Forum Suggestion: Reputation and AD

[Banned]

I think that, in favor of the PA crowd (as opposed to the wonderfully kind and generous, but non-paying GD crowd), reputation adjustment should be based on the adjuster's account age rather than post count. The reasoning here works on several levels:

• Allow investment in accounts. People who've been around long get more reputation to lob about.
• Discourage temporary 'fake' accounts and reregisters. Reputation already helps this a little, but if you affect both sides of reputation with this, getting banned will be just a little less tempting.
• Encourage the old crowd to pay attention and guide without needing to get up in anyone's face.
• We could negrep Kjeldoran further*.
• Most of all: I think this would help AD users communicate about post quality in a way that is not bound to end up in a flamewar over epenis size. With privacy comes the possibility that it might actually be constructive criticism and not off-topic one-upping**.

Now, I'm sure this isn't a trivial thing to do, but I expect it's entirely possible and not very difficult. In fact, I expect someone has already done it. So what I ask is that the admins have a look at the private jelsoft forums and find the mod and possibly install it.



* I'm dead serious. Not that negrepping Kjeldoran specifically would be beneficial, I just chose him as an example. Currently, GD can swing someone's reputation heavily based on general posting habits. If you care, you examine your negrepped post and try to figure out how it could be have been better not because you want more green blobs, but because you want to improve your posting. If you don't, you get to be a villain. Kjeldoran, I expect, would be a target for negrepping among many oldies who have low post counts because they haven't spammed much since the last purge. He currently has 1 red blob, but the 'villains' over at GD have plenty more than that.

** The use of this term is entirely coincidental and is no way a reference to the alliance with a similar name.

[Chika]

actually, it is a good idea. but some people are kind of labeled. sadly I have not 1 but 2 red blobs, and tbh I don't think I personally deserve them. Also, one thing I am curious about is how to restrict people who have been negrep'd to not post. Sadly, negrep'd or no negrep'd, i can post in any thread I want. and addinig to the sadness is that one gets more reaction from negativity than being positive, because its easier to respond to negative posts. In order for your idea to work, everyone has to care about thier account, thus caring about PA boards. If everyone thought like you, this plan would be swell, but you have a lot of people who come, post a troll, and we don't see them for another 3 weeks.
And you said account age, I see some new posters that have more quality posts than some older account holders. Not fair to them to be nub status.
Honestly, i really tried to stay on topic.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

I think that, in favor of the PA crowd (as opposed to the wonderfully kind and generous, but non-paying GD crowd), reputation adjustment should be based on the adjuster's account age rather than post count. The reasoning here works on several levels:

• Allow investment in accounts. People who've been around long get more reputation to lob about.
• Discourage temporary 'fake' accounts and reregisters. Reputation already helps this a little, but if you affect both sides of reputation with this, getting banned will be just a little less tempting.
• Encourage the old crowd to pay attention and guide without needing to get up in anyone's face.
• We could negrep Kjeldoran further*.
• Most of all: I think this would help AD users communicate about post quality in a way that is not bound to end up in a flamewar over epenis size. With privacy comes the possibility that it might actually be constructive criticism and not off-topic one-upping**.

Now, I'm sure this isn't a trivial thing to do, but I expect it's entirely possible and not very difficult. In fact, I expect someone has already done it. So what I ask is that the admins have a look at the private jelsoft forums and find the mod and possibly install it.



* I'm dead serious. Not that negrepping Kjeldoran specifically would be beneficial, I just chose him as an example. Currently, GD can swing someone's reputation heavily based on general posting habits. If you care, you examine your negrepped post and try to figure out how it could be have been better not because you want more green blobs, but because you want to improve your posting. If you don't, you get to be a villain. Kjeldoran, I expect, would be a target for negrepping among many oldies who have low post counts because they haven't spammed much since the last purge. He currently has 1 red blob, but the 'villains' over at GD have plenty more than that.

** The use of this term is entirely coincidental and is no way a reference to the alliance with a similar name.

The only disadavantage I see, and I said this earlier, is that pple do negrep pple they generally don't like, regardless of what they posted. Not everyone does ofc, but looking at the reasons some pple write after neg repping me ... "Kj you suck" "Because it's your Kjel" ...

I don't mind and infact like pple criticizing my posts, if they can put a valid reason behind their judgement and if they atleast be honnest enough to write their nick near it.

And tbh, looking at some AD trolls who have 5 green dots ... The system is kinda biassed and easily abused.

