Reputation idea - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+---- Forum: Forum & Website (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+----- Thread: Reputation idea (/showthread.php?tid=68841)
Reputation idea by Nathan on 11-25-2006 at 05:29 PM
Well,
I've seen more people giving payback negs because they have a neg of -4 or something. And as there are many more people joining our community I think we should add a new feature.
The feature being: Not being able to rep people until you get too neutral.
I think this is a good idea because people know they must be doing bad (because of there rep) so they will try extra hard to get rid of the red underneath there name & to get back the privilege of repping people.
So what do you think?
Nathan
RE: Reputation idea by Kenji on 11-25-2006 at 05:32 PM
Its only rep, i dont see why people care about it so much tbh.
RE: Reputation idea by Chrono on 11-25-2006 at 05:32 PM
Seems like a good idea
RE: Reputation idea by vaccination on 11-25-2006 at 05:33 PM
It is a good idea, but really if you see someone who has just done a rep-back then you should report the rep. Although it is hard to do this as we're not going to notice rep-backs that easily and stuff. 
RE: Reputation idea by Nathan on 11-25-2006 at 05:33 PM
quote:I know it's only rep - but for some reason people do care about it.
Originally posted by Dazmatic
Its only rep, i dont see why people care about it so much tbh.
And if it helps the community it is only doing good.
RE: Reputation idea by Felu on 11-25-2006 at 05:35 PM
quote:Neg rep only
Originally posted by Nathan
Not being able to rep people until you get too neutral.
.quote:
Originally posted by Dazmatic
Its only rep, i dont see why people care about it so much tbh.
RE: Reputation idea by Nathan on 11-25-2006 at 05:37 PM
No.
Shouldn't be allowed until neutral because then they would rep people positive to get positive back - just because they repped people pos.
RE: Reputation idea by Plik on 11-25-2006 at 06:13 PM
I like this idea. Only people with a good reputation should be considered apt judges of others
RE: Reputation idea by DarkMe on 11-25-2006 at 06:15 PM
I also hate when spammer people with bad rep, neg rep you and then they get banned so they cant change the rep and thats too annoying 
RE: Reputation idea by saralk on 11-25-2006 at 06:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dazmatic
Its only rep, i dont see why people care about it so much tbh.
It was a concious decision by the community as a whole to install the reputation system, and so we should try and make sure it has integrity.
Altough my rep doesn't bother me that much, it bothers other people, and people are more likely to get help if they have a positive rep. What they say also carries a lot more weight if they have a higher rep.
The rep is a sign that the community respects you, and gives an indication of where you stand in the community.
RE: Reputation idea by Oxy on 11-25-2006 at 06:37 PM
Well, i woulda thought the fact that you can't rep untill you get 100 posts is good enough, seeing that if you're a spammer/bad member you surely woulda been banned by that time, so no need to worry about repping 
EDIT: 200TH POST!!!
RE: Reputation idea by Voldemort on 11-25-2006 at 06:45 PM
quote:SURELY?
Originally posted by skillz
Well, i woulda thought the fact that you can't rep untill you get 100 posts is good enough, seeing that if you're a spammer/bad member you surely woulda been banned by that time, so no need to worry about repping
we have some wedding crashers
nathan, i was proving him wrong, thus helping you, NUB : <
RE: Reputation idea by Nathan on 11-25-2006 at 06:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by skillz
Well, i woulda thought the fact that you can't rep untill you get 100 posts is good enough, seeing that if you're a spammer/bad member you surely woulda been banned by that time, so no need to worry about repping
EDIT: 200TH POST!!!
Ok,
If you didn't have -2 then you would most likely agree with this idea - but s you do you don't want this to happen..
Also to others, don't go off topic please.
*cough* Voldemort*cough*
RE: Reputation idea by ShawnZ on 11-25-2006 at 08:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by skillz
Well, i woulda thought the fact that you can't rep untill you get 100 posts is good enough, seeing that if you're a spammer/bad member you surely woulda been banned by that time, so no need to worry about repping
the problem with that theory is you're not banned yet.
RE: Reputation idea by Nagamasa on 11-25-2006 at 10:42 PM
Maybe anyone with -1 or higher can rep?
It might actually be better...
