When will RP crack down on unverified members and members who refuse to give their names down voting with no reason given?

2015-12-26T09:56:53-05:00

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 26 at 2015 9:57 AM

2015-12-26T09:57:42-05:00

Great question, the answer appears to it is not a priority, or perhaps even a concern... It is not a concern in the head shed, and has been deemed self correcting in that overall the voting balances out any outliers. A truly good post will always end up with sufficient UP VOTES to remain on the feed.. a truly bad post will receives enough DOWN VOTES to overcome an occasional like and thus be deemed worthy of being removed.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Dec 26 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-12-26T10:27:16-05:00

There are certain things members can do to help us police the site and control the unverified members as well as the abusers of down voting.

You can contact any Four Star User admin such as myself or SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" via a direct message or by tagging one is in a comment on the thread. That will alert us and we will check everything out and take the appropriate action either to get the person to verify their account or in regards to down voting, talk to them and train them up on exactly what it means to either up vote or down vote a thread or comment.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-12-26T10:27:34-05:00

The Admins do try to stay on top of this and control this behavior when it is brought to their attention.

Rally Point uses http://www.ID.me for SSN based verification, per LTC Yinon Weiss in another thread. I was aware of and had been verified through it for other programs as well.

Based on statements I've seen, some are concerned about what happens to their records after they are sent to Rally Point and this uncertainty may be what holds them back on verification.

I very rarely accept a connection from an unverified member and encourage those who want to have a connection but are unverified to become verified.

I haven't had too many problems with down voting but I have had some with just making negative comments or being disruptive. I address those directly. I would go with what SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" said and block them from the thread.

SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" My understanding is that blocking prevents interaction both ways on all threads. Is this correct?

ID.me – Turn Your Identity Into Currency And Access.

ID.me allows you to create a single sign-on and verify your group status to unlock exclusive discounts, rewards and resources.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 26 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-12-26T10:33:07-05:00

My personal opinion is a down vote should require a response. ..If I were King for a day, clicking the down vote button would bring up a pop up window that can not be cleared, closed, bypassed and would not allow any further actions on RP until it is filled in with a reason for the downvote, completing the down vote process and closing the pop up.

Some of my Admin peers disagree greatly with the need to provide response along with a downvote.
I see it as useful information to the downvoted, respectful in ones standing by thier word, and professional .. My view is not shared by those in charge.. to each his own.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Dec 26 at 2015 11:16 AM

2015-12-26T11:16:17-05:00

No Shit, it's about time that RP do something about this. If they really want to improve RP and make changes, this should be one of their top priorities for 2016! I mean, WTF-Over!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 11:20 AM

2015-12-26T11:20:47-05:00

I guess I would draw an analogy. Unverified members should be treated as undocumented aliens - they can't vote. That would encourage folks to get on a pathway to citizenship, as it were.

It has been my observation that some of these appear to simply bored people looking for new frontiers for trolling. The random civilian members that have popped up lately are particularly galling and don't know jack about 75% of the military-related discussions.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Dec 26 at 2015 11:56 AM

2015-12-26T11:56:44-05:00

LTC Bink Romanick I would agree,sir,that something needs done.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Dec 26 at 2015 1:19 PM

2015-12-26T13:19:42-05:00

Sir, I see your point. But there will always be non-conformist in any group. Since the DOD has made it policy for force protection. I'm a Correctional Officer for the State of Texas. I don't worry about such nonsense much. I'm also a Veteran MP, back in the bad old days we had to carry empty .45s.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Dec 26 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-12-26T13:39:16-05:00

What I hate is when someone votes you down but you cannot comment on it because you are blocked.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Dec 26 at 2015 1:51 PM

2015-12-26T13:51:34-05:00

I think there are a couple excellent questions here actually.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Dec 26 at 2015 4:48 PM

2015-12-26T16:48:33-05:00

It is two separate issues. First, I would think that if you have an unverified account, than you should not be able to post anything. It is kind of like LinkedIn where you can have an account but the basic account is limited unless you pay. Here at least, it is free. That would solve the down vote problem since they could not comment. If you want to partake in the discussions, then take the time to verify your account. As far as down voting in general, I do think people get too wrapped up in points that don't mean anything once a person leaves RP. Until collecting points pays my bills, I really don't care.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 26 at 2015 4:55 PM

2015-12-26T16:55:49-05:00

I realized I failed to address the entire question, focusing on the down vote aspect only.
As to unverified members. My personal opinion is I would prefer to see unverified members likend to a trial membership.. they can view all, post general content as a response, but not start a conversation, no status updates, no posting of links. and in no way affect another member.

