Reputation

[FullMetal]

The reputation system we have right now, is that different that we had before, because the appearance is different but I'm not sure if anything changed. If this question was answered before, sorry, I was just wondering. And what happened to that little green thing (or red if your in the negative?)

FullMetal

[Moo]

They should function the same. I've yet to add the little red/green icon to postbits.

[Raccoon]

This is a really interesting topic: the mechanics may be the same but the way rep behaves in ADISC compared to TBDL is a bit different. For one thing it is less conservatively given (pos and neg.) We had to wait a while before the repcounter stabilized and this led to a certain amount of excitement, and frenzied repping. I plead guilty: by the time we could give rep many people had earned it, and I had to run around and pay people their back-rep. Hee Hee. (Not frivolously mind you; I always gave a good reason. I assumed mods might look in on the people who jumped to high (or low) rep to make sure it was in fact not frivolous. Frivolous rep could occur for any number of reasons. With the rapid influx of brand new names, it is conceivable whole factions might come in one lump and uprep each other. Or a new member may have been hated by a faction from another corner of cyber-space and promptly got negged upon arrival. I didn't want any rep I gave out to be withdrawn.) Plus repping seems to be treated as more of a game and less conservatively than before, by many people. This is not a complaint, it is an observation. Time will tell if this trend continues or settles down; and what will happen if and when people can hand out multiple points.

On another note, I still would like it if people with negrep had their reptotal hidden. Mods can of course see it and ban/probation people; I am worried abiut the "Leper effect." That is to say even if a person with -3 goes on to make many stellar posts people may be reluctant to +rep them because the -3 carries stigma. It could be hard to dig oneself out of a hole; and one bad post by a newbie could be high -repped fast. I know of one case where -repping was going on out of personal animosity, not based on the quality of posts. (True, in most actual cases people who have earned -3 or worse do not usually turn smart, witty, and personable; I am speaking in principle.)
I would even go so far as to propose that if a member with high -rep really did spend months trying to make good posts and could not shake their stigma they should be allowed to start up a whole new identity (with permission) - not just a name change.

[Mr Alex]

I like the statistic more than the light.

[ayanna]

I like the lil red/green lights. But then I like shiny stuff! :-D

[Dash]

*imitates guitar* I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT MY REPUTATION!
awesome song. :p

Originally Posted by Mr Alex

I like the statistic more than the light.

*serious face* but yeah, the rep looks so much better when set out as it is under the other user stats. But then I can't remember how it looked before.
On the other hand, it would be less of a "competition" to remove the number, and keep the "shiny" green or red light.
Like I come across someone with no or little rep count, who has posted a lot of relevant replies or threads, I'm inclined to give them +rep for feeling bad that they aren't getting the good rep they deserve

I suppose it's a good thing, but like I said removing the count, at least from the posts, might stop people being all liek "oh noes, they gots more reps tan mee!"

...Just another of Dash's random thoughts ^.^

[Raccoon]

The debate over rep rages on, and so it shall for evermore. Now I love each and every rep point; they are all pats on the back. (Yay, I informed someone or made them laugh, or cheered them up.) I even liked my last negrep (though I don't particularly want any more to keep it company.) But I don't worry too much about the total; I think there is a difference between what people think of one's individual posts and what they think of the person. (Why do bad posts come from good people, or vice versa?) As Dash said, some people produce a ton of good posts and clearly deserve rep but none of their individual posts is outstanding all by itself, so they wind up under-repped. A typical case might be where someone is in trouble and a member talks them through it. Andn again, some people do great and wonderful things for the forum which aren't attached to a post; sometimes ya gotta just say "here's a rep for x; I attached the rep and the comment to random post y."