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
Well,
I've seen more people giving payback negs because they have a neg of -4 or something. And as there are many more people joining our community I think we should add a new feature.
The feature being: Not being able to rep people until you get too neutral.
I think this is a good idea because people know they must be doing bad (because of there rep) so they will try extra hard to get rid of the red underneath there name & to get back the privilege of repping people.
So what do you think?
Nathan
Agree!
RE: Reputation idea by NiteMare on 11-25-2006 at 10:59 PM
i think its more of a time limit, because i've seen members here, rep back just because they when from say 34 to 33 (just random numbers), i think you should be allowed to rep somebody 2 weeks after they've repped you
RE: Reputation idea by ins4ne on 11-25-2006 at 11:10 PM
why do people give a fuck about reps??? its only a green or red number!!!
RE: Reputation idea by Hank on 11-26-2006 at 01:26 AM
i myself totally disagree on this idea. if the Rep is made inproperly done, it should be reported, this idea is just a waste of DZ's coding time
RE: RE: Reputation idea by CookieRevised on 11-26-2006 at 01:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ins4ne
why do people give a fuck about reps??? its only a green or red number!!!
quote:
Originally posted by saralk
quote:
Originally posted by Dazmatic
Its only rep, i dont see why people care about it so much tbh.
It was a concious decision by the community as a whole to install the reputation system, and so we should try and make sure it has integrity.
Altough my rep doesn't bother me that much, it bothers other people, and people are more likely to get help if they have a positive rep. What they say also carries a lot more weight if they have a higher rep.
The rep is a sign that the community respects you, and gives an indication of where you stand in the community.
saralk is right...
Tbh, if you don't give a *beep* about reps, don't post in discussions about it... It's harsh, but if you don't care about them, then you also don't care what is being discussed about them... :/
Saying you don't care about them is nice to know but doesn't bring anything usefull to discussions like this IMHO.
Some people do care about them and want it to be with as much as integrity as possible, like saralk explains it.
RE: Reputation idea by MicroWay on 11-26-2006 at 02:23 AM
Ok, people, reading this post, I agree in some parts...
1) People shouldn't care so much about Reputation as the forum is for helping and anyone can help (as they can) others.
2)On the other hand, I agree (and could see) that hierarquy exists on this forum by the reputation (and adm...). And agree that most of time, what was discribed (about what is said, gets more "respect" with a higher rep.
3) The reputation can be a "marker" that "what are you doing" on forums...
4) For me, no problem if reputation's system get changed...
-> Thinking about a new system, a question came to my head... "Ok... the new system is to only neutral/positive reputation (and up to 100 posts) can vote for other mesmber, but If the member that was neg and came to positive makes a "vingance" and vote neg to the other mesmbers?"
-> My suggestion is to allow only higher that a + rep. vote, like higher than "+10"... Because people to get +10 will need a period of time and with that, they will be interested in "getting there"..
Edit: Sorry my english, I'm sleepy now 
RE: Reputation idea by Nagamasa on 11-26-2006 at 02:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by MicroWay
-> My suggestion is to allow only higher that a + rep. vote, like higher than "+10"... Because people to get +10 will need a period of time and with that, they will be interested in "getting there"..
+10 seems to be a little too much. People like me don't have +10 rep yet, but we do have enough experience here to give rep. +2 would be reasonable. The 1st few reps seem to be the hardest to get.
RE: Reputation idea by NanaFreak on 11-26-2006 at 02:33 AM
i like this idea... it would really help the reputaion system.... also an idea is to have a report link for reputations....
RE: Reputation idea by WDZ on 11-26-2006 at 05:19 AM
I think it would be unfair and ignorant to enforce a rule like that. 
Just because our overall opinion of a member is negative doesn't mean that member's opinions are worthless and should be blocked.
Payback reps can be dealt with on an individual basis.