Pple who always agree, have no opinion etc will always have green dots. Pple who come up for themselfs and their alliance (yes even if that's getting annoying and repetitive) will mostly have red dots behind their name cause it'll always piss off some pple.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Chika

actually, it is a good idea. but some people are kind of labeled. sadly I have not 1 but 2 red blobs, and tbh I don't think I personally deserve them. Also, one thing I am curious about is how to restrict people who have been negrep'd to not post. Sadly, negrep'd or no negrep'd, i can post in any thread I want. and addinig to the sadness is that one gets more reaction from negativity than being positive, because its easier to respond to negative posts. In order for your idea to work, everyone has to care about thier account, thus caring about PA boards. If everyone thought like you, this plan would be swell, but you have a lot of people who come, post a troll, and we don't see them for another 3 weeks.
And you said account age, I see some new posters that have more quality posts than some older account holders. Not fair to them to be nub status.
Honestly, i really tried to stay on topic.

Congratulations, you missed the point.

You'll notice I said some people will inevitably end up with red blobs and not care. It's not meant to be some absolute finisher for unpopular people. It's meant as an aid and a reason to care a bit more about your account. Not some sort of instant solution to whatever problems plague AD.

[KoeN]

caring about 'forum-reputation' is pretty pathetic to begin with, imho.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by KoeN

caring about 'forum-reputation' is pretty pathetic to begin with, imho.

On GD yes, on AD things are different. Here we try to sway others to our opinion*, and if reputation becomes a part of what is used to sway opinion then it's fine to care about it.

*Ok, so basically we just have flamefests. But we used to try to sway others to our opinion. Usually not the people we were discussing with, but everyone that was lurking/reading.

[Seth Mace]

Seems a good idea to me.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Banned

On GD yes, on AD things are different. Here we try to sway others to our opinion*.

So do those of us on GD...

[Cochese]

Don't mind Koen, he "doesn't get it".

Good idea btw, I fully endorse this.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Stew

So do those of us on GD...

Thinking about it, that's true, but it's not the single-minded goal of the forum, which it pretty much is with AD.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Banned

Congratulations, you missed the point.

You'll notice I said some people will inevitably end up with red blobs and not care. It's not meant to be some absolute finisher for unpopular people. It's meant as an aid and a reason to care a bit more about your account. Not some sort of instant solution to whatever problems plague AD.

:S I thought I had the point, i read your response though, then I re-read mines, and i never hinted that I thought you meant that it was an instant fix. My point that I made still stands. This means nothing unless everyone was on the same level. Its just no structure atm. Maybe we need something to lead into this type of system to coach structure, then maybe it would work.

[Chika]

and look at my sweet inncocent first post. I got 2 negreg replies, with no comment. people just do it out of spite.

[Treveler]

Does anyone actually pay attention to the rep dots?

I didnt even know what it was untill 2 days ago.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Chika

and look at my sweet inncocent first post. I got 2 negreg replies, with no comment. people just do it out of spite.

I dunno, I got negrepped for this post with no reason attached. Rereading it, I think the post is fairly harmless, but it's hardly necessary and adds very little to the discussion. I think the negrepping was fair.

I don't care about the number of blobs per se, but I care about making good posts. It would be arrogant of me to say that everyone who negreps me does so out of spite, even though I know I'm unpopular in some crowds. Instead, when I'm negrepped, I try to find chinks in my post that give people that urge to click me a red.

Sure, some of the times the urge they get is probably 'omg what a typically shit post by Banned' and they don't really think to be constructive about it. But that doesn't stop me from reviewing what posting habit it is that gets me knee-jerk negreps.

Originally Posted by Treveler

Does anyone actually pay attention to the rep dots?

You don't read GD much, do you? Incidentally, I don't really pay attention to how many points a user has, I use it more as a feedback mechanism for my own posts and a way to give other people feedback. The privacy without the formality of a PM is nice tbh. Plus anonymity means people will probably/hopefully look past prejudice when reading the criticism.

I didnt even know what it was untill 2 days ago.

Have a look at the user cp page, you can see what you've gotten reputation for.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

...

I got 1 little question, which is NOT meant as some sarcastic remark or anything.

How can a poster add value to the rep that pple give him if atm pple give negrep for fun, without adding a reason, without adding their name, without bothering to read the post. I mean seriously, I'd add value to the rep if I know pple give it to me when I deserve it and not when I get stuff like "Cause you're Kj" ...

it's just a question though.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I got 1 little question, which is NOT meant as some sarcastic remark or anything.

