Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sunshine
It was a comment on the idea of giving ppl voting/ratingrights when past a certain amount of posts an valueing the points given more when reached another level (wich happens when u reach certain amount of posts).

---

oh well

about that: i don't agree. I think only current people allowed to give reputations (admins mods & elites) should give them. noone more.

Ok, still the question remains do we really need a ratingsystem?
Meaning its still a i like u i dont like u thing..and it can cause wars amongst users of this forum an the ppl giving the ratings..an think of what a red card can make ppl think bout the person havin it to his/her name..afterall we're here to help eachother not to fight rite?

I'd say leave reputation in the middle after all its still everybody's own decision/responsibility to follow an advice or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Well, maybe there shouldn't be the RED card as it is, maybe there should only be gray and green.

---

nah... or the reputation system is complete (with green and red cards) or we don't have any reputation system at all... i don't get the idea of a user being able to be given a good reputation but not a bad one.

Well, maybe there shouldn't be the RED card as it is, maybe there should only be gray and green.

Edit: Someone rated this post negatively. Reason: double posting. But Sunshine had deleted the post that was between, she told me afterwards. This is very .
Double posts should be reported, not rated, because maybe someone is sucking with reputations ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Edit: Someone rated this post negatively. Reason: double posting. But Sunshine had deleted the post that was between, she told me afterwards. This is very .
Double posts should be reported, not rated, because maybe someone is sucking with reputations ...

---

Talk about abuse of rating...nice example...this is kinda what i been trying to warn about all along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
There could be ways of improving the graphical representation, and remember: this system was only enabled a couple days ago... there haven't been enough votes to see noticable differences between members.

---

I wasn't talking about the current system, but about the "NIFTY" () bars someone posted as an example for a new system.

quote:

---

but you'll agree with me that the more post a user has the more known he/she is in the community. If a spammer spams, he/she'll be given more reputations (negative, of course) than the reputations given to someone who posts less. As I said before, even if the person who doesn't post so often (or so much) doesn't spam and is a better member than the spamer, he/she isn't so known so he/she has less reputation (i mean less, not worse).

---

Agreed.

there's a small issue in this rating system.. lets say some dodgy member post a dodgy post.
Ill read the post and say "oh, dodgy post, dodgy guy, ill rate this post ".
Then Choli comes, read the post and rates "negative"
Then WDZ, Tochjo, Mippo, Cookie....
One post = lots of bad ratings

we are more likely to vote negative than positive, thats the truth im pretty sure that there will be more negative ratings than positive ratings..
Its a bit dodgy but oh well..
i still like Guido's idea posted in the other thread, about rating users, positive neutral or negative, and to be able to change our vote

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choli
and there's no need in adding an option to make public (to the person who is receiving the reputation) who is giving it.

---

So no "anonymous" option? I might add a "public" option... don't confuse the 2 though... "public" reputation votes would be shown in profiles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Edit: Someone rated this post negatively. Reason: double posting. But Sunshine had deleted the post that was between, she told me afterwards. This is very .

---

Well, the vote was dodgy, but you can't expect the reputation system to prevent stuff like that...

quote:

---

Double posts should be reported, not rated

---

I agree, though there are times when rating spammy posts is good... if someone spams the forums with anti-MsgPlus threads, and they eventually get deleted, the spammer should still get a bad reputation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sunshine
Ok, still the question remains do we really need a ratingsystem?

---

Of course not... we don't need post counts, avatars, or signatures, but we have those... I thought people would like having a reputation system, and we might benefit from it... I'm not so sure anymore...

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
I'm not so sure anymore...

---

* Guido gives WDZ a cookie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
there's a small issue in this rating system.. lets say some dodgy member post a dodgy post.
Ill read the post and say "oh, dodgy post, dodgy guy, ill rate this post ".
Then Choli comes, read the post and rates "negative"

---

Yeah, that's why I'm not sure of per-post rating...

I like the public idea, WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
Ill read the post and say "oh, dodgy post, dodgy guy, ill rate this post ".
Then Choli comes, read the post and rates "negative"
Then WDZ, Tochjo, Mippo, Cookie....
One post = lots of bad ratings

---

owww that's true... mmm... what about a limit in the points a post can reveive?

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
So no "anonymous" option? I might add a "public" option... don't confuse the 2 though... "public" reputation votes would be shown in profiles.

---

What would be shown in profiles? the comment or the comment and the person who give the reputation?



now i'm a bit confused... i dunno what i think about what would be the best system