as "helpful" they qualify as a nuisance and a waste of effort and time. Not only that, but a lot of people also feel greatly hurt when you cut down on their abilities, I'm not sure how many remember but Mario359 got his upload limit trashed because he just uploaded TF2 stuff with only humans and YouTube videos. After being told that we won't restore his upload limit because he'd just continue posting shit he turned into a passive-aggressive asshole that only trash talked staff and played the victim card at every opportunity. We do not need a repetition of that.

And still, if someone repeatedly breaks the rules they get kicked out because they have become a problem and are unwilling to change, there is no reason this should altered. People either play by the rules or they can play somewhere else.

I'm gonna have to vote No on this due to more work put on the staff. We go by the 3-strike rule like what we've been doing. Break the rules once, warning. Twice, negative record. Thrice, ya get banned. I really don't want to be like "Oh, you broke the rule a third time? Well you just lost your commenting privileges, mister!" And then who's to say that they aren't gonna break the other rules after that? We give them another 3-strikes for each of the other rules? What if the user was a trusted user but turned petty? We gotta keep it simple, to the point, and not get too lenient.

Clawdragons said:
The amount of hostility I'm seeing from you right now is honestly quite astounding. I feel like I touched a very raw nerve, and that wasn't my intent.

I'm not being hostile, but I'm certainly being aggressive. I am the one who gets to deal with the worst of users as well as user records. If I point someone to the rules and they choose to ignore them, that's their own idiocy and they'll be slapped for it like anyone else. Someone's "helpfulness" stops carrying weight when they're more of a burden to the site and its maintainers than a benefit. No matter how "likable" or "helpful" you supposedly are, you are not exempt from the same rules as everyone else.

The rules are in place and we have a very concise disciplinary actions guide. Bending the flow and functionality of the site to cater to specific halfassed-"helpful" users? That isn't how this works.

In theory this sounds wonderful and really handy, in practice however it literally more work for the staff then is needed and frankly bordering on automation and algorithms, which in turn would probably mess the site up worse then just outright banning troublesome users.

Skirting the system, creating slang to get around filters, lazy or very little staff because the code handles everything, ban evasion, ect.
Yeah I probably don't have to tell you why exactly that would be a problem especially for this site.

Again don't get me wrong I love this idea but when you think about the practical applications then. Weeellll.... Yeah... probably not very likely.

To all of that, fair enough.

Obviously I don't deal with these users, I've only got my own experience in vaguely related roles to go by, and it's not like I was any sort of genius at that.

I'd like to add there are already neutral reps that already do a better version of the suggested feature by being for minor things and being removed if no others are received after six months. If someone gets a neutral after trying to help and learns the lesson, then there's no problem anyway because it goes away, and this is alongside negative rep, so this would be a redundant feature.

I will have to go against this.

No matter how much you've contributed, everyone follows the same set of rules. Either you learn to follow the rules, or you get thrown overboard.

Plus, neutral records are already given out as a warning to persuade them to either change or stop whatever it is they are doing. Going against it would mean you are blatantly disregarding said warning.

I don't think having a "restricted" type of account would make the user feel better than getting banned. You'll have to ask yourself, Would you still come back even after having your wings clipped, mouth sewn and hands tied up?

I might as well come back in a new account with all my freedoms intact, since it wouldn't be considered as "ban-evading".

Maybe instead of stripping account features, we just hand out Badges of Stupidity to be displayed prominently below your avatar. Like a record but more embarrassing.

Ijerk said:
Maybe instead of stripping account features, we just hand out Badges of Stupidity to be displayed prominently below your avatar. Like a record but more embarrassing.

"I flagged an image for deletion because I don't like its content"

post #710895

"I tagged based on what I know, not Tag What You See"

post #675554

"I continued a flame war after admins told everyone to stop"

post #470857

"I uploaded with 0 tags"

post #21994

"I keep trying to ban evade"

post #848215

"I insulted janitors/admins for removing my low quality submissions"

post #710401

"I cited the First Amendment after an admin told me to stop insulting others"

post #359922