How can a poster add value to the rep that pple give him if atm pple give negrep for fun, without adding a reason, without adding their name, without bothering to read the post. I mean seriously, I'd add value to the rep if I know pple give it to me when I deserve it and not when I get stuff like "Cause you're Kj" ...

it's just a question though.

I'm going to refer you to the first footnote in the original post:

I'm dead serious. Not that negrepping Kjeldoran specifically would be beneficial, I just chose him as an example. Currently, GD can swing someone's reputation heavily based on general posting habits. If you care, you examine your negrepped post and try to figure out how it could be have been better not because you want more green blobs, but because you want to improve your posting. If you don't, you get to be a villain. Kjeldoran, I expect, would be a target for negrepping among many oldies who have low post counts because they haven't spammed much since the last purge. He currently has 1 red blob, but the 'villains' over at GD have plenty more than that.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

The privacy without the formality of a PM is nice tbh. Plus anonymity means people will probably/hopefully look past prejudice when reading the criticism.

The anonymity also makes it easier to abuse imo

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

I'm going to refer you to the first footnote in the original post:

I read that one but it doesn't give me the answer I looked for on my question tbh, Jester. How can you change your posting style (hence giving value to what pple think of you, neg or pos rep) when some of the neg reps are just there purely cause they dislike you and just added it to the first post they saw from you? (as an example).

You know aswell these things happen alot. You said so yourself you got 2 neg reps for no reason, how can you draw conclusions from that one then? (I realize this example is abit simplistic ofc, but I hope you see where I'm going at).

[Neferti]

Interesting thread. I do like the idea of power based on age, but from a purely selfish point of view - I have one of the oldest accounts around these parts...!

The problem is that, like others, I too question the validity of the reputation system itself. It does seem to be easily abused. Of course, very few people have cared about me enough to give me many points either way (I have 2 neg and 3 pos, and 1 neutral - and 2 of those without comment). It does help to comment on a reputation point; the fact is, without comment, it's just a way of getting at somebody. It would be nice to be able to force comments, but this would never work. I always comment on any rep I give out though (minimal as it is!).

Giving more power to older users though is probably not a good idea. While I would agree that myself, and people like myself, have far more experience than newer members, this does not mean that my opinions are well formed or valid arguments. I've been sat on the sidelines for almost 5 years now, this is reflected in my incredibly poor post count! I'm sure there are others like me. It seems that your intention would be to encourage the so-called 'old crowd' towards discussion rather than flamewars; however how do you define old crowd? I take it to mean the well-known posters - yourself, Kj, Chika, Lokken etc etc, and not people like myself.

As a side note, how do you define 'AD user'? I mean, what about people who use other forums apart from AD (and maybe this could apply to PD too) - the accounts are the same; therefore reputation given here would seriously skew the reputation someone might have from another forum eg General Discussions. This might be a silly point, apologies if I'm just being stupid.

I'm sure there's more I could say on the matter, but I think I'd better leave it at that. Apologies for the long post...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

The anonymity also makes it easier to abuse imo

Yes. See the relevant GD thread on this for more, and why reputation was kept anonymous.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I read that one but it doesn't give me the answer I looked for on my question tbh, Jester.

It's not my problem if you don't like the answer, I'm not here to make you happy

How can you change your posting style (hence giving value to what pple think of you, neg or pos rep) when some of the neg reps are just there purely cause they dislike you and just added it to the first post they saw from you? (as an example).

By ignoring those points?

You know aswell these things happen alot. You said so yourself you got 2 neg reps for no reason, how can you draw conclusions from that one then? (I realize this example is abit simplistic ofc, but I hope you see where I'm going at).

No, that was Chika. I did get one, and I explained what conclusions I drew from that. I came to these conclusions by reviewing the post from my newly gained hindsight. I forced myself to think not 'why would someone neg rep this post?', but rather 'I don't like this post, why don't I like?'. And from there I got to this:

I dunno, I got negrepped for this post with no reason attached. Rereading it, I think the post is fairly harmless, but it's hardly necessary and adds very little to the discussion. I think the negrepping was fair.

Originally Posted by Neferti

The problem is that, like others, I too question the validity of the reputation system itself. It does seem to be easily abused.

This argument hinges on the value of having X number of green/red blobs by one's nick. That's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't think we need to distinguish between good/popular posters with number of blobs. I think AD would benefit from an anonymous feedback mechanism.

Giving more power to older users though is probably not a good idea. While I would agree that myself, and people like myself, have far more experience than newer members, this does not mean that my opinions are well formed or valid arguments.