RE: Reputation idea by Hank on 11-26-2006 at 05:25 AM
time to close thread ,,agree with DZ it would be ignorant to do such a thing like this
RE: Reputation idea by NiteMare on 11-26-2006 at 05:33 AM
quote:its not blocking all together, its giving the person a chance to let it sink in because most repbacks are caused by bad tempers, and if you opinion really hasn't changed in 2 weeks then fine you can give the rep, but it would stop the childish repbacks, and i don't agree that repbacks are always removed, my 2 negs are both repbacks, because they were both given with in a couple days of me giving them a neg, and wdz refused to remove them because he thought they contained a valid reason, which i consiter to be an insult
Originally posted by WDZ
Just because our overall opinion of a member is negative doesn't mean that member's opinions are worthless and should be blocked.
RE: Reputation idea by WDZ on 11-26-2006 at 05:38 AM
So it's a payback every time two members give each other negative reps? Where do you draw the line?
RE: Reputation idea by NiteMare on 11-26-2006 at 05:59 AM
quote:no, a payback rep is when ever one member negs another member right after getting a neg from that person, valid or not, thats why you should put the 2 week limit, if the desired rep is truly based on the opinion of the member, then 2 weeks wouldn't change the rep, as opposed to allowing them to act in anger, sit there and think up a comment that is not warented, but would not be consitered remove able by WDZ
Originally posted by WDZ
So it's a payback every time two members give each other negative reps? Where do you draw the line?
RE: Reputation idea by WDZ on 11-26-2006 at 06:13 AM
But maybe User A never even thought about giving User B a rep until User B caught User A's attention... 
I think a time limit could be abused. If User A is worried about User B giving him a negative rep, User A can effectively block User B from repping him. And the 2-week limit could be renewed indefinitely by simply updating or re-adding the rep. 
RE: Reputation idea by NiteMare on 11-26-2006 at 07:21 AM
quote:oh come on, you could easily counter that with some code, plus that would only apply for negs. i think its a good idea
Originally posted by WDZ
the 2-week limit could be renewed indefinitely by simply updating or re-adding the rep.
RE: Reputation idea by ddunk on 11-26-2006 at 07:24 AM
quote:I don't. Should the original repper have to wait 2 weeks after a post that the repee made that was the cause behind the rep? I don't think so.
Originally posted by NiteMare
quote:oh come on, you could easily counter that with some code, plus that would only apply for negs. i think its a good idea
Originally posted by WDZ
the 2-week limit could be renewed indefinitely by simply updating or re-adding the rep.
RE: Reputation idea by John Anderton on 11-26-2006 at 07:36 AM
Ok so even if you're an experienced user, just because you have a neg rep (total rep point count), you are no longer allowed to vote?
I don't like it tbh. We have good mods to take care of payback reps and tbh you can help them by using the ![[Image: pm.gif]](http://shoutbox.menthix.net/images/pm.gif)
button to report the rep (first to the user then to the admin or mabbe directly to the admin. Cases differ)
It's only a rep so forget about it. If you have a problem, pm an admin.
RE: Reputation idea by NiteMare on 11-26-2006 at 08:05 AM
quote:you completly missed the point, your only not able to neg the person that neged you for 2 weeks, to avoid a rep back, after that update or removals of the rep to you won't change that,
Originally posted by John Anderton
Ok so even if you're an experienced user, just because you have a neg rep (total rep point count), you are no longer allowed to vote?
RE: Reputation idea by John Anderton on 11-26-2006 at 08:34 AM
Ok so if both of us think the other spams and if you rep me first, i should wait 2 weeks for neg repping you for a reason which may be legit and not a "rep back"?
Thats not right imo
RE: Reputation idea by WDZ on 11-26-2006 at 08:42 AM
quote:Actually, no. The database structure would have to be changed... maybe even a whole new table to keep track of everything.
Originally posted by NiteMare
oh come on, you could easily counter that with some code
quote:I agree, it's a dodgy idea...
Originally posted by John Anderton
Thats not right imo
RE: Reputation idea by NiteMare on 11-26-2006 at 08:42 AM
quote:yes exactly because if you truly do think i deserve a neg, then the 2 weeks will not matter, and will not change your desision
Originally posted by John Anderton
Ok so if both of us think the other spams and if you rep me first, i should wait 2 weeks for neg repping you for a reason which may be legit and not a "rep back"?
RE: Reputation idea by ins4ne on 11-26-2006 at 09:49 AM
quote:I just read your post Cookie and then what saralk wrote. You quoted him but i failed a bit. Anyways, what he says is true.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
saralk is right...