Response by SP5 Joel O'Brien made Dec 26 at 2015 5:30 PM

2015-12-26T17:30:02-05:00

To be very honest, I have noticed very little 'down' voting here on RP.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 2:16 AM

2015-12-27T02:16:00-05:00

I've got a comment on the down vote thing, but first I should say that my verification document is in the (e)mail, so you can read me now, and believe me later. :)

IMO, looking as a new guy to RP, the problem with the downvote definition given in the rules is that it tries to capture two nonrelated aspects with one indicator. It is not a mirror image of the upvote, which most people would naturally assume it was. The first aspect is that a downvote is to be used when posts are totally FUBAR, either unprofessional, completely false, insulting, or otherwise rude and crude and not useful. On many other foroums, posts that break rules for civility/professionalism are dealt with by a user hitting a "report" button that is available at each post, and then they explain why they are reporting it. The moderator/admin then decides if it in fact violates any posting rules, and deals with the offending poster. So far so good.

BUt the problem is that the RP rules also state that you can use a downvote when you strongly disagree with someone. On the upvote, the rules say that if you simply want to say "I agree" rather than make that post, just hit the upvote. But if you simply want to say "I disagree" with the opinion stated in the post, and you hit the downvote, that creates a negative consequence to the original poster as points are deducted. IMO RP needs to separate those two functions. For example, let's say someone very professionally and politely states that they think the country has gone to hell because of Obama's policies. Fine. If someone agrees with that, they just hit the upvote, and that agreement is captured. They aren't expected to describe in detail why they agree, they just get to agree.

But if someone else disagrees, and hits the downvote, then shit hits the fan. Because a downvote also carries the stigma of a punitive measure. So what happens then is let's say that 10 people agree that Obama sucks, and 10 disagree. Because of the pressure not to display disagreement with the downvote, you end up with 10 upvotes and no downvotes, even though the readership is actually split 50/50. That skews everything. It's like you are allowed to agree, but you are not allowed to disagree.

Also, just because someone posts an opinion that the majority doesn't agree with doesn't mean it's necessarily the wrong answer. So someone with the courage to buck the trend could get punitively downvoted while actually providing a valuable opinion to the RP membership.

So I think you need to separate the punitive section of the downvote from the "I disagree" section of the downvote. Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean you should lose points for it the same way you would for being unprofessional. If you want to use the up/down as a quick indicator of how the group feels on a particular topic, the downvotes need to be nonpunitive. Shift that negative disciplinary function to a report button instead. Right now you are essestially telling people not to downvote except under extreme conditions, but telling them to upvote just because you agree with the post. IMO, that leads to a skewed and misleading indicator of the feelings of the membership about any particular idea. Take away the stigma of the downvote by defining it as "I disagree" just like the upvote is defined with "I agree".

Or, simply change the rules and leave the downvote soley for reporting unprofessional posts, and remove the second definition that says you can also use it to indicate disagreement. But you shouldn't have one button trying to capture two very different aspects of feedback on a post.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Dec 27 at 2015 2:41 AM

2015-12-27T02:41:17-05:00

Yep, I've wondered the same thing.

Response by LTC Stephen Conway made Dec 27 at 2015 5:44 PM

2015-12-27T17:44:39-05:00

This forum should allow other points of view. some people, rank immaterial, say things that are offensive and sometimes I push the envelope but I do this to try to inform and I learn from others when I am way wrong or nieve on a subject matter here. This forum is great for constructive criticism. We can't be like the progressives on campus who shout out others or say in polls that giving up their right to free speech as part of the new extremist groupthink. If we have anarchists or people who purposely like to stir up trouble with rants and no good backup to their thesis on something then yes we need to train, counsel and if necessary vet people here that are just f-ing with people here for the fun of it.

Response by SPC Stacey Lowell made Dec 27 at 2015 7:30 PM

2015-12-27T19:30:07-05:00

It is easy for people to verify their accounts by scanning their military ID or Retirement Military ID and send it to the Account Support folks who do the actual verification. Otherwise if the folks can not get verified should be kicked until they do...

