>>Who defines positive? Who defines negative?
>
>Players. Open interpretation. While different players have
>different views, I think there is some general consensus. You
>see this in battlefield comments. Some characters get almost
>universally complimented. Others get umpteen people calling
>them a douche as soon as they delete.
>
>Are some of the douche-callers probably out of line? Sure.
>But when you have a character for whom the "negative comments"
>outweigh the "positive" ones by a huge margin then usually
>that character really was pretty douchey.

This system is really going to lean towards the douches, I guarantee. Especially if you structure it such that you get one vote every X hours.

>>Who monitors that people are using it as they should?
>
>I agree monitoring is sort of dicey. Mostly because there's
>no clear cut definition of "as they should". So maybe don't
>bother to monitor it at all.

Without any monitoring it will serve no purpose other than an emotional release against someone you perceived has wronged you.

>If you have a character who has amassed a "large" number of
>negative votes, considering how "rare" votes are to begin
>with, then maybe that's a guy you want to watch and
>potentially give some crappy title.
>
>You would never punish him solely on the basis of the
>mortal-driven feedback. But you might use the mortal-driven
>feedback as a "red flag" to let you know that this particular
>character might be due for some snooping.

So you really want monitoring by the Immortals (not no monitoring at all), with potential benefits/punishments associated with that feedback. Again, pushing it towards something that HAS to be monitored.

>>Or maybe someone kills me, so I give them a thumbs down. Or
>>maybe I don't like their name because it's similar to
>>something I read in some book.
>
>That is, of course, you prerogative. But since you can only
>vote once every X hours, you're not going to be able to flag
>very many people that way. Plus if you include a comment
>detailing why you're giving this guy thumbs down (e.g. "He
>killed me") then any staff member who looks at that
>character's info can just disregard your thumbs down.

The way people break character, rage delete because they lost shinies, start OOC hissyfits because they are certain that Fortlander exists, piss and moan because they got ganged down and those people MUST be an OOC perma, this is more than likely going to be an emotional response that isn't going to be representative anyway. In an ideal world, I think it's a great system, but CF isn't an ideal world.

>>And the ultimate question...what exactly do you expect to
>come
>>out of these player-run moderation?
>
>Here's the problem I'm trying to solve:
>
>I, while playing my character, see douchey behavior on the
>part of some other character. Not behavior that qualifies as
>a rules infraction, or else I'd immediately pray about it.
>Just crappy behavior of the sort that typically earns people
>negative titles, or possibly a critical PBF comment.
>
>The immortal staff, however, is not omnipresent, and so may
>not ever notice this character's douchey behavior. So he
>essentially flies under the radar and "gets away with it".
>
>I'd like to see fewer people "get away with it".

Again...monitoring/policing/praise/punishment. Even if you force a comment along with your thumbsup/thumbsdown who is to say that it actually happened? thumsdown isildursimperial Is grouping with Scions, attacking in town, and hero-gearing up some level 3 dude!