Tbh, if you don't give a *beep* about reps, don't post in discussions about it... It's harsh, but if you don't care about them, then you also don't care what is being discussed about them... :/
Saying you don't care about them is nice to know but doesn't bring anything usefull to discussions like this IMHO.
Some people do care about them and want it to be with as much as integrity as possible, like saralk explains it.
quote:I never thought about it and it's like he said. It's what i meant. I dont give a *beep* (
Originally posted by saralk
Altough my rep doesn't bother me that much, it bothers other people, and people are more likely to get help if they have a positive rep. What they say also carries a lot more weight if they have a higher rep.
The rep is a sign that the community respects you, and gives an indication of where you stand in the community.
) about my reps but others do when they are looking for help or when i search for some.NiteMare get over it...
quote:DZ's too lazy
Originally posted by WDZ
Actually, no. The database structure would have to be changed... maybe even a whole new table to keep track of everything.
RE: Reputation idea by John Anderton on 11-26-2006 at 09:56 AM
quote:But why wait 2 weeks for something that i, imo, should be able to do now?
Originally posted by NiteMare
quote:yes exactly because if you truly do think i deserve a neg, then the 2 weeks will not matter, and will not change your desision
Originally posted by John Anderton
Ok so if both of us think the other spams and if you rep me first, i should wait 2 weeks for neg repping you for a reason which may be legit and not a "rep back"?
I'm not abusing the system. Why should i have to wait just because you repped me first? ffs thats lame.
Imo, if you think someone just repped you back , pm them and talk about it. If nothing comes out of it, just pm an admin, explaining your side of it (hopefully with appropriate links to posts if relavent so as to not increase their work too much) and they will do what they think is right.
If they thing you are right, the rep will be removed, else it will stay. End of story.
Unless the admins (who are really the ones who are doing the job) have a problem with it, i don't see why the users should? The staff does a great job. If they miss anything use the
button.plz2not suggest repmods
quote:woo \o/
Originally posted by WDZ
quote:I agree, it's a dodgy idea...
Originally posted by John Anderton
Thats not right imo
RE: Reputation idea by MicroWay on 11-26-2006 at 01:17 PM
I do not agree with the idea to have to wait 2 weeks, I don't think is the best solution...
Anyway... as I'm seeing, the possible solution is only that given by John Anderton (quoted down)... Just PM the person or an Adm...
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
if you think someone just repped you back , pm them and talk about it. If nothing comes out of it, just pm an admin, explaining your side of it (hopefully with appropriate links to posts if relavent so as to not increase their work too much) and they will do what they think is right.
If they thing you are right, the rep will be removed, else it will stay.
quote:Agree with you again in that point too
Originally posted by John Anderton
Unless the admins (who are really the ones who are doing the job) have a problem with it, i don't see why the users should? The staff does a great job. If they miss anything use the
RE: Reputation idea by CookieRevised on 11-26-2006 at 01:21 PM
quote:IMO you should use the report button. That's why it is there. Only if you have some big explanation to do you could maybe PM someone.
Originally posted by MicroWay
I do not agree with the idea to have to wait 2 weeks, I don't think is the best solution...
Anyway... as I'm seeing, the possible solution is only that given by John Anderton (quoted down)... Just PM the person or an Adm...
PM's are personal and you'll never know if that admin will be in time to read it, or read it at all...
Either way, contacting an admin would be best, I agree.
Any measure taken will have some global disadvantage for everybody, while, let's be honest, payback reps do not occur that often...
RE: Reputation idea by Spunky on 11-26-2006 at 10:12 PM
I was in this situation a couple of weeks ago, someone had given me a neg after I'd had given the one for what I personally feel wasn't a valid reason. I PM'd DZ explaining and it was removed. I'm not going to say I don't care about my rep; I do. I've worked to try and help people out and want it to somehow reflect so that members that haven't seen any of my posts yet know that I'm (sometimes) a helpful person...
I think a time limit would be a bit silly when you consider some of the points made in this thread. I prefer the idea of not being able to rep whilst in negative reps, but again this has it's flaws/other potential problems. I think the system is working fine as it is right now and as was posted earlier, if you don't care about reps, you shouldn't care what happens to the rep system