But would a post-count intimate the same? Not really. Maybe we should base it on user word-count?

I've been sat on the sidelines for almost 5 years now, this is reflected in my incredibly poor post count! I'm sure there are others like me.

My other account is from January 2001 and I've made about 7-8k posts with it. Due to the forum purge perpetrated by Karm a while back it's lost most of those posts. Most oldies have low post counts due to that same purge.

It seems that your intention would be to encourage the so-called 'old crowd' towards discussion rather than flamewars; however how do you define old crowd? I take it to mean the well-known posters - yourself, Kj, Chika, Lokken etc etc, and not people like myself.

Not far off the mark. I mean 'the regulars'.

As a side note, how do you define 'AD user'? I mean, what about people who use other forums apart from AD (and maybe this could apply to PD too) - the accounts are the same; therefore reputation given here would seriously skew the reputation someone might have from another forum eg General Discussions. This might be a silly point, apologies if I'm just being stupid.

Actually, the reason I want age based rather than post based is that GD has a lot more reputation to throw around at the moment. Just have a look at Stew, who rarely if ever posts on AD, but is a GD regular. Then look at how much AD-only posters have. Currently posting on more forums means you get more reputation to throw about. But also means you get more reputation. For example, Chika's venture over into GD today probably earned him more negative reputation than AD has in total.

[Neferti]

Fair enough; I think you've answered all my questions fairly well. However, I question this forum 'regulars' idea. I often READ threads here; I don't often post as I have little to say. When I do post, it's because I feel I have something to say on a matter. So, do I and others like myself count as regulars?

Also, are you suggesting that we do away with the 'blob' system and just make do with anonymous feedback only? I can see the advantages of this, sure - however, the major disadvantage is that, with no visible outcome, people are going to be less motivated to make feedback. On the other hand, this would probably discourage a lot of the no-comment rep points given!

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Fair enough; I think you've answered all my questions fairly well. However, I question this forum 'regulars' idea. I often READ threads here; I don't often post as I have little to say. When I do post, it's because I feel I have something to say on a matter. So, do I and others like myself count as regulars?

I suppose lurkers are another class, but I think lurkers being able to give some input is a good thing.

Also, are you suggesting that we do away with the 'blob' system and just make do with anonymous feedback only? I can see the advantages of this, sure - however, the major disadvantage is that, with no visible outcome, people are going to be less motivated to make feedback. On the other hand, this would probably discourage a lot of the no-comment rep points given!

Nah, doing away with it is no fun. The reputation system is fun because it works on several levels.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Chika

sadly I have not 1 but 2 red blobs, and tbh I don't think I personally deserve them.

That's the whole point of reputation though, other people show you what they think you deserve, not you decide what you think you deserve. I won't deny that people could be biased in them, but I would argue that it is not your (take this as a general 'you', as in everybody) place to say whether or not they are deserved. Only other people could decide it is underserving, and unless you have one or two people who have it in for you, it should eventually balance out. I would hope that there is somewhere that the admins can see if someone is particularly neg-reping someone, and can prevent them from altering reputations based on this? If there isn't, then there ought to be, as it would be able to be used to stop 'private' feuds having too much of an effect,

[Bashar]

In response to the main point behind the post, I would argue that baing anything on account age is not a good idea, and I have one of the 'older accounts'. If you want to create a bias linked to quality or similar, then the best way would be to base it on a mix of, I would say, 2 things:
1. Reputation of person awarding points (this is already done I believe).
2. The activity of the person awarding the posts (so age of account divided by number of posts they have, or similar).

This would mean that it would be based on knowledge and posting quality. A high reputation implies posting quality, and a high average post count implies that you are experienced with the boards, and are used to the posts that are around, and as such are in a better position to judge each posts quality. A way of doing this would be, for example:
x + (r * SqRt(d/p))

Where:
r = reutation points (negative rep is minus, and each blob counts as 1)
d = days the account has been active
p = number of posts
SqRt = Square Route (this would mean that spamming doesn't help lots, and those who post fairly frequently, but not excessively are helped)
x = a number to balance it (it would mean that people with a small negative rep do still have some influence).

This formula is obviously not foolproof, and is probably not adequate, but it is a good indication of the sort of thing I mean, and of how to get around some of the problems, such as spammers and once-every-other-day posters who've been around for years. It also doesn't go against those who've not been around for long, and let's face it, that we want to integrate into the community.