If you have an opinion about rep, you have to ask yourself what a rep-total MEANS. Is it a measure of Popularity? Accomplishments? Thanks? Respect? Rank? Does it reflect the quality of the poster or their posts? (I think it does/means all those things.) Only when this is figured out we can debate whether it divides us or unites us; whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Only when we know what rep is supposed to mean can we say what we want it to do; only when we know what it is supposed to do can it be rejigged to achieve that. I am all for debate. But I think we can only debate value judgements when the values have been determined. I hope this makes it easier for Moo to judge whether the rep system is working as it should.

While I am on this kind of thing, I repeat that without something to compare to, one's crinkles total is meaningless. Sure, whenever I am active, my total goes up. But postcount is also a record of activity, as is sign-up date. For it to mean anything I need a standard to compare it to. There are reasons for not being able to see others' crinklecount. So there should be a chart somewhere to indicate what it means to be at a given level. Since it measures activity, though, obviously heavy posters/bloggers/wikiers will come out ahead. I think for crinkles to mean anything, a sensible measure would be crinkles/post, or even better, crinkles/day. Even then I don't think it would mean too much, and would just as soon see crinkles disappear. Encouraging activity is all very well but I think the crinkles system discriminates against low-count, high-quality posters. And there is a section of the community that thinks any stats are divisive anyway. Time to put a poll in the field.

[FullMetal]

I'll say this. There is never going to be a perfect system. Someone somewhere will hate it, some will love it and some with be indifferent, but we will never completely agree on something. What it comes down to is efficiency. Meaning- Which system will most closely represent what we need it to do. Thing is, even with all of the problems and the bitching about the reputation system in TBDL, it worked. Not perfect, but all in all it worked. We had a stable system that could be used to reward people for their help, and even teach them how to better themselves.

The thing is, when I said there would be fall backs...there will be fall backs. Due to the way the system works, you can give anyone reputation and to justify, all you have to do is write something relevant regarding the post you are giving the reputation to. For the mods, it is hard to decide weather the rep was justified or not since it really is based on opinion, so some will fall through the cracks. There is always that little thing called popularity, and it shows. Someone who is really liked might get more reputation for a regular post than that of someone not so known who creates a great post.

All I have to say is: We have to have faith. We have to have faith in our members to be honest and not only give reputation because they love/hate someone, but for the quality of the post/thread. I try not to do it myself but I would be lying if I said I NEVER did it, I mean, its hard not to. But if we try, this system can work, we have seen it work. It also means that members have to step up and tell a mod when they think that they have been given reputation that they did not deserve- Yes and I do mean the good, not only bad.

I like this system and I hope everything works out in the end.

FullMetal

[Moo]

I re-added the lights, and added a bit more info to the reputation giving screen.

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by Dash

*imitates guitar* I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT MY REPUTATION!
awesome song.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alex View Post
I like the statistic more than the light.
*serious face* but yeah, the rep looks so much better when set out as it is under the other user stats. But then I can't remember how it looked before.
On the other hand, it would be less of a "competition" to remove the number, and keep the "shiny" green or red light.
Like I come across someone with no or little rep count, who has posted a lot of relevant replies or threads, I'm inclined to give them +rep for feeling bad that they aren't getting the good rep they deserve

I suppose it's a good thing, but like I said removing the count, at least from the posts, might stop people being all liek "oh noes, they gots more reps tan mee!"

...Just another of Dash's random thoughts ^.^

Dash's comment goes back to what rep is supposed to mean. If it is purely a status thing then people might indulge in unsavoury ways to up their rep or attack someone else's. If rep encourages people to make better posts, not attack other people in their posts, and put more effort in, then it is working for the good of the forum. If a newbie wants to know how to get a great repcount, he can look to the high-repped people, read their posts and learn from them what good posts look like, and imitate them. This is a different approach to providing a long list of do's and donts - though such a list might also be handy. Not to mention that high -rep is a grat way to grab the mods' attention, and look closely at a member. This is true whether the high -rep is deserved or undeserved. If deserved, and banning is in order, the quicker the better. If undeserved, the faster mods can swoop in to the besieged member's rescue, the better.