I just found out that to rate someone's reputation, you need at least 100+ votes. I thought that was thrash because there are people, who for 100 votes will write this as a reply:


So I was a bit dissapointed. I should have the right to vote for a person's reputation, just because you made 100+ posts, it doesn't mean I don't have the right to vote, writing 100+ posts doesn't determine if I'm able or not to use my common sense and vote good, bad or neutral on a person's reputation.

VOTE AND REPLY AT THE BOTTOM

If you have less than 100 posts, it "probably" means you are not here long enough to know members and so to rate them. In addition to that, anyone could go create an account and rate himself positive. And if someone tries to get to 100 to fast, he will be spotted by the other members and the moderators

Well I can tell by common sense who is rude, who is disruptive etc..., and I don't have a hundred votes (THIS IS MY TENTH POST).

There are people that have practically nothing written, with just a quote of the other person's profile. Just to make it seem longer. For example

____________________________________________________
If you have less than 100 posts, it "probably" means you are not here long enough to know members and so to rate them. In addition to that, anyone could go create an account and rate himself positive. And if someone tries to get to 100 to fast, he will be spotted by the other members and the moderators
____________________________________________________

Ya

''Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.''

________________________________________________________
OH YA, AND I JUST NOTICED, I SIGNED UP AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU......HTH, YOU GOT 641 POSTS?

The restriction is there for a reason.....100 is perhaps a bit low if anything, I certainly can't see it being changed to a lower number.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I can tell you now that any campaign to get it lowered will be in vain

quote:

---

Originally posted by androo123
will write this as a reply:

---

The reputation system does not need to be changed at all, there is nothing wrong with it.

Besides, reputation votes are not important in my opinion.

I find it to be fine the way it is as people with less than 100 posts wouldn't know how people act in the community overall so a new person might just negative vote out of vengeance just for being flamed about a stupid thread or coming to a forum and expecting things to change because of their arrival.

This isn't even worth voting for because it's not going to change, move along citizens.

[almost] Everyone is right, the reputation system doesn't need to be modified.
And it won't be modified, as far as i know.

100 posts is a good number... a bit low if you ask me, but it is alright.
Also, reputation isn't that important... You know if a person is helpful or not just by browsing its latest posts.

Hey, you're the same guy from the translation thread! I wonder who you want to rate negatively. Just because you got a little butt hurt from being proved wrong and exposing the fact that you are an idiot, doesn't mean we will change the reputation system for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Val
Hey, you're the same guy from the translation thread! I wonder who you want to rate negatively. Just because you got a little butt hurt from being proved wrong and exposing the fact that you are an idiot, doesn't mean we will change the reputation system for you.

---

I think it would be nice if you added the ability for new members to give reps if at any point they have had (for example) 5 net positive reps OR have made 100 posts.

Either way, voted 'No'

I think the main reason is that this stops me registering 100 new accounts, and giving myself 100 positive reps.

It would be trivial to do that with a bot, but by having to post 100 posts that wont get deleted/moved to T&T makes it a lot harder.

We could have a judge man. For example, a new member that would like to vote, could ask the judge man to look at his case and judge if the other member should get the vote, either positive or negative.

Isn't it amazing to know that androo123 and john-t are the only people who voted Yes?

Krissy seriously needs to stop making new accounts....

quote:

---

Originally posted by androo123

OH YA, AND I JUST NOTICED, I SIGNED UP AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU......HTH, YOU GOT 641 POSTS?

---

You need to have 100 posts because we expect that when someone reaches 100 posts he/she will be smart enough to use this feature wisely.

Otherwise the newbies would create a bad atmosphere here and the forum would crack like what happened in NY 1929 and the world would blow up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felu
Isn't it amazing to know that androo123 and john-t are the only people who voted Yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phillip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felu
Isn't it amazing to know that androo123 and john-t are the only people who voted Yes?

---

I saw it to

---

I miss read the post. Sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv
I think it would be nice if you added the ability for new members to give reps if at any point they have had (for example) 5 net positive reps OR have made 100 posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Val
Hey, you're the same guy from the translation thread! I wonder who you want to rate negatively. Just because you got a little butt hurt from being proved wrong and exposing the fact that you are an idiot, doesn't mean we will change the reputation system for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by androo123

quote:

---

Originally posted by Val
Hey, you're the same guy from the translation thread! I wonder who you want to rate negatively. Just because you got a little butt hurt from being proved wrong and exposing the fact that you are an idiot, doesn't mean we will change the reputation system for you.

---

Look, I respect the people who didn't allow me to become a translator, I'll wait some time, I didn't want to rate them, I wanted to rate this person who, in another thread a user was rude, and becaise of this user's additude, I wanted to rate the user.

---

look up you pleb. =/

oh, found it did you john-t?

quote:

---

Originally posted by icd*
look up you pleb. =/

oh, found it did you john-t?

---

oh sorry, im making things up. had i known i owould have made a pdf screenshot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by icd*
oh sorry, im making things up. had i known i owould have made a pdf screenshot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willz
I find it to be fine the way it is as people with less than 100 posts wouldn't know how people act in the community overall so a new person might just negative vote out of vengeance just for being flamed about a stupid thread or coming to a forum and expecting things to change because of their arrival.

This isn't even worth voting for because it's not going to change, move along citizens.

---

I don't dig the rep system anyway.

If anything, simply a "Was this post helpful or not?" type thing for everyone to access.

But on a forum such as this, it wouldn't work - it's more a community rather than something like MSDN forums.

Why are we still discussing it? Wdz has made it clear in the past that nothing was going to change. There's no reason to change it, so leave it alone. It has been discussed way too many times. Nothing will come out of another discussion. NOTHING.

http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=83998

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Lou
Nothing will come out of another discussion. NOTHING.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by poll

Yes, users with lower than 100 votes should be allowed to vote for a person's reputation >  vote
No, users with lower than 100 votes should not be allowed to vote for a person's repuation > 31votes

---