I think that this would be a better direction to consider than just the age of the account.

P.S. If this doesn't make some sense, let me know and I'll clarify.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

The only disadavantage I see, and I said this earlier, is that pple do negrep pple they generally don't like, regardless of what they posted. Not everyone does ofc, but looking at the reasons some pple write after neg repping me ... "Kj you suck" "Because it's your Kjel" ...

I don't mind and infact like pple criticizing my posts, if they can put a valid reason behind their judgement and if they atleast be honnest enough to write their nick near it.

And tbh, looking at some AD trolls who have 5 green dots ... The system is kinda biassed and easily abused.

Pple who always agree, have no opinion etc will always have green dots. Pple who come up for themselfs and their alliance (yes even if that's getting annoying and repetitive) will mostly have red dots behind their name cause it'll always piss off some pple.

Best way to deal with this that I can see is to make it so that to give a rep point (negative or positive) you HAVE to give a reason, then, if the person who recieves the rep point disagrees with it, they have a 'report point to moderator' option, and a mod then sees it, can look at the post, and take it away if necessary. Admittedly this would only work with neg points properly, but it is a start.

edit: It would have to inform people when the reputation point had been removed too so they can take the matter up with an admin if they disagree, just to stop any accusations of mod bias

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Also, are you suggesting that we do away with the 'blob' system and just make do with anonymous feedback only? I can see the advantages of this, sure - however, the major disadvantage is that, with no visible outcome, people are going to be less motivated to make feedback. On the other hand, this would probably discourage a lot of the no-comment rep points given!

I think that if the reputation system was improved to make it so that it is harder to give reputation from some biased perspective, or just randomly (which I think my above suggestions would help move towards), then I think the green/red blobs would actually become invaluable. Banned's idea of them being fun is one issue with it, because it is a bit of fun, but I feel that if, it was made so that the reputation points were taken more seriously, and were less open to abuse (obviously, it is very unlikely they will ever be unabuseable, as perfection is near impossible to achieve, but every little helps), they would have a very important part to play in the forum community.

Imagine for a moment that the reputation point system had been improved so that the issues mentioned in this post (the ones that involve reputation points being used for something other than judging the value of individual posts) were seriously reduced, and you're somebody who has red dots, but wants to improve your post quality to remove that. What better way of knowing how to improve could there be than seeing other peoples posts, and their reputation points to get a feel for the sort of posts that are 'good'. If you read the forums reasonably frequently and take note of posters reputations, you would get a feel for what sort of posts gain the most reputation, and as such, what sort of posts are most valuable within the community. It means that, put simply, if you want to improve your posts, you have a qualitative way of working out what direction to take. Obviously, this does mean that you have to want to improve your posts, and that means the more arrogant bad posters are unlikely to be affected, but I am sure that, in some cases, it would be valuable.

I think this also answers the issue of "why would anyone care about reputation posts on a forum?"; you should care (if they are fairly representative) because they give you an idea of what sort of post is welcome in this community, and what sort of post we all think is utter rubbish, and provides no valuable insight.

Having independent checking of rep points (where requesterd ofc) would obviously also remove the problem of people being negative rep'd based on their opinions rather than their post quality.

[pig]

I aggree with what you are saying Banned, in my opinion reputation should not be annoymonous, this way people wont neg rep you for the sake of it, they will put thought into there repping, and what will be seen is that people wont rep for the sake of it, saying this some might neg rep others because they neg repped themselves, myself I sign all reputation I give and give a reason why i neg repped or pos repped. I get neg repped for posts where I get far more pos rep, it some times makes me wonder if people are neg repping purely because they dont like you, or its something to do, this thread should be shown to JammyJim imo, maybe he could have a look at it.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I got 1 little question, which is NOT meant as some sarcastic remark or anything.

How can a poster add value to the rep that pple give him if atm pple give negrep for fun...

neg-repping for fun should only be allowed on RP

good thinking though banned, the magnitude of rep points should be directly proportional to age of account and should not depend on the rep giver's rep points - when the rep system was started a couple of months ago, it was actually expected to be abused, specially on fact-based forums such as AD and most posts on suggestions forums -

GD also activated (for about 8 hours i think) where you can see who +/-repped you but caused a lot of voiced out exclamations on each other, which then in turn caused it to be deactivated again to where rep's are anonymous - the point i'm implying is that public reputation giving will work on forums like suggestions and AD but will never work on GD -

also chika had 1 red blob about 36 hours ago - now he's pretty ****ing bloody - perfect example of how to be abused by 'haters' of this community because of the childish 'bwhohoho-oh i dont like this guy, ima neg-rep him bwihihihihihihihhihi' - purple heart for you bro

[Chika]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

also chika had 1 red blob about 36 hours ago - now he's pretty ****ing bloody - perfect example of how to be abused by 'haters' of this community because of the childish 'bwhohoho-oh i dont like this guy, ima neg-rep him bwihihihihihihihhihi' - purple heart for you bro

Yes I do feel quite wounded. I admit that some of my posts are shyt, but I do try to make a point.
But I have always come to believe that hate is a stronger emotion than love.