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Dec 27 at 2015 7:55 PM

2015-12-27T19:55:15-05:00

LTC Bink Romanick it bugs me to no end when people give me down votes with no reason. I couldn't care less about the points - it's the principle... what did I say that was so upsetting?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 12:44 AM

2015-12-28T00:44:32-05:00

I do believe that a reason should be given for a down vote.. I received a down vote and the person that gave it to me never responded to my inquiry as to why. even as in a private message.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Dec 28 at 2015 7:24 AM

2015-12-28T07:24:33-05:00

Seems to me that things like CPT Serviceman and the others we have all seen should be deleted by those that can delete profiles. Isnt it possible to have a few fields required when someone sets up a profile?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 1:12 PM

2015-12-28T13:12:59-05:00

I can't believe no one voted you down yet. :)

Response by Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce made Dec 28 at 2015 4:38 PM

2015-12-28T16:38:45-05:00

When I joined RP I emailed a copy of my DD-214, what is so hard about prooving who you are? Not providing a real name is ridiculous. The down Vote should not be an option for a no-named person. If they are afraid of repercussions perhaps they should save inflammatory comments until they separate from the military. You know what they say about biting the hand that feeds...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 11:28 PM

2015-12-29T23:28:55-05:00

LTC Bink Romanick, I don't know when, but the sooner the better. Identification of a member ought to be an RP policy if someone wants to join. I see no reason for someone to want to join and be so secretive. I ignor most responses when there is no name and no information and no face. What's ironic is that some these "ghosts" as I call them, are looking for employment. Who the hell is going to consider someone you know nothing about. About the down voting. It's easy to do that and be a coward with no explanation why it was done. I contact the person to find out why. Most of the time they don't respond. They don't need to be in RP. They are a disgrace to consider themselves RP members. I've noticed on the selections of members to pick for connections, a lot of the Infantry and Infantry Airborne members have no picture and no information about them. They will never be selected by me. You can tell this is a pet peeve with me. I don't get it.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 12:36 PM

2015-12-30T12:36:00-05:00

hmmm .... .... I really really need to reconsider about verifying my account ... well ... I will wait until they actually don't even allow me to post anything first .... maybe ...

Response by SSG Keith Cashion made Dec 30 at 2015 5:13 PM

2015-12-30T17:13:32-05:00

Now I am confused. I asked this question several months ago, about RP members that do not have a name or photo (Careless about a photo), but have a rank and no name. I was told it was because they were active duty and it could be negative towards their duty? I see Active duty with their names and pictures making discussion, up vote, down vote and all manner of comments, and I see nothing really happen. But you have that few, that due to their "Active Duty Status" (Eyes have rolled to the back of head), can be almost down right belligerent, but still remain anonymous. Tell me how that works? I believe as I think others do as well, that if you are "Verified", then a name goes with the Profile. At that point, if not verified, then the account should be Read Only.

It's like being accused of something and not being able to address your accuser.

Just my Half Nickel

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Dec 30 at 2015 11:37 PM

2015-12-30T23:37:45-05:00

Another thing I thinks crack down on is the lack of a name associated with a profile. Perhaps that is a safeguard one would want to keep strangers from knowing who they are - but some trollers use that to their advantage.

I have my name on here because I can and will stand behind my statements and if wrong will own that too. If they don't show their name they shouldn't be on here...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 12:22 AM

2015-12-31T00:22:46-05:00

I would like to see something done in this area as well. So many down votes without comment.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Jul 29 at 2017 8:31 PM

2017-07-29T20:31:24-04:00

Been beating this particular dead horse for quite some time... i feel free to abuse them until they block me.

Response by SPC Mark Brown made Jan 12 at 2018 2:20 PM

2018-01-12T14:20:04-05:00

LTC Bink Romanick: Hear Here! You have spoken to a problem that takes away from the validity of Rally Point. This page/forum/blog was created by and for veterans and active duty military personnel and should be run as such. If prospective members are unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements then admission should be denied. Those folks should be given the opportunity to observe by should, likewise, be prohibited from participation at any level. Enforce the guidelines as written, they are there for a reason. The rest of us are eagerly in compliance, we want this arena to be exactly as it was designed. No room for BSers, rule breakers, etc. Who is the chief honcho, is it Mikel Burroughs? Has this question been brought to the admins or moderators? Should be, in my opinion. I am not trying to make this board something it was not designed to be but I would like it to be held to the standards to which it was created. Thank you for posing the question. I know I provided my DD214 and was also verified by a fellow member veteran. If there are rules, all should be held 100% accountable to such rules. If I learned nothing else in the Army, I learned that! Sometimes the easy way, sometimes - the other way!