quote:
Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
1) I'm not too sure on forum staff members actually having a reputation. From a newbie point of view you come along and see a mod has a poor reputation; what is that going to make you think of them as a mod?
If a mod has a bad reputation, I don't think it should be a mod.
What's the point of hiding that one is unhelpful or [insert_insult_here] to the users just because he's a mod?
quote:
My 2 pence.
Sounds funny in pounds
quote:
3) Moderators/admins are more prone to being given negative ratings as they are likely to become unpopular for locking topics, deleting posts, warning other members.
That shouldn't happen in per-user rating, since new users' reputation don't count that much and most "adult" users are rational enough to know that a mod's work is to close threads (when appropriate).
quote:
Originally posted by MenthiX
Good one, better then numbers i think.
I don't like having a graphical representation, cause that doesn't actually show anything about the reputation. Right now, patchou has the same reputation as I have, and it's obvious his is much higher. With numbers, this doesn't happen.
Plus, when more and more people vote, how with the graph scale? We have to recalculate proportions? That would end in a confusion about why reputations suddenly dropped to 50% because the space wasn't enough.
Reputation: users or posts?
/ 