[Neferti]

Bashar

With regard to your suggestions about making reputation power based on account age divided by post number is not necessarily a good idea. Simply having a high number of posts and an old account does not make someone a good poster. I somewhat resent the implication that because of my relatively low number of posts compared to my age, I dont know what I'm talking about or what makes a good post. I do read most threads on here (those that don't turn into flamewars...). As I said before, I just choose not to post unless I have something to contribute; and I'm sure there are others like me. However, it was a nice attempt to resolve the issue, even though I don't agree

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Best way to deal with this that I can see is to make it so that to give a rep point (negative or positive) you HAVE to give a reason, then, if the person who recieves the rep point disagrees with it, they have a 'report point to moderator' option, and a mod then sees it, can look at the post, and take it away if necessary. Admittedly this would only work with neg points properly, but it is a start.

edit: It would have to inform people when the reputation point had been removed too so they can take the matter up with an admin if they disagree, just to stop any accusations of mod bias

Too much work for mods, too little gain for anyone else. Frivilous negrepping will usually be balanced out by frivilous posreps.

Fact is that reputation pretty well reflects people's reputation. I just want it to be something that AD can, at the moment an AD repping sways me +/-10 points, while a repping by a GDer can move +/-100 points. Fine, they're silly blobs, but it's easier to care when there's some sort of measurable change.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Bashar

With regard to your suggestions about making reputation power based on account age divided by post number is not necessarily a good idea. Simply having a high number of posts and an old account does not make someone a good poster. I somewhat resent the implication that because of my relatively low number of posts compared to my age, I dont know what I'm talking about or what makes a good post. I do read most threads on here (those that don't turn into flamewars...). As I said before, I just choose not to post unless I have something to contribute; and I'm sure there are others like me. However, it was a nice attempt to resolve the issue, even though I don't agree

Hence the idea of square routing or similar, that would reduce the impact, however, doing it by age alone would be worse, as there are accounts that only look at the boards once a month, or even less, and some of these are old accounts too. The reason for taking posts into account as well as age is that posts show activity. I am much like you, I mostly just read, and post fairly rarely, and my account is getting on a bit now too, and I too might be classed as a 'lurker', although not to the same extent as you, but I do think that there should be some measure of activity included.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

Too much work for mods, too little gain for anyone else. Frivilous negrepping will usually be balanced out by frivilous posreps.

Fact is that reputation pretty well reflects people's reputation. I just want it to be something that AD can, at the moment an AD repping sways me +/-10 points, while a repping by a GDer can move +/-100 points. Fine, they're silly blobs, but it's easier to care when there's some sort of measurable change.

Eventhough Bashar made a very good suggestion, I agree that it's simply too much work for mods to check every report on neg rep and to validate/remove it.
It however would partly make the system more reliable and harder for pple to abuse.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Eventhough Bashar made a very good suggestion, I agree that it's simply too much work for mods to check every report on neg rep and to validate/remove it.
It however would partly make the system more reliable and harder for pple to abuse.

The question now, then, would be is there any way to achieve the same sort of thing as my suggestion was intended to, but with less work?

I suppose one little thing that might help is if you make it so that you can't give the same person 2 reputation points in a row, or make it so that you have to give 2 others rep points before you can give to the same person again. That sort of thing would slow down anybody who wants to go on a one-man crusade to positive rep or negative rep someone, as they would only be able to give half or a third of their daily quota to one person.

[Tomkat]

Jeez, the posts here are so unnecessarily long...

We've been saying in GD for ages that the post count should not count for as much as it does. And that the join date is more important. JJ has ignored us though

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Jeez, the posts here are so unnecessarily long...

