Shoutbox

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!!!

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

---

SURELY?

we have some wedding crashers 
nathan, i was proving him wrong, thus helping you, NUB : <

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*

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.

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!

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

why do people give a fuck about reps??? its only a green or red number!!!

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

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.

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