Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
we are not in this thread just to bug WDZ or to implement a useless system just to have green or red numbers in our profiles

---

Whaaaaaaaaaat??? Why not?

I personally think Guido's neutral vote idea was quite useful. Also, you're right, it would overrule the elitist post count (although this doesn't mean it should be got rid of!), which was probably the original intention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
But with that point of view: why should we show reputations at all to other users then? The aim of showing the comments is for new members to know why someone is rated negatively or positively: which not only makes them sure about who to trust, but also ensures they won't behave badly unless they want to get an equally pathethic reputation.

---

Agreed. Reputations and reasons should be public, or there's no bloody point in them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
We all know what everyone's like from their posts...

---

Wrong. The person who sees the posts knows what they're like. For example, that spammer guy the other week could post now and I would be nice to him because I didn't see his posts because they were deleted. Plus a member might not post much, but when they do, they post very informatively, and not many people spot that.

Idea: how about a 'report comment' button, if the comments are added? Could just be the 'report' button at the bottom-right of the posts... but next to each comment. That way if they're abusive or something, or heavily biased because of personal conflicts, they can be reported to mods/admins.

I also like CookieRevised's idea of 14 days, a month is a bit long.(And, if I'm being pedantic, how long's a month? 28 days? 31? )

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Afraid you're going to get a bad reputation?

---

Nope. I'm afraid one person is gonna vote people unfairly, or sway their opinions, and so they should have a right to have a say. Also, free speech? I mean, this could very easily turn into races - the first person to get +1 could vote others as -1, and therefore stop them from being able to post... well, you get the idea, anyway. I think everyone should have a right to an opinion.

Edit: new thing. Should the list of votes for a person's reputation show the voters' current reputations or their reputations at the time? Or both? I don't like the idea of at the time, but think about the others...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
I don't get it... we have spent about a week discussing this and now you think we just don't need it?

---

I never expressed my views about it until now... so cause I didnt say anything in the first place I should just go along with it? Great discussion!

And the point of discussing is to share points of view, I did and Lob happened to see a point of view, whats wrong with that?

---

You are completely right. I now realise I sounded rude , it wasn't my intention. The fact that after discussing during days about how to implement reputations to help users a couple of users come and say it's not necessary put me nervous

Sorry

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Idea: how about a 'report comment' button, if the comments are added? Could just be the 'report' button at the bottom-right of the posts... but next to each comment. That way if they're abusive or something, or heavily biased because of personal conflicts, they can be reported to mods/admins.

---

Yes, that should be definitely be implemented, it would dramatically help comments moderating.

quote:

---

I also like CookieRevised's idea of 14 days, a month is a bit long

---

Now that I think of it, you're right: if a new user was treated badly by someone and he wants to comment about him, he should have the right to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillyWoods1
Nope. I'm afraid one person is gonna vote people unfairly, or sway their opinions, and so they should have a right to have a say. Also, free speech? I mean, this could very easily turn into races - the first person to get +1 could vote others as -1, and therefore stop them from being able to post... well, you get the idea, anyway. I think everyone should have a right to an opinion.

---

Well said

quote:

---

Edit: new thing. Should the list of votes for a person's reputation show the voters' current reputations or their reputations at the time? Or both? I don't like the idea of at the time, but think about the others...

---

Current one, for sure.

Otherwise
a. it would be extremely confusing to see different reputations in every post.
b. the database would have to store the reputation of the user at every post he posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
everyone should be able to read them

---

YEAH

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
a "month after registration" would be better

---

2 weeks

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
it's designed for members who don't know other users because they didn't spend as much time as us in the forums

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
He might have a high reputation because he is a good graphic designer, programs MyBB, hosts a fan site or simply because it's very helpful to the community. The only way to distinguish all that is by reading the comments.

---

yeah and that's why i think the reputation MUST be always followed by a comment there's no point in choosing or

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
Cant the "too many images" warning show us how many images we posted?? It's too annoying to be guessing how many to delete =P

---

never thought about that

Still don't like the certainty in your 'must be always...' statement. Should be optional, except for neutral (neutral vote and no comment is just bloody silly).

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
(neutral vote and no comment is just bloody silly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Still don't like the certainty in your 'must be always...' statement

---

i really don't find any bloody (you see I'm learning :­P) sence in making a vote without making a comment

quote:

---

Originally posted by BooGhost
(you see I'm learning :­P)

---

Well, as I said to Guido, it would just become an excuse to vote if you give a general comment... and if you give a specific comment then I'd probably give it too. I'm sure I explained it better than that to him, but bleh. I have a reason anyway, I just can't put it into words.

quote:

---

Well, as I said to Guido, it would just become an excuse to vote if you give a general comment... and if you give a specific comment then I'd probably give it too.  I'm sure I explained it better than that to him, but bleh. I have a reason anyway, I just can't put it into words. 

---

What he means is that if someone doesn't want to leave a comment he would just copy another comment from another user... so it's pretty much the same to allow non-commented-votings or not...

quote:

---

Originally posted by BooGhost
i really don't find any bloody (you see I'm learning :­P) sence in making a vote without making a comment

---

You are not lerning that much, sence is written sense

Yeah, that's what I mean.

(I didn't bother correcting 'sence', I thought I'd leave him happy for a bit... )

as I see it:

optional comments:
con: you don't know why someone voted...
con: a bad person has to do less trouble to make a 'spam'-vote (just click the button, et voila...)

not-optional comments:
con: less votes will be given (face it, people are lazy )
con: more votes without meaningfull things (like: "good", "I like") <= that actually a very small negative point... I can live with that...

You're not thinking about what you're posting...

If comments are optional, you can safely assume someone didn't post one because the person is generally good at helping. If someone spams and comments are necessary, all people have to do is click the button and type 'spammer' (...et voilà... ).