The Student Room Group

Reps

Should TSR be able to take away reps that are attained via ‘criminal’ activity?

Scroll to see replies

Wouldn't the more rational approach be to liaise with the police about the aforementioned criminal activity, hence making the action of taking away their reps quite redundant?

Either way, sure, just as long as TSR does involve the police while doing this.
Original post by 0ptics
Wouldn't the more rational approach be to liaise with the police about the aforementioned criminal activity, hence making the action of taking away their reps quite redundant?

Either way, sure, just as long as TSR does involve the police while doing this.

Oh I am not talking about actual criminal activity
Original post by Cancelled Alice
Oh I am not talking about actual criminal activity

What other interpretations could there be?
Original post by 0ptics
What other interpretations could there be?

There’s a reason why I used scare quotes.
Original post by Cancelled Alice
There’s a reason why I used scare quotes.

Please elaborate, I am interested in understanding what you mean by ‘criminal’ activity.
Original post by Mesopotamian.
Please elaborate, I am interested in understanding what you mean by ‘criminal’ activity.

Rule breaking. Criminal by TSR’s standards.
Original post by Cancelled Alice
Rule breaking. Criminal by TSR’s standards.

I vote no, only because I’ve gained a nice crop of reps from posts in threads which were then subsequently removed - so by extension, contributing to said offending thread might also indicate a removal of reps.
No, I'm pretty sure that Internet points that have no value fall outside of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, it's fine.
Reply 9
Original post by Cancelled Alice
Rule breaking. Criminal by TSR’s standards.

I am amazed that you had to spell this out!
Original post by gjd800
I am amazed that you had to spell this out!

Yeah, I wonder if there is some disingenuity at play.
Original post by gjd800
I am amazed that you had to spell this out!

To be fair, I thought OP was referring to actual criminal activity (which happens on here).
Original post by Cancelled Alice
There’s a reason why I used scare quotes.

I thought you were referring to the (kinda) new rules about TSR liaising with the police if they catch criminal activity on TSR.

I would say no then, although our inputs would have meaningless dirt on them.
Reply 13
Original post by Mesopotamian.
To be fair, I thought OP was referring to actual criminal activity (which happens on here).

I think the quotation marks preclude that possibility pretty obviously, but I acknowledge that not everybody might pick up on that
Original post by gjd800
I think the quotation marks preclude that possibility pretty obviously, but I acknowledge that not everybody might pick up on that

That’s true, but that’s what an 8 hour shift on a Saturday does to you, evidently.
Original post by Mesopotamian.
I vote no, only because I’ve gained a nice crop of reps from posts in threads which were then subsequently removed - so by extension, contributing to said offending thread might also indicate a removal of reps.

Well at least you’ve been open about your conflict of interest….
Criminal :wink:.
Original post by 0ptics
I thought you were referring to the (kinda) new rules about TSR liaising with the police if they catch criminal activity on TSR.

I would say no then, although our inputs would have meaningless dirt on them.

Ah ok, I’ve read through TSR’s latest rules, I came to the conclusion that TSR probably would have always liaised with the police regarding crime activity but it’s taken till now for them to shout about it. Desperate times, desperate measures. What did you think?
Lol what.
Original post by Cancelled Alice
Ah ok, I’ve read through TSR’s latest rules, I came to the conclusion that TSR probably would have always liaised with the police regarding crime activity but it’s taken till now for them to shout about it. Desperate times, desperate measures. What did you think?

I mean, maybe. So far, the latest rules feel like they’re just there to try and mitigate any ambiguity that were present in the last set of rules as opposed to actually making new changes. But I digress, and too much into that…
Reply 19
No!... everything is illegal these days, half the population would be back to a single gem.

Quick Reply

Latest