We've been saying in GD for ages that the post count should not count for as much as it does. And that the join date is more important. JJ has ignored us though

People make longer post when there is less to talk about. When there is a true point to be made they talk less due to lack of knowledge. Post count I have to agree is a crap measure. But actually, the age system is kind of bogus because the only people for it are people with old accounts. Thats the same as a Person of High office nearing the end of his term trying to pass a law that would make HIS term longer. People with old accounts are basically looking for a way to separate themselves from the others. Thats COOL, but a different way should be thought up. Actually, Everyone should just have a nick. No rank rep age, count or nothing.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Banned

You don't read GD much, do you? Incidentally, I don't really pay attention to how many points a user has, I use it more as a feedback mechanism for my own posts and a way to give other people feedback. The privacy without the formality of a PM is nice tbh. Plus anonymity means people will probably/hopefully look past prejudice when reading the criticism.

Have a look at the user cp page, you can see what you've gotten reputation for.

No I dont but I just had a quick look. What a saw was a bunch of children with mods on a bad power trip. I doubt many find Chika more anoying then I do but this thread is just stupid: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...10#post2838410

I replied with this post: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...7&postcount=23 and recieved 13 neg rep points.

So if you state your opinion and it goes against "the flow" you will get a bad rep and the way to get a good rep is to put on a happy face and try to make post that most ppl agree with.

Is that really what we want in here?

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Treveler

So if you state your opinion and it goes against "the flow" you will get a bad rep and the way to get a good rep is to put on a happy face and try to make post that most ppl agree with.

Is that really what we want in here?

I kind of agree with this, personally, I wouldn't give people reputation points based on what their view is, but more how they expressed it, and how well thought through it was. However, it would appear that this isn't the case for all, as I got a neg rep point on this thread for this reason:

"You've given this way too much thought."

To me, that is about the most stupid reason there is to give a neg rep point to someone. Surely thinking about something and presenting a coherent argument is the last reason you would want to give someone a neg rep point? An absence of thought from a post I could understand, or if it was criticism of the way I thought something through I could understand it, however the use of reputation points in the example I gave is completely useless to anyone. All it does is suggest that people want posts that have no real substance, and how the hell would I be able to improve posts based on that?

In my view, the use of reputation points in this way doesn't achieve anything at all, so ironic how this is the issue this thread was trying to address.

[Cochese]

Trev makes a good point, and TBH, there's nothing 'wrong' with that post--certainly nothing to merit 13 neg rep points.

Until attitudes change (I thought they had, or were in the process of changing around here) people will still act like kiddies, and neg rep people they don't like or agree with, despite the quality of the post itself.

Ultimately it doesn't matter anyways. Your actual reputation (not the point system we're discussing) within the community is all that matters, and a couple of colored dots under your forum nick (probably caused by the above-mentioned kiddies) means nothing.

I know Trev, I know he's a good guy, and he has an excellent 'reputation' as far as I'm concerned.

(Bring on the kiddies)

[Neferti]

Treveler, Bashar, what you say is sad but true I, too, give positive rep even if I dont agree with something; for example I gave Bashar posrep for some of his earlier posts even though I didnt agree with them, because at least they were well thought out and argued (in my opinion).

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Treveler, Bashar, what you say is sad but true I, too, give positive rep even if I dont agree with something; for example I gave Bashar posrep for some of his earlier posts even though I didnt agree with them, because at least they were well thought out and argued (in my opinion).

That is a good reason to do it, the one I mentioned that was negative actually took away more than twice the amount that you gave, and you gave for a reason that was coherent and actually in some way constructive, yet some muppet who just thinks "Ohh, that is too long/complicated [delete as applicable], I can't be arsed with it so I'll just give negative points for it" actually had over twice as much influence as you. To me that suggests that the system is certainly not ideal in its current form.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Treveler

No I dont but I just had a quick look. What a saw was a bunch of children with mods on a bad power trip. I doubt many find Chika more anoying then I do but this thread is just stupid: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...10#post2838410

I replied with this post: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...7&postcount=23 and recieved 13 neg rep points.

So if you state your opinion and it goes against "the flow" you will get a bad rep and the way to get a good rep is to put on a happy face and try to make post that most ppl agree with.

Is that really what we want in here?

You chose one example, in which Chika, who single-handedly pissed off every GD user in sight, was maligned. And where you made a poor socratic argument in which you displayed a distinct lack of wisdom in the ways of GD. I think the appropriate terms would be 'lurk more' and 'newbie'.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Jeez, the posts here are so unnecessarily long...

We've been saying in GD for ages that the post count should not count for as much as it does. And that the join date is more important. JJ has ignored us though

Thanks for whoever left me this wonderful piece of reputation for the above post:

You imply that any view not from GD is irrelevant, and that GD should have the last word.



