After watching on the sideline and after reading the thread (and rereading the old one) and trying to understand each point and imagine how the implementation would work, postives, negeatives (my brain is almost fried now
), I definaitly agree on the user-vote system, not the post-vote system...
Arguments for this are already given in the thread, so, I'm not gonna repeat them or give other arguments but in overall view user-votes would be more fair then post-votes imo...
EDIT:
After reading a the thread about some negative votes (and abuse of it) to someone and all the fuss about it, I realy need to reply with this though: That kind of anonymous abuse is very likely in a anonymous system...
And:
quote:
Originally posted by musicalmidget
Sooner or later he (and others) will learn that users can remain annonymous for a reason when it comes to reputations. If there was any way of finding out who issued reputation points, then nobody would ever vote negatively.
I totaly disagree... If you make it public you prevent this kind of abuse and bad votes will still be made.
eg: I'll vote bad on someone/on posts if he deserves it. And I have no problem in making that public. Also personal grunge-vote would be less, because it will show up in the public votes, makeing the system more fair and neutral...
About the question of being anonymous or public: I like it to be public (aka eBay-system) And I don't think users would be held back to say their opinion because it is public (unless they know they are going to talk crap).
Reputation: users or posts?
/ 