The sad truth is that it was me who suggested we implement reputation points in the first place on - oh shock horror - GD. There have been loads of threads on reputation there. Making one here is actually stupid, as this forum is supposed to be about Alliance Discussions.

So in my defence, I made that post because this thread should really be moved to GD, as it's likely to get more notice from JammyJim there (I don't think he visits AD that often) and is more suited - as it IS General Discussion.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

You imply that any view not from GD is irrelevant, and that GD should have the last word.

Dear Whoeveryouare,

I blatantly stole this idea from GD, gave some AD related reasons it would be good, and posted them here.

Yours Sincerely,
Banned

The sad truth is that it was me who suggested we implement reputation points in the first place on - oh shock horror - GD. There have been loads of threads on reputation there. Making one here is actually stupid, as this forum is supposed to be about Alliance Discussions.

So in my defence, I made that post because this thread should really be moved to GD, as it's likely to get more notice from JammyJim there (I don't think he visits AD that often) and is more suited - as it IS General Discussion

You'd basically be excluding AD-only users by keeping all this discussion on GD. It's good to have some meta-discussion here every once in a while as well.

[Bashar]

Tomkat - if you check this thread, you see it has actually been made to disucss primarily reputation points in the context of AD, and although it has encompassed a wider discussion of reputation points, a major part of the thread remains discussing what part reputation plays, and how to improve it specifically in the context of AD. I think you missed part of the point of the thread, although I can see why you would, as a lot of the discussion has been on more general terms, but it is all still relevant, and I reckon the thread is fine where it is.

[Neferti]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Thanks for whoever left me this wonderful piece of reputation for the above post:

You imply that any view not from GD is irrelevant, and that GD should have the last word.



The sad truth is that it was me who suggested we implement reputation points in the first place on - oh shock horror - GD. There have been loads of threads on reputation there. Making one here is actually stupid, as this forum is supposed to be about Alliance Discussions.

So in my defence, I made that post because this thread should really be moved to GD, as it's likely to get more notice from JammyJim there (I don't think he visits AD that often) and is more suited - as it IS General Discussion.

True, but it affects people who don't use GD...

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Banned

You'd basically be excluding AD-only users by keeping all this discussion on GD. It's good to have some meta-discussion here every once in a while as well.

Well continue to make threads about hypothetical situations and what could be and what should be, but they aren't going to do much good here. That was my point. It's very nice making long posts about how it could all be improved, but as JJ doesn't check here, it doesn't serve as much more than hot air.

Stop being so defensive. I'm just stating facts.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Well continue to make threads about hypothetical situations and what could be and what should be, but they aren't going to do much good here. That was my point. It's very nice making long posts about how it could all be improved, but as JJ doesn't check here, it doesn't serve as much more than hot air.

Stop being so defensive. I'm just stating facts.

I completely disagree with your attitude towards this situation. Just because JJ won't read it here doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. The GD community is different to the AD community, and so it is well within the AD communities right to discuss it here. Whether or not JJ will read it here is completely irrelevant, as if the community discusses issues, and bounces ideas off each other, who's to stop someone then bringing it to JJ's attention somehow?

Also, as for hypothetical situations, it is rare that other things are discussed on AD, so it shouldn't seem so strange.

Anyway, my point is basically that just because JJ probably won't see it, doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it here. It is very common for people to discuss things in one place to get a coherent argument together by bouncing arguments off each other and refining them before taking them to a higher authority. It would be a waste of the 'authorities' time otherwise.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Cochese

Trev makes a good point, and TBH, there's nothing 'wrong' with that post--certainly nothing to merit 13 neg rep points.

Until attitudes change (I thought they had, or were in the process of changing around here) people will still act like kiddies, and neg rep people they don't like or agree with, despite the quality of the post itself.

Ultimately it doesn't matter anyways. Your actual reputation (not the point system we're discussing) within the community is all that matters, and a couple of colored dots under your forum nick (probably caused by the above-mentioned kiddies) means nothing.

I know Trev, I know he's a good guy, and he has an excellent 'reputation' as far as I'm concerned.

(Bring on the kiddies)

I was gonna reply on what Trev said aswell. He's so right when he says that going against the "flow" or having your own opinion on something, which often can be against the "flow", will bring you more negative then positive rep.

good point Treveler m8

[Tis]

"having a different opinion" and "being stupid" are often indistinguishable to the writer.

i am more than happy to clarify people on which best discribes them :P